2. 考研
  3. For a subject that arouses such strong passions, "network neutrality" is fiendishly difficult to pin down. Ask five geeks and yo

For a subject that arouses such strong passions, "network neutrality" is fiendishly difficult to pin down. Ask five geeks and yo

admin2012-07-06  45
问题     For a subject that arouses such strong passions, "network neutrality" is fiendishly difficult to pin down. Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it. The basic concept sounds simple enough; that the internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin, destination or contents. But the devil is in the detail. What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others hog all the bandwidth?
    This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in internet access. Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services. A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block internet-based video that competes with its own television packages. Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation.
    From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right. Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services. But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation. Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.
    So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign. Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are relatively straightforward. The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule, prohibiting "unreasonable discrimination". Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others. To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable: by allowing the "reasonable" sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole. That seems overly conservative, to this newspaper. Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video or special broadband links that ensure snappy connections for video-gamers? Such "fast-tracking" is already widespread.
    These details make the omission more startling: the failure in America to tackle the underlying lack of competition in the provision of internet access. In other rich countries it would not matter if some operators blocked some sites: consumers could switch to a rival provider. That is because the big telecoms firms with wires into people’s homes have to offer access to their networks on a wholesale basis, ensuring vigorous competition between dozens of providers, with lower prices and faster connections than are available in America. Getting America’s phone and cable companies to open up their networks to others would be a lot harder for politicians than prattling on about neutrality; but it would do far more to open up the net. [515words]
Who tends to be strongly against "fast-tracking"?
选项 A、The author.
B、Customers.
C、The FCC.
D、Net-neutrality purists.
答案D
解析 本题考查人物观点。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/r0p4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)