小默多克抨击BBC"一家独大"
默多克还批评英国政府对媒体"有偏好"
新闻集团亚太区总裁詹姆斯·默多克说,英国广播公司BBC的"强势地位"威胁到英国新闻业的独立性。
小默多克还批评英国政府监管媒体市场"有偏好"。
他说;"国家担保出资的新闻机构对新闻渠道的多样性和独立性构成威胁。"
小默多克星期五(8月28日)在英国爱丁堡电视节上演讲时发表这番讲话。
他说,诸如BBC这种资金来源出自电视牌照费的机构,以及电视四台和英国电信及媒体监管机构Ofcom, 让其他媒体越来越难以维持。
新闻集团到今年六月年亏损约20亿英镑,被该集团主席老默多克称为"近来最困难的时刻。"
该集团在英国拥有天空电视台、《泰晤士报》和《太阳报》,在美国拥有《华尔街日报》、《纽约邮报》和福克斯电视台等各种媒体。
"不寒而栗"
随着经济衰退和广告利润下滑,英国各媒体机构均面临困境。
小默多克说:"BBC一家独大,其他机构或许都有兴衰起伏,但是BBC的收入却有保障而且不断增加。"
"BBC的活动范围之广,野心之大让人不寒而栗。"
BBC董事会主席莱昂斯爵士回应说,小默多克淡化了天空电视台在媒体市场的竞争地位。
他表示,BBC面临不断壮大的天空电视台的强大竞争,英国媒体市场并非BBC一家独大。
"天空电视台就是BBC的一个不容忽视的强有力竞争对手。"
免费新闻
小默多克说,BBC提供免费的网上新闻,使得私营新闻机构很难向它们的网上新闻用户收费。
新闻集团已经宣布,该集团旗下的在线报纸和电视新闻网站将开始向用户收费。
詹姆斯·默多克是新闻集团掌门人鲁珀特·默多克的儿子。
20年前,老默多克也在同一个电视节上发表过批评英国媒体政策的言论。
====
我也觉得BBC过大,有点当年的微软,我是说Documentary方面,管他
黑道白道,通吃一切。
前回写赤道国还发了一点小牢骚呢。
- Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/30/2009
商人真是面皮好厚。只知数钞票的默多克父子不会比BBC更懂得什么叫独立媒体。
诞生于上个世纪20年代的BBC经过近百年的风雨历程,恪守独立公正和新闻专业主义,网络时代也是浏览量最大且免费的新闻网站,独有的几十种外语的本地新闻服务更是对全球网民的无私奉献,当然也让人依稀看见大英帝国的昔日风范。 - Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/30/2009
现在网上新闻像 New York Times 免费, The Washington Post 需要注册,但是也是 Free subscription ... 新闻集团这一招只能导致更多的亏损。
wrote:新闻集团已经宣布,该集团旗下的在线报纸和电视新闻网站将开始向用户收费 - posted on 08/30/2009
Wala wrote:
现在网上新闻像 New York Times 免费, The Washington Post 需要注册,但是也是 Free subscription ... 新闻集团这一招只能导致更多的亏损。
wrote:新闻集团已经宣布,该集团旗下的在线报纸和电视新闻网站将开始向用户收费
去年老默多克就开始了要传统媒体网站联合起来新闻收费的呼吁,跟新闻独立没关系,跟利润下降有关系。
看来只有新闻集团一家要这么做,他的呼吁是不成功的?传统媒体怎么应对新的传播介质网络的挑战,看来媒体自己也没拿定主意。
阿雪谈谈? - Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/30/2009
请abee帮我找个女性主义研究的学者或者专家好吗? - Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/30/2009
maya wrote:
请abee帮我找个女性主义研究的学者或者专家好吗?
怎么啦? - Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/30/2009
这是我近来比较有兴趣的事情。好莱坞电影最近有个新的动向....
怎么啦? - posted on 08/30/2009
刚看到这期经济学家有讲到这事。原来不止新闻集团一家要网上收费,而收费的目的原来是为了笼住传统纸媒流失的用户---网上收费,当然还不如用纸媒---所谓PAY WALL. 报道里还讲了其他办法。
默多克面皮真厚,还指责别人垄断,“The newspapers that have built successful pay walls tend to hold virtual monopolies over news in their region.”
