Hey, you know what will be nice? Whoever the hell Barack Obama appoints to the FCC can't possibly be as incredibly asinine as the current crew. Back in 2004, popular singer Janet Jackson's nipple destroyed America's innocence forever. The FCC fined CBS stations $550,000 for allowing the nipple to terrorize the children. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the fine, because the FCC has for decades not punished fleeting, incidental nudity on television, and also because come on get over it. But the FCC is now appealing to the Supreme Court, which may find in their favor! The Supreme Court is already dealing with the FCC's fight with Fox. Fox's crime? Allowing Bono to swear on television. We want Bono off our televisions as much as the next guy, but the new FCC policy of allowing incidental, fleeting profanities in some instances, like news programs or in Supreme Court oral arguments regarding profanity, while handing fines out for random cursing during live award shows is maybe a bit arbitrary and capricious, right? Still, the FCC is liking its chances in the Fox case, and so they are going to fight the nipple thing to the bitter end. Because the founding fathers always intended us to be a nation of prudish vulgarians. (It's in the Constitution's special Unrated edition.)

The FCC is having its own vote today, on whether or not to allow future wireless gadgets to operate in parts of the radio spectrum already in use by wireless microphones. Google is all for the new spectrum-sharing policy. Professional musicians and their audio engineers are dead set against it.In theory, smartphones will detect when a wireless mic is in use in the area, and not interfere with it. In practice, who are they kidding? New York City's Broadway League is campaigning to keep that part of the radio spectrum free for roughly 450 wireless microphones used in Manhattan's theater district. Out here, I'll be furious if Journey's next show at Shoreline is ruined when 853 Google employees check their mail during "Wheel in the Sky." (Photo by Getty Images/Justin Sullivan)

For seasons, fans of Survivor have been awaiting the day when CBS would finally start broadcasting episodes of the long-running reality competition in HD. With so much beautiful scenery on display in every episode, what better way to notice new, unforeseen details of the show to appreciate? Unfortunately for CBS, their first HD episode of Survivor bore full-frontal fruit, as eagle-eyed watchers of this past Thursday's two-hour premiere noticed that hunky doctor Marcus Lehman showed off a little bit more of his own personal immunity idol than the network had doubtlessly intended. The unblurred wardrobe malfunction (courtesy of Survivor Sucks), after the jump (NSFW):

Google's world-domination plans involve airwaves where neither television nor wireless devices play. This issue is so important that Larry Page personally went to Washington to complain to the FCC. Today's featured commenter, WagCurious, weighs in with some field knowledge. Stick around and learn something:

Google cofounder Larry Page brought his shaggy, salt-and-pepper mop to the Dirksen office building in Washington, D.C. to complain to federal regulators about television broadcasters. Google wants access to the dead air between television stations for wireless devices like the new G1 phone from T-Mobile running Google's Android operating system. But an odd alliance of broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers oppose opening up the "white spaces" due to concerns over radio frequency interference. Referring to FCC tests held at FedEx Field, home of the Washington Redskins, Page declared:

The Federal Communications Commission will probably approve AT&T's request to stop filing annual reports on customer satisfaction and service quality. AT&T's angle actually makes sense: Most of the giant telco's modern competitors — cellular and Internet phone companies — don't have to file the data. The FCC is expected to cancel the reports entirely rather than require everyone to file. The Commission's charts show that customer complaints doubled from 2004 to 2006, but that doesn't take into account the ease of griping online in recent years.

A Comcast spokesman contacted an IDG reporter whose report bubbled up to the New York Times today: "Comcast has made no final decisions on how to manage network congestion, despite news reports Wednesday that it will slow traffic for heavy users for up to 20 minutes during times of peak network use." More likely, said the spokesman, the heaviest network traffic users will be slowed for a minute or two at a time whenever parts of Comcast's network get congested. Comcast has been forbidden by the FCC from blocking applications such as BitTorrent outright. But stupid quote of the day comes from the guy at Public Knowledge: "If there was competition, could you slow down your best customers?" No, you could charge them more. (Chart by the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems)

USA Today, the smart paper that plays dumb, has a remarkably clear summary of FCC chairman Kevin Martin's plan for free broadband access — and its opposition by T-Mobile, the company that bought the wireless spectrum next door to the frequencies Martin wants to use. Here, let me make it even snappier:

When Comcast was caught blocking file sharing on its network, the Federal Communications Commission seemed to strike a blow in favor of peer-to-peer startups everywhere by fining the cable company. Observers assumed that the FCC decision would open the field for file sharing to turn into a legitimate business. But for BitTorrent Inc., a San Francisco startup seeking to commercialize the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol, the move against Comcast led to layoffs instead. The ruling may ultimately prove fatal to the company.

