单选题 With the Internet fast becoming the most important communications channel, it is untenable for the United States not to have a regulator to ensure nondiscriminatory access, guarantee interconnectivity among rival networks and protect consumers from potential abuse.
Yet that's exactly where the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit left us all when it said this month that the Federal Communications Commission didn't have the authority to regulate the Internet—and specifically, could not force the cable giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.
The decision, in the words of the F. C. C.'s general counsel, Austin Schlick, undermines the agency's ability to serve as "the cop on the beat for 21st-century communications networks." It also puts at risk big chunks of the F. C. C.'s strategy for increasing the reach of broadband Internet to all corners of the country and fostering more competition among providers.
Chairman Julius Genachowski said the commission is not planning to appeal the decision, and is studying its options. The F. C. C. could try to forge ahead with its broadband plan despite the court's decision. Or Congress could give the F. C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband access. But the court tightly circumscribed the F. C. C.'s actions. And with Republicans determined to oppose pretty much anything the administration wants, the odds of a rational debate on the issues are slim.
Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can reverse the Bush administration's predictably antiregulatory decision to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead, it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.
The F. C. C. at the time argued that a light regulatory touch would foster alternative technologies and aggressive competition among providers. It assumed that the Internet of the future would be dominated by companies like AOL that bundle access with other services, justifying its conflation of access and information. And it claimed that it could still regulate broadband access even if it was classified as a service. All it had to do was convince the courts that it was necessary to further other statutory goals, like promoting the roll-out of competitive Internet services. This legal argument did not hold up.
Any move now by the F. C. C. to redefine broadband would surely unleash a torrent of lawsuits by broadband providers, but the commission has solid legal grounds to do that. To begin with, the three arguments advanced by the F. C.C. during the Bush years have proved wrong. Rather than seeing an explosion of new competition, the broadband access business has consolidated to the point that many areas of the country have only one provider. Broadband Internet has unbundled into a business with many unrelated information service providers vying for space on the pipelines of a few providers. And most persuasively: broadband access is probably the most important communications service of our time. One that needs a robust regulator.

单选题 The F. C.C. intends to

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】从第一、二段来看，F.C.C.试图成为网络的regulator，它管制网络的目的有三，第一是ensure nondiscriminatory access，即人人都能公平地使用网络，不能歧视任何一部分人：不能阻碍任何人接入互联网，例如不能blocking peer-to-peer sites(见第二段)；第二是guarantee interconnectivity among rival networks，即后文所说的鼓励不同供应商之间开展正常的竞争；第三是protect consumers from potential abuse，即保障网络用户的安全。可见，它管理网络的目的是为了促进网络的公平使用或安全使用，而不是为了限制或阻碍网络的使用。

单选题 The court's decision

单选题 The Republicans

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】第四段提到，共和党决心反对政府想做的任何事情。虽然我们不知道这篇文章写作的具体年代，但从这一句来看，当时的执政党不是共和党，而是民主党，所以这篇文章有可能写于克林顿或奥巴马执政时代，而不是布什执政时代。第五段第二句既然提到布什政府，那么这篇文章肯定写在奥巴马总统执政以后。作为反对党，共和党支持联邦政府通信委员会的可能性不大。更何况，从第四段的上下文中也能看出，Republicans出现的上一句提到了法庭不支持F.C.C.的做法。