Now pay up
Aug 27th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Newspapers have plenty of options for charging online, but no sure bets
IF NEWSPAPER bosses keep their promises, the next few months will see a decisive retreat from free news online. This summer senior figures at big media firms such as News Corporation, Axel Springer Verlag and MediaNews Group have all threatened to start charging. Companies representing more than 700 newspapers have expressed interest in the online-payment platforms being developed by Journalism Online, an American start-up.
It will not be easy. For ten years readers have been enjoying free news online, and the BBC, public-radio stations and commercial television-news outfits such as CNN will continue to supply it. A newspaper that tries to charge will jeopardise online advertising, which often accounts for 10-15% of revenues. But if the obstacles are many so are the potential solutions.
The simplest approach, favoured by a small but growing number of American regional newspapers, is to erect a pay wall around virtually all stories. Print subscribers are often—but not always—allowed to read articles free of charge. Everybody else must pay, often quite a lot. The Newport Daily News, a small Rhode Island newspaper, recently began charging $345 per year for online access to stories.
Few opt to pay such sums. Fully 170,000 people buy the Arkansas Democrat Gazette every day compared with just 3,500 online subscribers. “It does not justify itself as a revenue stream,” admits Walter Hussman, the paper’s publisher. In fact, the Democrat Gazette’s pay wall is more of a revenue dam, intended to stop the flow of readers (and, thus, advertisers) away from print. Since 2002, when the paper began charging online, its average daily circulation has dropped by less than 1% a year—rather better than most.
The newspapers that have built successful pay walls tend to hold virtual monopolies over news in their region. Grupo Reforma, a Mexican newspaper outfit that has attracted some 107,000 web subscribers, is an important exception. It serves them not just news but exclusive job advertisements. Along with a weekly society magazine distributed only to subscribers to the printed version of Reforma in Mexico City, that helps the title cultivate an air of exclusivity.
Some publications have tried charging for a digital simulacrum of their print editions, with a more familiar design and layout than their websites, which can often be downloaded as a single package. The Süddeutsche Zeitung sells an “e-paper”, as does the New York Times, in the form of the elegant Times Reader. The latter is also one of the many papers that have created applications for Apple’s iPhone, Amazon’s Kindle and other mobile devices. Many publishers hope that people will come to accept the idea of paying for mobile news, as they pay for text messages. But the line between computers and mobile devices is blurring as new gadgets of varying sizes appear (see article).
Another option is to charge for just some content. In Britain, where fierce competition between national dailies probably rules out all-encompassing pay walls, newspapers nonetheless charge for crossword tips and participation in fantasy sport leagues. German newspapers commonly charge for articles from the archives, which may not be all that old. The theory is that a person who tracks down an out-of-date article or a crossword clue probably cares enough to pay for it.
The greatest exponent of the niche approach, with more than 1m online subscribers, is the Wall Street Journal. Roughly half of its articles—generally financial news and insiderish business reports—sit behind a pay wall, although they are free if accessed via Google News.
This approach is much harder to emulate than it may appear. Between 2005 and 2007 the New York Times charged a subscription fee to read the paper’s most popular columnists online. It ended the experiment because it seemed to be cutting traffic to the site and harming advertising revenue. The Los Angeles Times dropped an attempt to charge for arts coverage for the same reason. A newspaper that wants to follow the Journal must produce copy that is both narrow in its appeal and useful.
The Financial Times (part-owner of The Economist) keeps readers on a meter, by charging those who look at more than ten articles a month online. This model has one big advantage: it is easier to adjust than a pay wall. A newspaper might, for example, respond to a buoyant market for display advertising by allowing people to read more free articles each month.
Lurking in the background are methods that have been discussed more than tried. The first is to charge readers for individual articles. This works in music. Experiments with “micropayments” have been held back by the fact that stories are much more perishable than songs, and by transaction costs. But small payments are becoming cheaper and easier to process. Both the Journal and the FT have hinted that they will test micropayment systems.
A final approach is to harry online aggregators such as Google News, which indexes stories, for a share of their advertising revenues. That would at least bring some emotional satisfaction.
- Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/30/2009
maya wrote:
这是我近来比较有兴趣的事情。好莱坞电影最近有个新的动向....
