The future of wireless is a death cage match

The WaPo has an article about the upcoming FCC ruling on the Wireless Auction set to take place in January.  There are lots of important issues to consider here:  the future of wireless services, innovation, creative markets, entrenched corporate interests, and consumer choice. 

But to read the WaPo article, you’d think the real issue is whether a young, brash, upstart Google company can be a member of the kewl kidz club on Capitol Hill. 

Kim Hart, the WaPo reporter, spends the first five paragraphs setting the stage, introducing the main characters (Google, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and the FCC) and ends the sixth paragraph with her angle. 

But the auction is also testing the political might of Google, which has to this point been somewhat of an outsider in Washington.

The rest of the article is basically about that point, with only cursory attention being given to the differences between Google’s plans and FCC Chairman  Kevin J. Martin’s counter-proposal. 

But don’t worry, we do get an anonymous source from the FCC staff with this bit of snark. 

Like the culture at many Silicon Valley technology companies, Google’s clashed with Washington’s. Some FCC staff members said the company’s tech gurus came across as arrogant in meetings with commissioners.

“They’re used to getting what they want rather than having to make a case for what they want,” said one staff member who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Maybe I’m a bit naive or dumb or prejudiced or don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.  But doesn’t that sound like the comment of someone who just sat in a meeting with intelligent people who discussed concepts he really did not understand and decided to respond with “too cool for school?”  There’s a real us vs. them mentality there.  Imagine experts in the field assuming they’d be listend to.  Imagine the gall of these internet hippies who assume that the real issue is coming up with the best possible plan without political considerations. 

What possible relevance does this quote have anyway? 

I think in a perfect world the lobbying strength, or lack thereof, of Google might be an important article to write as an addendum to the real news of the day. 

And I think we all know why this article was written and not the informative one where we actually get an idea of the plans being put forth and discussed.  We’re too stupid to understand or appreciate that article.  We’d only be interested in the story if it’s portrayed as a death cage match between lobbyists. 

Writing the informative article assumes we’ll take the time to understand it and even possibly (gasp!) write/call the FCC to tell them what we think. 

Don’t bother with the details.  Just pass the popcorn. 

Explore posts in the same categories: fcc, filter, google, media