Part A: Reading Comprehension
Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
Text 4
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 affiliated websites over 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 (FCC) 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 anticompetitive 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 preempt 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.
36. There has long been concern that broadband providers would
37. Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, the FCC
38. What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3?
39. Judge Patricia Millett argues that the appeals court’s decision
40. What does the author argue in the last paragraph?
答案与解析 (Answers)
36. [A] show partiality in treating clients.
解析：第一段首句明确指出倡导者的担忧：“the cable and phone companies selling broadband connections had the power and incentive to favor affiliated websites over their rivals’（...有权力和动机偏袒其附属网站而打击竞争对手）”。favor... over（偏袒）完美对应选项 A 中的“show partiality（表现出偏袒）”。
37. [D] takes an anti-regulatory stance.
解析：第二段后半部分说明了 FCC 在面对网络中立性要求时的做法。2017年的命令不仅废除了2015年通过的严格的网络中立规则（eliminated the strict net neutrality rules），还“rejected the commission’s authority to require broadband providers to do much of anything（拒绝了委员会要求宽带提供商做任何事情的权力）”，并宣布地方政府也不能监管。这清楚地表明 FCC 采取了一种“反监管的立场（takes an anti-regulatory stance）”。
38. [D] It engages in anti-competitive practices.
解析：第三段提到 FCC 认为其他机构会防范“anticompetitive behavior（反竞争行为）”，然后举了 AT&T 的例子：“such as a broadband-providing conglomerate like AT&T favoring its own video-streaming service at the expense of Netflix and Apple TV（例如提供宽带的企业集团AT&T，以牺牲奈飞和苹果TV为代价偏袒自己的流媒体服务）”。这说明 AT&T 从事了反竞争的做法，故选D。
39. [B] is out of touch with reality.
解析：第四段中法官 Patricia Millett 指出：“the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service（这一结果与现代宽带服务的现实相脱节）”。“unhinged from the realities”与选项 B 中的“is out of touch with reality（脱离现实）”为同义替换。
40. [C] Congress needs to take action to ensure net neutrality.
解析：最后一段第一句发出呼吁：“The endless legal battles and back-and-forth at the FCC cry out for Congress to act（FCC无休止的法律战和反复无常迫切需要国会采取行动）”。接下来指出国会需要赋予委员会明确的权力以禁止宽带提供商干预流量，“制定保护在线开放和创新的明确规则”，这正是为了确保网络中立性（ensure net neutrality）。因此选C。
全文翻译
从宽带早期时代开始，消费者和互联网公司的倡导者就担心，销售宽带连接的有线和电话公司有动力和能力偏袒其关联网站，损害竞争对手的利益。这就是为什么人们如此强烈地要求制定规则，防止宽带提供商在网上挑选赢家和输家，维护作为互联网生命线的自由和创新。然而，这一要求几乎无法满足——部分原因来自宽带提供商、反监管保守派和法院的阻力。周二，一家联邦上诉法院再次介入，但它非但没有提供迫切需要的解决方案，反而只是延长了争斗。华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院审理的是联邦通信委员会（FCC）关于网络中立的最近一次立场，该立场于2017年以党派路线投票通过。这份由共和党人执笔的命令不仅取消了FCC在2015年民主党占多数时通过的严格的网络中立法规则，还否定了委员会要求宽带提供商做任何事情的权力。该命令还宣布州政府和地方政府也不能监管宽带提供商。委员会辩称，其他机构将防范反竞争行为，例如像AT&T这样的宽带提供商集团以牺牲Netflix和Apple TV为代价偏袒自己的视频流媒体服务。然而，FCC也终止了对那些对竞争对手的流媒体服务而非自己服务设置数据上限的宽带提供商的调查。周二，上诉法院一致维持了2017年放松宽带提供商监管的命令，援引了最高法院2005年维持类似放松监管举措的裁决。但帕特里夏·米利特法官在一份并存意见中正确地指出，"这一结果与现代宽带服务的现实脱节"，并表示国会或最高法院可以介入，"避免将互联网监管困在技术时代错误中"。与此同时，法院驳回了FCC试图阻止所有州网络中立法规则的尝试，同时保留了委员会优先于个别州法律使其命令失效的权力。这意味着将有更多的争斗，就像目前在司法部与加州之间展开的那样——加州在FCC弃权之后颁布了一项严格的网络中立法。无休止的法律斗争和FCC的反复拉锯都在呼吁国会采取行动。国会需要一劳永逸地赋予委员会明确权力，禁止宽带提供商干预其网络上的流量，并制定明确的规则保护在线开放性和创新。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 宾语从句与动名词复合结构：
"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 affiliated websites over their rivals’."
【解析】that 引导宾语从句说明担心的内容。从句中 selling broadband connections 是现在分词短语作后置定语修饰 companies。favor A over B 意为“偏袒A胜过B”。
【翻译】从宽带的早期开始，消费者和网络公司的倡导者就担心，销售宽带连接的有线和电话公司有权力和动机偏袒附属网站，而非其竞争对手的网站。
"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 affiliated websites over their rivals’."
【解析】that 引导宾语从句说明担心的内容。从句中 selling broadband connections 是现在分词短语作后置定语修饰 companies。favor A over B 意为“偏袒A胜过B”。
【翻译】从宽带的早期开始，消费者和网络公司的倡导者就担心，销售宽带连接的有线和电话公司有权力和动机偏袒附属网站，而非其竞争对手的网站。
2. 倒装结构与过去分词作定语：
"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 neutrality, adopted on a party-line vote in 2017."
【解析】这是一个完全倒装句，由于表语部分（At issue...）较长且为了强调，将其提前，谓语 was 放在主语 the latest take 前。adopted... 是过去分词短语作后置定语修饰 the latest take。
【翻译】在美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院审理的争议焦点，是联邦通信委员会（FCC）关于网络中立性的最新举措，该举措于2017年按党派路线投票通过。
"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 neutrality, adopted on a party-line vote in 2017."
【解析】这是一个完全倒装句，由于表语部分（At issue...）较长且为了强调，将其提前，谓语 was 放在主语 the latest take 前。adopted... 是过去分词短语作后置定语修饰 the latest take。
【翻译】在美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院审理的争议焦点，是联邦通信委员会（FCC）关于网络中立性的最新举措，该举措于2017年按党派路线投票通过。
3. 并列结构与不定式的运用：
"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."
【解析】主语 It 指代 Congress。to bar 和 to create 是并列的动词不定式短语，作 explicit authority 的后置定语。bar... from... 意为“禁止/阻止...做...”。
【翻译】它（国会）需要一劳永逸地赋予该委员会明确的权力，以禁止宽带提供商干预其网络上的流量，并制定清晰的规则来保护在线的开放和创新。
"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."
【解析】主语 It 指代 Congress。to bar 和 to create 是并列的动词不定式短语，作 explicit authority 的后置定语。bar... from... 意为“禁止/阻止...做...”。
【翻译】它（国会）需要一劳永逸地赋予该委员会明确的权力，以禁止宽带提供商干预其网络上的流量，并制定清晰的规则来保护在线的开放和创新。