玛姐姐,中国人里做这个的我不认识。你要有兴趣,我记得国内有女性主义学者的论坛。 - posted on 08/30/2009
有一次出门旅行,临走去图书馆借了几本书,其中有一本是个叫 荒林 写的,那是国内的一个女性主义学者, 以下是她的博客地址:http://blog.sina.com.cn/huanglinblog
水平如何不得而知,因为那本书非常boring,没翻几页就撂一边去了,所以没法评论。
美国的话,有一本书,是本传记书,介绍美国当代重要的女性主义者,书名叫,让我想想,对了,叫“
Significant Contemporary American Feminists”
我去狗了一下:
Awards:
* Choice Outstanding Academic Book, 1999
Description: The history of the second wave of feminism in the United States demonstrates the potential for both serious social change and seemingly intractable divisions among women. Race, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, and religion have all been dividing influences among women, shaping their various perspectives on and relations to the women's movement. Yet collectively, women's efforts—identified as second wave feminism—are seen as having made a difference. This book highlights the lives and work of fifty second wave feminists, women who have served as catalysts in the developing feminist movement. A diverse group—playwrights and politicians, grassroots organizers and scientists, poets and theologians—they provide the reader with compelling stories of individual women's lives, collective feminist struggles, and the possibilities of feminist social change.
Each woman's story provides inspiration to those interested in the power of one, and collectively, the stories show the range of motivations, activities, and accomplishments of feminist thinkers and activists today. Each entry contains three parts: a biographical portrait of the individual, including information about education, family life, and early activism; an analytical discussion, highlighting the person's accomplishments and her relationship to U.S. feminism; and a bibliographical section containing a selective list of the subject's publications and writings about her and her work.
Table of Contents:
* Preface
Introduction
Bella Abzug by Mary Ertel
Paula Gunn Allen by Gonul Pultar
Gloria Anzaldúa by Judith Richards
Frances Beale by Marina Karides and Joya Misra
Rita Mae Brown by Julie A. Davies
Charlotte Bunch by Viki Soady
Pat Califia by Lisa Sigel
Judy Chicago by Beatriz Badikian-Gartler
Shirley Chisholm by Frederick J. Simonelli
Esther Ngan-Ling Chow by Linda Wong
Pearl Cleage by Linda Rohrer Paige
Kate Clinton by Annmarie Pinarski
Mary Daly by Margaret R. LaWare
Angela Davis by Jennifer Oldham
Susan Faludi by Ann Mauger Colbert
Shulamith Firestone by Karen Garner
Jo Freeman by Jennifer Scanlon
Betty Friedan by Susan Butler
Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Gwenn Brown Nealis
bell hooks by Lara E. Dieckmann
Dolores Huerta by Nerea A. Lamas
