• Investment and Jobs.  In defense of a free and open Internet, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg noted his company alone invested $80 billion in communications networks in the past five years.  He also highlighted a study that reports every $10 billion increase in digital investment creates nearly 500,000 U.S. jobs.
• Innovation.  How will the FCC define "reasonable network management?"  Innovators are concerned a government-led approach will slow the Internet's evolution - a particular concern among network engineers, and the "Grandfather of the Internet," David Farber, who fears this policy shift could be disastrous for consumers and innovation.
• A Growing Chorus of Concern.  Even Google, a long-time champion of a more regulatory approach, recently changed its tune.  On the day the FCC issued its proposed rules, Google's CEO said "It is possible for the government to screw the Internet up, big-time."  And, meanwhile the ranks continue to grow, with well-respected experts questioning the need for the government having a larger day-to-day role in our Internet.

And we'd like to think we had something to do with this change of heart. NEMA CEO Evan Gaddis has discussed this topic with FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff and NIST Director Patrick Gallagher, and recently dropped a note on the subject to the new manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.

The federal agency agreement doesn't resolve the challenge of siting transmission lines on private lands, but it's a huge step in the right direction.  And it's sign that the administration understands the importance of this issue -- especially if the Obama administration wants to connect renewable energy sources (like wind and solar) to the electricity grid.  Efforts to hook up renewable energy to the grid have been delayed and blocked by environmental groups and community activists, with the result that it has taken years to move a permit through the process.

For now, the permitting process should move more smoothly for lines that cut across federal lands.  Next stop:  Streamlining the process for private lands.

Survey says?  Food and beverage company ads appear on a wide range of television programming, including shows that are intended primarily for a wide range of specific age groups.  Advertising is critical to the competition on which consumers depend for information, innovation and savings.  Many studies have found that advertising lowers prices and fosters innovation, while ad restrictions do just the opposite.  For a study of the cereal industry, see advertising Restrictions and Competition in the Children's Breakfast Cereal Industry, by C. Robert Clark, The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 50 (November 2007), available here.

Abstract: "In this article I analyze the consequences of advertising in the children's breakfast cereal market.  I take advantage of the prohibition on advertising directed at children in the Provence of Quebec to examine the nature of advertising and to determine whether the restriction hinders competition.  I show that prices are higher in Quebec than in Canadian provinces that permit advertising.  This finding suggests that the informative role of advertising dominates any persuasive role, since them most likely explanation is that the restriction prevented firms from announcing products' existence or characteristics and thus from overcoming perceived differentiation.  If advertising is informative, restricting it should increase the market shares of older, better-known brands and decrease the market shared of newer and/or less well known brands.  Empirical analysis supports this prediction: market shares of established brands are larger in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, and the opposite is true for non-established brands." - Restrictions and Competition in the Children's Breakfast Cereal Industry, by C. Robert Clark

Riddle me this:  Did you know that food and beverage companies that account for over 80% of all food and beverage TV advertising to children under the age of 12 participate in The Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), launched in 2006 under the auspices of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.  Each company prepared a pledge that describes its commitment (these can be found here).  Regular reports from the CFBAI indicate almost every company participating has pledge to devote all of their advertising to children under 12 to promote improved dietary choices, or has not advertised to that age group at all.

Also, A recent Georgetown Economic Services study found that children saw nearly 10 percent fewer food and beverage ads on children's TV in 2007 than 2006, and that there was a 25% decline between 2004 and 2007.  Today children are seeing far fewer ads for soft drinks, cookies, snacks and candy, while being exposed to more ads for soups, juices, fruits and vegetables than they were in 2004.  Specifically, the report showed that from 2004-2007 children ages 2-11 saw 26% fewer cereal ads on television. 

House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled her version of healthcare reform at a highly-orchestrated news conference yesterday. Featured in coverage in the Washington Post was the fact that the event featured 50-pound bags of salt -- used to anchor the background staging for the outdoor event against gusty winds,

six 50-pound bags of salt -- ice-melting salt, to be specific -- placed on the bases of the six U.S. flags on the stage to keep them from toppling over in the wind and marring the event with unwanted visuals and ruinous metaphors.

The Post headlined the speaker's rollout: "Rally has a lot of salt, but little pep."

Who knew salt would get dragged into the healthcare debate?

Healthcare reform is a discussion for another forum. Some might find the same pattern for other issues like global warming or the electronic bombardment of those living under high-voltage transmission lines. As usual, I see a salt connection.

I was struck by the synergy of the Standard's construct with an observation noted here in the past: how salt reduction activists have been prying into citizen's lives and larders. We had in mind more the "fire and brimstone" Puritans seeking to affix the "Scarlet S" on the nutritionally/politically incorrect than the Puritans' Calvinist forebearers . But it's much the same.

Now that we think of it, the second strand of strategic embrace of predestination/foreordaination as a rhetorical tool would also characterize these salt nannies. While reasonable scientists find evidence of elevated risk for significant portions of the population with a one-size-fits-all salt reduction strategy and others find evidence that human's salt intake is a physiologic appetite not a choice that can be educated or regulated, these New Calvinists gloss over the scientific controversy and want to skip ahead to "implementation," churning up group endorsements to add momentum to their version of "the inevitability myth."

Science, like time, would seem to answer this myth. Over time, population salt intakes are unchanged. Moreover, it may not be due to sinful choices of salty foods nor the perfidy of food manufacturers who (take your choice) either stuff their products with hidden salt or make wild health claims that low-salt products have proven health benefits. Salt intake, the science now suggests, is the direct result of neural signals from the brain controlling an unconscious salt appetite. Some may see intelligent design. We think it's heavenly.

We should wait until independent tests show gasoline supplies containing more than 10% ethanol will not pose a risk to the environment, engines, or rural communities.

See what the environmental groups, food makers, livestock producers, small business owners, Hispanic community, boaters and small engine makers reveal about E-15 at www.followthescience.com