Salon is reporting the FCC Chaiman Kevin Martin has been meeting privately with numerous religious and "pro-family" groups to coordinate to "address racy content on cable and satellite television." One of those who sat in on these meetings, Rick Schatz, president of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, told Salon that during these meetings "[Martin] said the free rein of cable and satellite and satellite radio is not acceptable," and that Martin is "committed to seeing something is done during his tenure."

This comes as no surprise, of course. While things have been quiet for the past few months, most industry watchers agreed that the reason for the delay on this front was that the pro-regulatory forces were quietly planning their attack on cable and satellite. As the Salon article makes clear, censorship proponents know they have an uphill battle and are tightly coordinating their efforts to radically expand the scope of federal indecency law.

Reliability in electricity is like motherhood and apple pie. It's hard to be against it. This is why the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that give FERC new authority to regulate in the name of reliability were very broadly supported. There were, however, a few of us lonely souls who suggested this might not be such a good idea, because virtually anything can be done in the name of reliability. Now, while the ink is barely dry on the President's signature, we see confirmation for our concerns. FERC Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell, going boldly where others might fear to tread, said in an interview last week: "This is a chance to change the world." She added, "People will be surprised how comprehensive" the upcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on reliability will be. Of course, rather than promulgating a costly new regulatory regime in the name of reliability, we should be moving toward a more competitive system in which power producers have market-based incentives to provide the right level of reliability. Sadly, we don't seem to be moving in that direction. Hopefully, Commissioner Brownell's comments do not reflect the views of her colleagues on the Commission. We will stay tuned.

The Public Interest Institute - a mainstay for policy research with a limited government bent in Iowa - has published a study by Richard Wagner on the Verizon MCI deal. It is not every day that I come across a policy paper on mergers with references that extend from Copernicus to John Maynard Keynes to Karl Popper, but this paper does.

When it comes to the merger, Wagner is for it. To my mind, his approach to dynamic change in the market is well explained and the following passage is essential.

That habitual pattern of thought contained several particularly important and confining features. One was that telephones are instruments by which people speak to one another over wire-based connections. Another is that telephones and televisions are distinctly different instruments used for divergent activities, and with computers being yet a third distinct instrument. If this old fashioned pattern of thought is applied to the Verizon-MCI merger, it is possible to think that the primary difference between the pre-1984 situation and the current situation is that the national monopoly has been replaced by four regional monopolies.

To reach this conclusion, however, is to ignore all of the technological and commercial innovations that have taken place that have changed the characters of telephones, televisions, and computers, and of the enterprises that deliver those services. Competition has generated massive technological change, and those changes in turn have generated similarly massive changes in the organization of commercial enterprises. This relationship between changing technology and subsequent changes in the commercial landscape is simple to see and easy to understand.

In a previous edition of Foreign Affairs, Thomas Bleha compared the broadband policies of the U.S. and Japan and condemned the Powell-led FCC and the Bush Administration. Prof. Phil Weiser's response (and Bleha's response to the response) is available here.

I've spent a good portion of this Friday morning scanning news articles that discussed the stupid FCC VoIP E911 mandate deadline. Staff at the FCC seemed to have been reading the same articles - they just announced an extension until September 28th.

To some, FCC Chairman Martin's statement this week questioning whether cities can deny permission for Verizon and SBC to offer optical fiber-based video services was nothing short of provocative. As reported in USA Today, some cities may view the statement as an attempt to usurp their authority to award video franchises. At the very least, cities may resent the Chairman using his "bully pulpit" to dissuade them from hindering companies from competing against cable and DBS providers.

Provocative or not, the Chairman may be on to something. Even if one assumes a franchise is necessary for telephone companies to provide video service, there are many reasons why denying such a franchise outright could be viewed as unreasonable.

Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made news with some fairly stupid comments about "taking out" Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Many critics rightly condemned Mr. Robertson's suggestion that the United States should consider assassinating leaders of state with which we do not agree. In this case, it's particularly outrageous since (a) Chavez has said nothing to threaten America directly, and (b) even if he had, it would not qualify as grounds for assassination. After all, it's just Venezuela we're talking about here. I don't think we need to worry about them sending an armada up to invade us anytime soon.

But as stupid as it was for Rev. Robertson to suggest assassination as a solution to whatever "problem" it is Mr. Chavez poses, I certainly think he has the right to raise the issue and debate it with others. But apparently another Reverend doesn't agree. Rev. Jesse Jackson says that the Federal Communications Commission should fine Rev. Robertson for his comments. "The FCC must have some standard on the advocacy of violence," Jackson said.

The good folks at the High-Tech DTV Coalition have finally gone online, posting a very nice web site full of good stuff. Take a look at www.dtvcoalition.com.

Google's announcement that it would add an instant-messaging and voice service called "GoogleTalk" to its already popular search engine put a fine point at the end of PFF's Aspen Summit. As reported in the New York Times [registration required], the announcement underscored the growing market influence that has fanned flames of fear among Google's rivals. These fears -- reminiscent of allegations against Microsoft -- offer yet another compelling reason why companies that are (or hope to be) successful in the Internet space should think twice before seeking to impose mandates like "network neutrality" on their infrastructure-building competitors.

Almost as if on cue, Representative Marsha Blackburn responded to the challenge noted below by Bill Owens. This morning she explained that her two priorities for work in the 109th Congress are competition (in telecom) and content. I'll say it again; check out the speech when the webcast is available.

Rep. Blackburn also discussed her views on a new streamlined franchise process for the video marketplace. I'll cede in a heartbeat that her proposal with Representative Wynn – or her counterpart Sen. Ensign from across the Hill - would be a dramatic improvement. But, I did not hear a defense of having any franchise regulation. Franchises were an economic regulatory tool. Today we have competition with the added benefit of new entrants and investment. Unfortunately, we also have significant reliance interests who benefit from continuing regulation for regulation's sake. This begs the question, excepting right-of-way and public safety issues, why should we have any franchises in the multichannel video marketplace?