My original vision for Wetmachine was that it would be kind of an anti-Boing-Boing: a technology-themed site full of fear and dread, skeptical of the notion of “progress” and paranoid about machines from nanoscopic brain-rearrangers to the DNA-sniffing, face-recognizing satellites in the sky-- the Overmind emergent. Then of course 9/11 changed everything.

I'm sorry, that was a joke.

Or no, actually it wasn't. For what's the point of a half-joking technoparanoia site when Dick Cheney is in the White House? What I'm trying to say is, do you think the “D.C. Madam” killed herself, or do you think she was suicided?

By the way, that's a link to the site “Infowars.com”, where the motto is, “Because there is a war on for your mind”. That site, like its sister site Prison Planet, represent the deepest fears of my fellow Wetmechiners about what Sundman may turn our little site into if he ever sets free his technoparanoiac demons. I guess with Infowars and Prison Planet out there, there's no need for me to go nutz on Wetmachine. (But Harold, Greg, Howard: Watch out! The first danger sign is when he starts to talk about himself in the third person!). [Read More!]

Yeah, it's a weak opener, but I couldn't get any more clever. Bill McKibben's most recent post, reprinted here in today in “Tomgram”, is a bite sized mouthful, likely to send daddy drunk and mumbling into the night... [Read More!]

The Media Access Project's Innovation '08 Forum on Content and Control. Be there or b x b.

I just turned 44, which kind of sucks, but as they say, it's better than the alternative. I think I've been old for a long long time, but now I have to admit it. Virtual World have been growing up, too, and my feelings are somewhat the same. Despite reports by Gartner and Forrester, articles in the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Information Week, and even popular press like the LA Times, I still hadn't quite caught on to the idea that we now have an industry. But when I saw Christian Renaud's blog, I had to admit that “Virtual Worlds” is an industry category, and I'm in it. None of these articles are about the technology (what I do), but about what people do with it and how businesses make money with it. I guess it's better than the alternative. OK, it's pretty cool, but kind of weird. This stuff isn't household technology or household names yet. The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. It's an interesting life-span inflection point.

From recent headlines:
Now that the FCC hearing in Standford is over, Comcast had dumped the idea of a consumer “bill of rights” for consumers. Instead, apparently picking up on Commissioner McDowell's confusion over ICANN and how it works, Comcast has announced it is joing the Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA). While purportedly eager to include us regular folks in the dialog, consumer interests will not be represented in the initial discussions.

Comcast also is looking at bandiwdth caps, but that's in addition to “managing” p2p, not instead of managing p2p.

Meanwhile, Earthlink is apparently walking away from Wireless Philly, and may simply shut the system off unless the city buys it out.

And folks ask me why I don't “trust the market” when I am skeptical that big companies will stick by their commitments....

Stay tuned . . . .

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

--Obligatory Cliche Neitsche Quote

When last we left Sprint, the wily temptress of the airwaves, she was languorously sighing while apparently choosing between her old suitors (refugees from Spectrum Co. Comcast, Time Warner, and Brighthouse) and her new suitors (Google and Intel). Now, according to this announcement, the ever outre and winsome Sprint has decided it is too much trouble to choose and that — like some French comedy — they will live happily ever after in some carefree, open spectrum menage a cinq. Google, as has become its want, explains on its blog how this signals a new era in which all Americans will enjoy a third wireless pipe, open applications, and — no doubt — greater independence from foreign oil.

Well I hope so. But after seeing Google break my poor little heart in the 700 MHz auction after I was so utterly convinced they would bid to win, I am very definitely reserving judgment here. Because while I keep hoping that this is all part of Google acting to alter the wireless world by making it more open, I cannot overlook the possibility that this is the world of giant corporate incumbents altering Google to be less of a threat. So even though Google is saying all the right things, I'm going to wait to see the FCC applications before I start jumping up and down for joy and declaring this a huge victory. Because electronic press releases mean squat compared to whether the applications for the new “Clearwire” entity contain provisions that provide the same level of openness as the C Block Conditions or the Skype Petition.

More below . . . . [Read More!]

Finally...someone who can talk about oil and energy and leave both parties in the dust... [Read More!]