June Jordan by Nikki Senecal
Evelyn Fox Keller by Anne F. Eisenberg
Florynce Kennedy by Cheryl Rodriguez
Audre Lorde by Lara E. Dieckmann
Catharine MacKinnon by Eileen Bresnahan
Olga Madar by Amy Beth Aronson
Wilma Mankiller by Michaela Crawford Reaves
Del Martin by Danielle DeMuth
Kate Millet by Nancy McCampbell Grace
Cherríe Moraga by Grace Sikorski
Robin Morgan by Stacy Donohue
Pauli Murray by Uche Egemonye
Eleanor Holmes Norton by Tracy Wahl
Alice Paul by Amy Butler
Anna Quindlen by Carolyn Kitch
Rosemary Ruether by Beth Blissman
Adrienne Rich by Sioban Dillon
Faith Ringgold by Ann Lee Morgan
Joanna Russ by Jeanne Cortiel
Patricia Schroeder by John Nealis
Eleanor Smeal by Pat Murphy
Barbara Smith by Jaime M. Grant
Gloria Steinem by Ann Mauger Colbert
Margo St. James by Diane L. McKay
Alice Walker by Angela Cotten
Rebecca Walker by Jennifer Kohout
Michelle Wallace by Viki Soady
Sarah Weddington by Susan L. Patnode
Ellen Willis by Deborah J. Gepner Salvaggio
Selected Bibliography
Index
About the Editor and Contributors
About the Author: JENNIFER SCANLON is Associate Professor of Women's Studies at Bowdoin College. She is the author of Inarticulate Longings: The Ladies' Home Journal, Gender, and the Promises of Consumer Culture (1995) and co-author of American Women Historians, 1700s-1990s: A Biographical Dictionary (Greenwood, 1996). - Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/31/2009
彼彼嘻比他的狐狸新闻客观多呢。
每次看到狐狸新闻标榜自己fair and balanced, we report, you decide, 就让我想起妓女们说clean and chaste,you screw, we prove. ;) - Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 08/31/2009
bbc最好的还是她的国际性,美国新闻一般看不到国际的。
但是bbc做得太大了也不好,小百姓说不了,也只能媒体对媒体了。公
正与否?我看聪明人离开媒离愈远愈好,尤其是cctv。
touche wrote:
彼彼嘻比他的狐狸新闻客观多呢。
每次看到狐狸新闻标榜自己fair and balanced, we report, you decide, 就让我想起妓女们说clean and chaste,you screw, we prove. ;) - posted on 08/31/2009
小蜜蜂 wrote:
Wala wrote:去年老默多克就开始了要传统媒体网站联合起来新闻收费的呼吁,跟新闻独立没关系,跟利润下降有关系。
现在网上新闻像 New York Times 免费, The Washington Post 需要注册,但是也是 Free subscription ... 新闻集团这一招只能导致更多的亏损。
wrote:新闻集团已经宣布,该集团旗下的在线报纸和电视新闻网站将开始向用户收费
看来只有新闻集团一家要这么做,他的呼吁是不成功的?传统媒体怎么应对新的传播介质网络的挑战,看来媒体自己也没拿定主意。
阿雪谈谈?
今天超没情绪。瞎说一下。咖啡有专家如feiming等,说得不对请修正。
新闻集团的攻击其实代表了所有想收费而不敢冒天下之大不韪的世界各国网络新闻媒体同行,不过是Murdoch仗着财大气粗,敢于对英国媒体政策、BBC公开叫板而已,这也不是第一次了,从20年前天空电视台要求进入英国市场就开始斗争了。这个Murdoch早年在澳大利亚办报起家,在美国做大,进而开拓欧洲和全球市场,包括跟共产党中国谈生意,不说所向披靡也是屡屡得手,因为其手腕十分灵活(不像BBC死脑筋,辛辛苦苦做中国报道结果把政府连带人民都得罪,连中文新闻都给封了,委屈的无处告状去),跨媒体、跨区域跨国兼并,全球商业媒体的头牌。
好像看到fengzi有线说到commercialism成为中国当下的主流意识形态,我其实觉得这个商业化是世界性的,在媒体方面尤甚。BBC靠纳税人活着,不受盈利的压力,近年来改革后节目质量也更加得到认可,进军互联网之后取得异常成功,免费多媒体多语言内容,自然进一步断了商业媒体的财路,Murdoch能不急嘛,詹姆斯子承父业,继续替商业媒体呐喊也是很可以理解的。
