In your Thursday media column: Foreign correspondents are anachronized, jobs are vaporized, and the Obamanaguration will not be televised. (Yes it will):

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)

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.

"I don't think people anticipated an incumbent would purchase the spectrum with an open-access provision." — FCC chairman Kevin Martin, on why he's not disappointed that Verizon and AT&T got more of the nation's airwaves in an auction meant to spur new wireless competition. [Creative Capital] (Photo by AP/Jeff Roberson)

The FCC has announced that it will hold a second hearing on "net neutrality" — the debate over whether broadband providers can favor some kinds of Internet traffic — at Stanford University on April 17 (PDF). We wrote back in February that FCC chairman Kevin Martin was considering a "do-over"; the FCC's first hearing at Harvard was deemed botched after Comcast was caught packing the room with seatwarmers hired off the street. Now, Comcast has to deal with a hostile crowd and Professor Lawrence Lessig, a strong proponent of net neutrality. Lessig v. Comcast at Stanford? Sign me up!

Federal Communications Commission chair Kevin Martin reiterated the FCC's position on Comcast's file-sharing misdeeds. Giving a speech at Stanford Law School, Martin said the commission is "ready, willing and able" to take action against the company. But this is the exact same wording he used at the first net neutrality hearing at Harvard several weeks ago. The FCC remains "ready" — but it isn't doing anything. Mr. Martin, sir, as my grandmother would say: "Shit or get off the pot."

Freakishly boyish FCC chairman Kevin Martin isn't exactly denying our earlier report that his commission was considering a "do-over" hearing on net neutrality. The first hearing, held at Harvard, dealt with regulations on what Internet service providers can do to privilege some kinds of Net traffic over others. It was marred by a seat-packing scandal: Comcast paid people to hold spots in line for Comcast employees who never showed up. A FCC representative gave News.com this unhelpful quote on the subject of a new hearing, which we've heard could be held at Stanford:

At a Congressional hearing, Comcast executives said the company needs to filter some traffic to keep the flow of data constant on its networks — like blocking BitTorrent file-sharing, as it was caught doing last fall. Federal Communications Commission head Kevin Martin is having none of it. "I think it's important to understand that the commission is ready, willing and able to step in if necessary to correct any (unreasonable) practices that are ongoing today," he said today. Martin wants Internet service providers to be more "transparent." Network operators have the right to manage data traffic, but that "does not mean they can arbitrarily block access to particular applications or services," he added. Translation? If you're going to block file sharing, stop lying about it.