“[W]e’ve spent a lot of time and energy getting ready for the February 17 date,” Martin said during a CES Q&A. “I am concerned about the consumer confusion that would be created.”

No kidding he's concerned, but he's probably more confused today than anything. As many of you may have put together by now, this is the same Martin we caught watching the DTV parody video on Friday, mouth agape. Perhaps the experience on Friday influenced his answers on Saturday? We may never know, but it doesn't sound like it did.

What we do know is that, according to Nielsen, the failure of DTV coupon program has resulted in as much as 7% of the nation's households being “completely unready” for the switch. That's 7% of the population daytime TV and the Price is Right simply can't afford to lose.

Most broadcasting companies are critical of Obama's position too, since many have not budgeted in the cost of operating two transmitters past the February 17 deadline.

“No matter when the deadline is, there will always be some who are not going to be prepared,” said Michelle Vetterkind, president of the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association.

Regardless of the infighting, DTV will become the standard on February 17, unless Congress swoops in with a last-minute delay. We'll keep an eye out this month for additional info. Until then, maybe check in on grandma, and see if your geeky skills can be put to good use. [MSNBC]

We're guessing that he hadn't seen the sketch before and won't be viewing it again. Do you think he got the joke?

In an interview with Ars Technica, FCC chair Kevin Martin confirmed that the latest iteration of the proposal has eliminated the smut filter:

Why the change? "I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away," Martin said. "A lot of public interest advocates have said they would support this, but we're concerned about the filter. Well, now there's an item in front of the Commissioners and it no longer has the filter. And I've already voted for it without the filter now. So it's already got one vote."

"Got anybody else?" I asked him.

"Not yet," Martin admitted with a chuckle.

More relevant, however, is that last tidbit: this thing ain't never gonna pass. Despite being a poorly planned scheme from the very beginning, its list of enemies is pretty much everyone whose approval is needed to get this through—the Bush Administration, cable companies, congressional leaders, and on and on. So despite being a good move for removing censorship and all, this plan still needs quite a bit more drawing board time. [Ars Technica via /.]

For instance, he leaked early warning to T-Mobile about a Do Not Call violation fine, and then helped get it reduced to just $100,000. The Verizon allegations seem more sinister, though also more vague, since it looks like the investigators caught wind of more severe favoritism, but couldn't quite find the evidence to prove it. Unfortunately, say the investigators, "due to the climate of fear that currently pervades the FCC," witnesses won't come forward.

Martin's spokesperson notes that the report "did not find or conclude that there were any violations of rules, laws or procedures." Regardless, one report finding you can't argue with is that Kevin Martin "picks on cable." [DSL Reports]

That's a good thing should this plan, which would offer downstream speeds of 768kbps for free to half the U.S. within the first four years, and 95% in the next six, actually come to fruition. T-Mobile and its ilk have threatened to sue if the FCC's action impairs their ability to use the spectrums they purchased in any way.

Will it ever be though? I mean, who does the FCC think is going to buy something with this many expensive restrictions on it in the first place? [Mobile Tech Today]

The point is to rollback the FCC's power: Comcast, and the rest of the ISPs and telcos, don't want the FCC to be able to tell them how to manage their networks. That order is previously uncharted territory for the FCC, and if it stands, it'll set a precedent that grants them fairly broad powers to look over the shoulder of ISPs, and effectively, a strong hand in the shaping the future of the internet.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has already responded to the suit, saying that the FCC had "put Comcast on notice" back in 2006 that it'd look into complaints about Comcast gumming up their network without properly notifying users, yet "Comcast nonetheless chose to close on that deal." For Martin, as usual, the mantra is about informing users, not so much about rules and regulations—whether or not that's just his public strategy to get the rules in place is debatable, but it is his standard script.