根据最新的美国、英国以及中国的互联网使用调查,25岁以下的年轻人阅读新闻完全依靠网络,没有人买报纸了。印刷媒介会不会灭亡不知道,但未来一定属于Internet的。因此世界上起码80%以上的报纸都上了网,但迄今尚没有一家报纸声称他们已经通过网络内容盈利了,包括WSJ。
互联网带来的传播技术整合(convergence)对于社会、文化、媒体的挑战是多方面的。单说对于媒体经营这一块,情形就复杂了很多,竞争是全方位的。
互联网之前,西方国家的报纸基本上都是私营的,广播电视由于频道资源的稀缺而更多的受到国家政策的调控,不同程度形成了公营、私营并存的体制。报纸靠广告和发行收入,公营广播靠公民纳税,私营靠广告和订户。
有了互联网,新技术的采纳有个过程,最早提供新闻内容的是所谓的门户网站,美国如雅虎,中国如新浪,而不是专业做新闻的,只是转贴新闻用来吸引流量,新闻是免费的,传统媒体纷纷跟进后,发现传统的盈利模式很难在网上复制。
靠网络广告吗?试问几个网民会耐心点开一则广告?靠订阅吗?大家已经习惯免费新闻了。据我所知,就是国内的几大门户网站,那么火了,也没有完全靠网络广告盈利的,新浪的广告算多的,但更多的还是靠网站提供的信息增值服务如短信等。这些门户网站仗着流量优势,廉价从传统媒体手中获取新闻,免费提供给网民,然后利用浏览量卖广告和其他服务盈利。
靠订阅收费吗?对于单个的传统媒体,尤其是报纸来说,在网络上势单力薄,免费还没有很大流量呢,收费谈何容易。而且对于很多传统媒体来说,不仅是个盈不盈利的问题,简直是个生死存亡的问题,网络就是一个超级文摘,有一线谈到的文摘类传统媒体的陨落也是自然的。
前面谈到网络门户网站由于早期的技术优势对传统媒体有一个事实上的资源剥夺,这是竞争的一个方面,更大的挑战是日趋普及的博克blog、youtube、论坛等user-generated content,传统媒体的新闻记者编辑都是经过专业训练的,如今是个人都会拿数码相机、摄像机拍一段,敲上一段目击文字,按个enter就发布了,这也是新闻啊,连facebook这些社交网络都提供新闻,这些个人发布的新闻甚至更有可信度,完全独立的个人媒体,不受官府、商业、媒体等任何组织的控制。
我今天还看到纽约时报载有ISPs组织不满在互联网上,一个个人blog跟公司网站的上载速度是一样的,因此要求美国政府限制个人网站的上载速度,将更多的带宽给商业收费用户,这一挑战互联网openness的提议,被作为internet savvy的奥主席以正言辞的驳回了,他大约还没有忘记互联网上支持他的那些草根网民们。这也是来自ISP的商业力量对于互联网政策的施压,跟默多克父子的呼吁是一个性质。
并不是说网络新闻内容免费就是对的,毕竟这是不可持续、难以为继的,大家都知道“公地的悲剧”。但未来会怎样,我也不知道,一切还都在变化之中。
但我看眼下murdoch的呼吁恐怕很难成功,除非他能够联合世界上所有网络报纸,都开始收费,或许有些效果。但即便有这么一天,如果BBC仍然是免费的,那么。。。
(再闲话几句,国内很多人把public service broadcaster跟state media 混为一谈,因为BBC是英国政府的,跟CCTV差不多,其实是天壤之别。我从前说起过,民主国家的公营媒体是对国会负责的,最重要的职责是为了监督政府,跟政府对着干,有完全独立于政府的管理机构,每年向纳税人提供新闻服务、公布财务报表,而不是像CCTV那样是党的喉舌,国外跟CCTV对等是VOA,美国政府的外宣机构。)
- posted on 09/01/2009
谢谢阿雪,现在情绪好点了吗?
上面经济学家的报道里提到已经有地方媒体在收费(收费的办法和种类各异)。而且这次不止是新闻集团一家的行动:“IF NEWSPAPER bosses keep their promises, the next few months will see a decisive retreat from free news online. This summer senior figures at big media firms such as News Corporation, Axel Springer Verlag and MediaNews Group have all threatened to start charging. Companies representing more than 700 newspapers have expressed interest in the online-payment platforms being developed by Journalism Online, an American start-up."
接下来的几个月需要观察一下。
传统媒体还是有卖点的,比如在新闻的可信度方面,尤其在一个信息数量庞大但质量芜杂的时代。不过好像老传媒也感叹现在的年轻记者不象他们,好多年轻记者大概就到网上去搞搞新闻。就连经济学家,追中国国内新闻都是一定盯网上论坛的(天涯)。每次有关中国国内的报道,十有八九会提到国内论坛的情况。 - posted on 09/01/2009
小蜜蜂 wrote:
谢谢阿雪,现在情绪好点了吗?
上面经济学家的报道里提到已经有地方媒体在收费(收费的办法和种类各异)。而且这次不止是新闻集团一家的行动:“IF NEWSPAPER bosses keep their promises, the next few months will see a decisive retreat from free news online. This summer senior figures at big media firms such as News Corporation, Axel Springer Verlag and MediaNews Group have all threatened to start charging. Companies representing more than 700 newspapers have expressed interest in the online-payment platforms being developed by Journalism Online, an American start-up."