On Friday, the five commissioners of the FCC are set to vote on whether Comcast should be punished for interfering with traffic over its network. Comcast won't have to worry about fines — at worst, the Internet service provider will only have to agree to stop the specific practice of blocking peer-to-peer BitTorrent traffic and disclosing to customers what network management it practices, which the the company already does. So why should you care?What's important is that if the vote passes, it will set a precedent that strengthens the FCC's claim on jurisdiction over regulating the Internet by giving some teeth to the agency's Internet Policy Statement from 2005. Republican chairman Kevin Martin can count on majority, thanks to the support of the two Democrats on the commission, and the motion is expected to pass. But not unanimously, as Republican commissioner Robert McDowell doesn't approve. He penned a dissenting opinion piece in the Washington Post arguing for the preservation of the laissez faire status quo for ISPs: "If we choose regulation over collaboration, we will be setting a precedent by thrusting politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions." (Photo by AP/Stephan Savoia)

In a landmark decision for bodice rippers and the networks who love them, a trio of federal judges today threw out the FCC's $550,000 fine against CBS for the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" that exposed Janet Jackson's right breast in 2004. The damning decision resulted in a miserable spoof by Justin Timberlake at last night's ESPY Awards and, worse yet for the FCC, essentially wiped out the upgraded decency standards implemented after the broadcast — at least for live shows, which required the judges to buy CBS's defense that the nip slip was an "accident."

Comcast could be subject to an "enforcement action" if the regulators at the FCC vote on August 1st to approve chairman Kevin Martin's proposed punishment for improper network management policies by the Internet service provider. Meanwhile, the boastful buccaneers at The Pirate Bay want to develop universal network traffic encryption meant to make the entire Internet a samizdat free from government and telco prying eyes. [AP] (Photo by AP/Jeff Roberson)

There's one fussy detail in the FCC's new plan to give The People free broadband: no porn allowed. Chair Kevin Martin's proposal will require the winning service provider to implement content filters "to protect children," as reported by Ars Technica. Startup M2Z Network once offered the FCC a similar deal, promising to give 95 percent of Americans free broadband with compulsory filters set to "block access to sites purveying pornographic, obscene or indecent material." As defined by? Even if the feds can keep the children from seeing anything unclean, a Pump Up the Volume-style showdown between the FCC and the Happy Harry Hard-On of tomorrow can't be far behind.

"If we have 10 percent better connectivity in the U.S., we get 10 percent more revenue in the U.S.," Google cofounder Larry Page told the FCC. He argued in short, that what's good for Google is good for America, speaking in favor of opening unlicensed spectrum known as "white spaces" between television broadcast frequencies. The National Association of Broadcasters and major sports leagues are opposed to the measure, with the NAB citing the FCC's failed tests of equipment made by Microsoft in 2007.

Cable copmany Comcast assured the FCC that the company's "network management" practices that involved blocking file-sharing traffic only affected heavy users during peak hours. However, tests found that the Internet service provider blocks such traffic for a majority of users all day, every day, as does fellow ISP Cox. [Torrentfreak]

The members of Google's team for its multibillion-dollar wireless-spectrum bid worked themselves to exhaustion and sickness. That was all in an effort to force the contest's eventual winner to abide by "open access" rules Google convinced the FCC to adopt last summer for its 700-Mhz spectrum sale. The auction winner, Verizon, seems to have little concern for Google's mobile whimsy. It plans to launch and heavily market "crippled, walled garden phones with no VoIP, Verizon content, highly restricted [terms of service], [and] high priced SMS," according to Broadband Reports.

"'Based on the record before us,' the FCC said, 'we conclude that TMZ does qualify as a bona fide newscast because it reports news of some area of current events, in a manner similar to more traditional newscasts.'" [B&C]

Assuming he has his way with Newsday, the News Corp. chairman will soon have THREE waiver requests pending with the FCC on new cross-ownership rules. "The architect of the rule, Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the commission, has made clear that there is a strong presumption against granting waivers... It is unclear whether Mr. Martin will still be running the commission when it decides how to proceed. The agency might not complete its review of the renewal of the broadcast licenses and waiver requests before next year, and many officials expect Mr. Martin to leave the agency after the arrival of a new president in January." [Times]

Young San Jose resident Alex Polvi presented the least informed, but probably most typical argument for net neutrality in his public comment featured in this video clip from the rescheduled network neutrality hearings hosted by the FCC at Stanford today. But hey, even if he said "Internet" more than a dozen times, he didn't say "marketplace of ideas" or "fascism," like many of the other commenters. The people who should be most worried about the complex debate aren't free speech advocates or corporations, however, but big pharma. Listening to arguments for and against were a more powerful soporific than Ambien. Highlights from the seven hour session after the jump.

Superlawyer Lawrence Lessig won't have Comcast to kick around at the FCC hearing on network neutrality — the principle that broadband providers can't discriminate against certain kinds of Internet traffic — being held at Stanford tomorrow. The event was only scheduled after Comcast paid chumps to fill chairs at an earlier hearing at Harvard in an obvious effort to squelch debate. With Comcast working with BitTorrent and just today joining with legal file-sharing startup Pando to work on a "bill of rights" for file sharers and ISPs, the company is trying to make voluntary moves in an effort to stave off involuntary regulation. I was planning on attending, if only because it promised to be an entertaining nerdfight — now, I'm not so sure. Since public hearings are supposedly democracy in action, you tell me if I should bother buying a Caltrain ticket.