Who do you trust more? [Ars, Ars]

One thing he unfortunately doesn't take a position on is the disturbing trend of data caps from most of the major ISPs, which are technically net neutral, and satisfy his current mantra of full disclosure (i.e., your ISP can rape you, as long as they tell you first). Om has a pretty dire (but probably correct) take on Martin's position (or lack thereof).

We might see some rules over on the cable side to force them to open a bit more, if they don't do it of their own volition though:

"The cable operators won’t license a device that integrates Internet video content with their content,” he said. “I’m saying that’s wrong, and I am trying to get the other commissioners to address it.”

He hates the cable industry so, so much, and I kind of love him for it (even if it is a smokescreen). If you care at all about the future of the internet, cable or wireless, read the interview, there's a lot there. [Bits]

Kevin basically responds that there isn't enough subsidation in the US.

Mossberg moves onto openness of the networks.

Kevin Martin is saying that both consumers and entrepreneurs want it. So in the last auction, they put a condition in that the spectrum needs to be open to any handset or application. And our willingness to embrace that is important. We're not completely there yet, so that every major carrier is embracing openness.

Kara: Would you have done this openness thing before Google spoke up?
Verizon: You see in Japan and Korea that what networks can do when open. But in the past, customers wanted to do things like downloading apps to their phones. And that increased as the broadband speeds picked up.

If someone builds a device that isn't efficient, or uses too much bandwidth, we have to be careful. The shared resource [of the wireless network] is not like a DSL line. (Funny, isn't that what the Net neutrality enemies are saying is a shared resource, too? B.L.)

Mossberg: Will rates be the same for plans using phones that we didn't buy from you?
Lowell: They will be the same, but the functionalities might be different, because of your handset. (Obviously —B.L.)

Mossberg: So you're purely a provider of network services then?
Lowell: Yes.

Mossberg: Let's talk about cancellation fees. How to you justify charging people $175-$200 to cancel plans that have already worked through their subsidation.
Lowell: We don't do that anymore, as of a year ago. In Italy, they don't allow subsidization for these reasons. We tier our termination fees so that over time they get lower. And we sell all our phones without any subsidies as an option but 98% of the people choose the contract. If subsidies were outlawed, we'd have no problem and no other carriers would, too.

Kevin: It should be declined over time if its a recovering fixed cost. There should be a reasonable amount of time to take your phone/service home and try it out. There's a 14-day allowance for this. Some people are wondering what restocking fees should be, too.

Kevin on Net netrality: We have to allow carriers to manage their networks without limiting consumers access to info, but not only info but innovation.

Verizon on Wireless EVDO and 3G vs HSDPA (ATT claimed that EVDO's roadmap is limited): We study a lot of competitor claims. I've got an engineering background and there aren't a lot of miracles out there. We're reliable and fast, and we're not going to relinquish that. (Fluff, didn't address the competitive question.—B.L.)

Martin: For the first time in 10 years, we enforced the rule that the cable companies needed to open up and that probably contributed to Sony's news this week in collaboration with the cable companies.

Lowell on Coverage maps: What DB level constitutes coverage? There's no standard, and I'd be fine if some rules were made. Same with dropped call data. We need those rules before we can get fair comparisons between companies.

D is Done!
[All Things D]

"We're hopeful that that will be made available so that Wi-Fi can explode in terms of its usage, even out into some of these less dense areas where distance has been a big problem for Wi-Fi."

Microsoft along with Google, Dell, HP, Intel and Philips, have been lobbying the FCC to permit white-space devices, which they have been continuously submitting for testing. Broadcasters and others fear static and other kinds of interference.

Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, argues for the regulated model:

"Broadband penetration could be drastically improved through a fixed, licensed service without interference to TV reception. Unfortunately, Microsoft continues to push for an unlicensed technology that simply does not work...TV viewers should not be inundated by the inevitable interference caused by such faulty devices."

Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer, Craig Mundie, addressed the situation in a more desperate tone:

White space activity today is sort of our last hope to get some good spectrum.