接下来的几个月需要观察一下。
传统媒体还是有卖点的,比如在新闻的可信度方面,尤其在一个信息数量庞大但质量芜杂的时代。不过好像老传媒也感叹现在的年轻记者不象他们,好多年轻记者大概就到网上去搞搞新闻。就连经济学家,追中国国内新闻都是一定盯网上论坛的(天涯)。每次有关中国国内的报道,十有八九会提到国内论坛的情况。
谢谢,刚看到你转的英文帖。收费说了很多年了,也尝试了很多回了,或许只是时间问题,或许盈利模式需要创新。网络时代没有独家新闻。这次能不能成功的确需要观察一下。对传统媒体的看法是有许多学者赞同的,的确也是这样,新闻专业主义是时时需要的,网络时代乱哄哄的噪音局面更彰显了传统媒体的重要性,但在现实中,制约和影响的因素太多了,网络媒体应该有新一轮的洗牌。 - posted on 09/01/2009
小蜜蜂 wrote:
Wala wrote:去年老默多克就开始了要传统媒体网站联合起来新闻收费的呼吁,跟新闻独立没关系,跟利润下降有关系。
现在网上新闻像 New York Times 免费, The Washington Post 需要注册,但是也是 Free subscription ... 新闻集团这一招只能导致更多的亏损。
wrote:新闻集团已经宣布,该集团旗下的在线报纸和电视新闻网站将开始向用户收费
还想谈谈到你说的新闻独立问题。这是个很重要的问题。衡量媒体的独立性是综合的,不仅看媒体的所有权,而且看资金来源、编辑方针。
现代报纸产生于资产阶级上升时期,为了启蒙和宣传革命,那时候的报纸附属于党派,叫政党报纸,谈不上独立,但发挥了历史作用。资产阶级革命成功后报业私营,从所有权上独立于政治,但在经营上依靠广告,商业利益不可避免影响到编辑方针的独立,一家以烟草广告为生的媒体不太容易揭发烟草的黑幕。广播电视跟报业不同,西方各国都有严格的调控手段,但在96年解除管制的商业化潮流下,跨媒体、跨地区的兼并都放开了,于是形成了许多垄断性的大型媒介集团如新闻集团,商业利益的垄断对于编辑方针的独立以及舆论多元的影响是灾难性的,他们不但受金钱驱使,而且事实上更容易跟政府结成同盟。
因此新闻集团批评英国媒体政策,BBC跟state的关系,BBC的“过大”存在影响了媒体独立,是个cheap argument,他不会不知道英国的媒体政策是怎么回事以及BBC的性质,不如直接说影响他们发财就完了。
all in all,受众是什么?公民还是消费者?
- posted on 09/01/2009
前面提到的互联网管制方面的纽约时报文章。。帖一下。再不贴就收费了:)
-------------------------------------------
August 29, 2009
Editorial
Access and the Internet
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/opinion/29sat3.html
On the Internet today, a Web site run by a solo blogger can load as
quickly as any corporate home page. Internet service providers,
including leading cable and phone companies, want to be able to change
that so they can give priority to businesses that pay, or make deals
with, them.
A good bill that would guarantee so-called net neutrality has been
introduced in the House. Congress should pass it, and the Obama
administration should use its considerable power to make net neutrality
the law.
If Internet service providers are allowed to choose among content, it
would be bad for everyone but the service providers. Businesses could
slow down or block their competitors’ Web content. A cable company whose
leaders disapprove of a particular political or social cause could block
sites supporting that cause.
Concerns about open networks are not limited to access to Web sites, and
they are not hypothetical. In 2007, Verizon Wireless rejected Naral
Pro-Choice America’s request to send text messages over its network, a
decision Verizon reversed after an outpouring of criticism. Recently,
Apple was criticized for rejecting an iPhone application, Google Voice,
an Internet-based service that would permit users to make low-cost calls
without using AT&T, which has an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone in
this country. (Apple said it is still considering the application.) The
Federal Communications Commission is investigating.
Representatives Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Anna
Eshoo, Democrat of California, have introduced a bill to prohibit
Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against
content that travels through their pipelines. It is likely to face
fierce opposition from telecommunications and cable companies.
The best chance for guaranteeing net neutrality may lie with the Obama
administration. Under the leadership of Chairman Julius Genachowski, the
F.C.C. could adopt rules that would have the force of law.
President Obama, a truly Internet-savvy president, declared in May that
he is “firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as
it should be — open and free.” We hope he keeps that promise.
- Re: 小默多克抨击BBCposted on 09/02/2009
谢谢阿雪。不过以后我就不跟你客气了。和白羊座客气感觉好怪。
新闻我不懂啦,听你讲就是了。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation