From the early days of broadband, advocates for consumers and web-based companies worried that the cable and phone companies selling broadband connections had the power and incentive to favor their own or their partners’ websites and services over those of their rivals. That’s why there has been such a strong demand for rules that would prevent broadband providers from picking winners and losers online, preserving the freedom and innovation that have been the lifeblood of the internet.

Yet that demand has been almost impossible to fill—in part because of pushback from broadband providers, anti-regulatory conservatives and the courts. A federal appeals court weighed in again Tuesday, but instead of providing a badly needed resolution, it only prolonged the fight. At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was the latest take of the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality, adopted on a party-line vote in 2017. The Republican-penned order not only eliminated the strict net neutrality rules the FCC had adopted when it had a Democratic majority in 2015, but rejected the commission’s authority to require broadband providers to do much of anything. The order also declared that state and local governments couldn’t regulate broadband providers either.

The commission argued that other agencies would protect against anti-competitive behavior, such as a broadband-providing conglomerate like AT&T favoring its own video-streaming service at the expense of Netflix and Apple TV. Yet the FCC also ended the investigations of broadband providers that imposed data caps on their rivals’ streaming services but not their own.

On Tuesday, the appeals court unanimously upheld the 2017 order deregulating broadband providers, citing a Supreme Court ruling from 2005 that upheld a similarly deregulatory move. But Judge Patricia Millett rightly argued in a concurring opinion that “the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service,” and said Congress or the Supreme Court could intervene to “avoid trapping Internet regulation in technological anachronism”.

In the meantime, the court threw out the FCC’s attempt to block all state rules on net neutrality, while preserving the commission’s power to pre-empt individual state laws that undermine its order. That means more battles like the one now going on between the Justice Department and California, which enacted a tough net neutrality law in the wake of the FCC’s abdication.

The endless legal battles and back-and-forth at the FCC cry out for Congress to act. It needs to give the commission explicit authority once and for all to bar broadband providers from meddling in the traffic on their network and to create clear rules protecting openness and innovation online.

1.There has long been concern that broadband provides would _________.

A bring web-based firms under control

B slow down the traffic on their network

C show partiality in treating clients

D intensify competition with their rivals

解析：选C。C 细节理解题。第一段第一句指出，自打宽带问世初期，消费者权益倡导者就担心宽带运营商会有如下做法：偏袒自己的关联网站而歧视竞争对手的网站，即区别对待客户。第二句进一步说明其影响：宽带运营商可以决定网上的赢家和输家。C是对权益倡导者担忧的正确概括。故选C。

2.Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, the FCC _________.

A sticks to an out-of-date order

B takes an anti-regulatory stance

C has issued a special resolution

D has allowed the states to intervene

解析：选B。B 细节理解题。第二段第三句指岀，FCC于2017年通过了网络中立性方面的最新决议；第四五句进一步指出，这份决议废除了原先严苛的网络中立性原则，且规定州政府和地方政府均不得监管宽带运营商。由此可知，FCC如今对网络中立性釆取了反监管立场，B正确。

3.What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3?

A It protects against unfair competition.

B It engages in anti-competitive practices.

C It is under the FCC’s investigation.

D It is in pursuit of quality service.

解析：选B。B 推理判断题。第三段第一句指出，某些宽带运营商会进行反竞争行为，比如AT&T以牺牲Netflix和Apple TV的利益为代价，偏袒自家流媒体服务。由此可知，AT&T进行了反竞争行为，B正确。

4.Judge Patricia Millett argues that the appeals court’s decision _________.

A focuses on trivialities

B conveys an ambiguous message

C is at odds with its earlier rulings

D is out of touch with reality

解析：选D。D 观点态度题。第四段第二句指出，帕特丽夏·米利特法官认为判决结果与现实脱节，国会或最高法院可进行干预，以避免网络监管滞后于技术进步，D正确。

5.What does the author argue in the last paragraph?

A Congress needs to take action to ensure net neutrality.

B The FCC should be put under strict supervision.

C Rules need to be set to diversify online services.

D Broadband providers’ rights should be protected.

解析：选A。A 观点态度题。本题旨在考查末段的段落主旨，首句总结事件“法律之争没完没了，FCC反复无常”并概述建议“FCC内外部问题不断，亟需国会介入”。第二句细述两条建议：国会需赋权FCC以确保网络监管中立得以实施，并制定相关法规以确保网络的开放性和创新性。A符合上述建议，故正确。