One of the constant irritants for me and others trying to follow what happens at the FCC is the problem of “the too brief ex parte.” Under the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 1.1200, et seq), when a party meets with FCC staff on an open proceeding, the party is supposed to submit into the record a written statement providing a summary of the conversation. This is called a “notice of oral ex parte presentation” in FCC-speak, but we usually shorten this to just ex parte. By rule, the ex parte should provide a reasonable explanation of what took place so that a reader can get a sense of the argument made (although you can refer back to a previous filing to avoid repetition). In practice, however, you usually get nonsense like this piece of garbage from Alltel which wins the Comic Book Guy Award for “Worsht Ex Parte Ever.”

So it was with a considerable amount of schadenfreude that I saw the D.C. Circuit whomp Sprint/Nextel for producing crappy ex parte's that failed to provide a record of their no doubt numerous detailed conversations with Commission staff. This failure to leave a record resulted in dismissal of Sprint's case and may cost it many billions of dollars.

More gloating below . . . . [Read More!]

Time for a shameless plug for my employer, the Media Access Project (MAP).

As long-time readers know, one of my frequent complaints is why don't folks whose lives depend on the rules made in DC bestir themselves and get active on the policy front. All it takes is a web browser and a docket number, after all. Why don't we see more Silicon Valley folks, VCs, and others show up at FCC proceedings.

Answer, they live as much in their own isolated bubbles as the DC folks do. If you are out in Silicon Valley, odds are good you rarely think of DC as having any relevance to your life and there is not going to be anyone or anything around you to tell you otherwise.

Well rejoice, lucky Silicon Valley people (and whoever else wants to make the trip out)! Media Access Project is sponsoring a series of policy forums (fora?) in Silicon Valley, wherein we will bring the D.C. policy world to you. And, lest you think this is some sort of socialist cult-like retreat wherein we will brainwash you with our public interest ways, we are working with big corporate partners like AT&T and eBay to assemble panels that present a wide variety of views. The primary purpose here is to get folks actually thinking about policy and why it is important for everyone to participate in the process. Think of it as a kind of “Rock the Vote” for Silicon Valley.

In any event, details below.

Stay tuned . . . . [Read More!]

For a business supposedly on the edge of extinction, newspapers attract an odd assortment of newcomers eager to get in on the game. Real Estate billionaire Sam Zell bought Tribune last year, marking fresh blood coming into the newspaper and broadcasting biz. Now, as Zell sells off some chunks of Tribune to to pay down debt, it would appear another new player is poised to enter the game.

According to this story, NYC based Cablevision has beat out Rupert Murdoch for the Daily News. Unlike the Murdoch deal, this would not implicate any FCC rules and should not raise too many hackles on the antitrust side. Arguably it has an impact on the local advertising market, but hardly enough to make a difference. Besides, I'm not sure if there is any evidence that the newspaper advertising market and the cable advertising market are related.

What is more interesting is “why does Cablevision want Newsday at all? And should I care?” Cablevision has in the past tried to break out of its main business as a cable operator and dabbler in cable programming and owner of various sports venues and franchises. At various points, it has tried to launch a satellite service and was a bidder in the last two major FCC spectrum auctions (coming away empty handed both times). Is this a toe in the water to go into the newspaper business or a more limited foray?

It is interesting to note that a few years ago, Cablevision was sued by the Jets over an alleged effort to block the Jets from building a sports stadium that would compete with those owned by Cablevision. Among the charges, the Jets claimed that Cablevision routinely gave its own front group free advertising time on its cable systems to drum up support against the Jets' stadium effort, while refusing to sell advertising time to the Jets for pro-stadium advertising. Owning Newsday will certainly give Cablevision a bit more political clout in its backyard should it find itself wanting to lobby local government again. While I don't think that's the primary reason for Cablevision buying Newsday, it does make for an attractive bonus from Cablevision's perspective.

Unfortunately, I think only DOJ or the FTC will examine the acquisition. It doesn't trigger either FCC rules or local franchise review. But this sort of impact on the diversity of news sources and the ability to leverage ownership of different media assets for political gain falls outside antitrust review — even in an administration that cares about antitrust. So for better or for worse, barring some new bidder emerging, I expect the deal to sail through easily.

Stay tuned . . . .