2021年考研英语一阅读 Text 4 原文翻译及答案解析

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 affliated websites over their rivals'.That's why there has been such a strong derand for rules that would prevent broadband providers fror picking winners and losers online,preserving the feedom 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(FCC)on net neutality,adopted on a paty-ine 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 Netfix 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 fom 2005 that upheld a similarly deregulatory move.But Judge Patricia Milet 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 atempt to block all state rules on net neutrality, while preserving the commission's power to preempt individual state laws that undermine its order. That means more battles like the one now going on between the Justice Department and Califoria, which enacted a tough net neutrality law in the wake of the FCC's abdication. The endless legal batles 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. 英语(一)诚题 . 9.(共 14 页)

从宽带发展的早期开始，消费者和网络公司的倡导者就担心，销售宽带连接的有线电视和电话公司有权力和动机偏袒其附属网站，而不是竞争对手的网站。这就是为什么有如此强烈的呼声，要求制定规则，防止宽带提供商在网络上挑选赢家和输家，保护互联网的命脉——自由和创新。然而，这一要求几乎不可能实现，部分原因是宽带提供商、反监管保守派和法院的反对。周二，联邦上诉法院再次介入，但非但没有提供急需的解决方案，反而延长了这场斗争。提交给哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院审理的是联邦通信委员会（FCC）关于网络中立性的最新立场，该立场于2017年以党派路线投票通过。这份由共和党起草的命令不仅废除了FCC在2015年民主党占多数时通过的严格网络中立规则，还拒绝了委员会要求宽带提供商做任何事情的权力。该命令还宣布，州和地方政府也不能监管宽带提供商。委员会辩称，其他机构将保护免受反竞争行为的影响，例如像AT&T这样的宽带提供商集团偏袒自己的流媒体视频服务，而损害Netflix和Apple TV的利益。然而，FCC也终止了对宽带提供商的调查，这些提供商对竞争对手的流媒体服务施加数据上限，但对自家的服务却没有。周二，上诉法院一致支持2017年的放松管制命令，引用了2005年最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决支持了类似的放松管制举措。但帕特里夏·米利特法官在一份协同意见书中正确地指出，"结果与当代宽带服务的现实脱节"，并表示国会或最高法院可以干预，以"避免互联网监管陷入技术过时"。与此同时，法院驳回了FCC试图阻止所有州网络中立规则的企图，同时保留了委员会抢先于破坏其命令的个别州法律的权力。这意味着会有更多的战斗，就像现在司法部和加州之间的战斗一样，加州在FCC放弃后制定了一项严格的网络中立法。FCC无休止的法律斗争和反复拉锯呼吁国会采取行动。国会需要给予委员会明确的权力，一劳永逸地禁止宽带提供商干预其网络流量，并制定清晰的规则，保护网络的开放性和创新。英语（一）试题 . 9.（共14页）