The CTIA found that the number of wireless subscriber connections has surpassed the number of people in the U.S. and its territories. It also found a 111 percent increase in wireless data traffic.

While the situation is by all means challenging, the massive eruption of content that sparked it is both encouraging and exciting.

“We’re in this exciting arms race where the creation of content is happening so fast it’s exceeding even these amazing improvements in computing power, these amazing improvements in storage capacity, and particularly, these amazing improvements in connectivity,” said Bruce Mehlman, the former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tech Policy and the Co-Chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance.

To help solve this problem of congestion, Congress is currently examining legislation that would free up more spectrum from broadcast radio and television companies. While everyone agrees that more spectrum is needed, the dispute is over how it would be distributed and, specifically, the FCC’s role in this process.

In the past, the FCC has had a very active position in managing the auctions. In other words, it has had the power to place restrictions on auctions or conditions on spectrum based on the bidders’ market dominance and spectrum holdings.

However, the bill that’s currently in the House would remove this power from the FCC, which is a move that is sparking a lot of debate. Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt recently called the proposed bill “the single worst telecom bill” he’d ever seen.

The House argues that previous government allocations are the reason that the current “spectrum crunch” is happening. It also believes that limitations in auctions would result in less revenue to help reduce the federal deficit.

As Mehlman explained to us, Congress is remembering what happened in the controversial 2008 spectrum auctions as well as the recent failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. He sides with policymakers on this issue because he believes the previous restrictions are to blame for the current problems.

In a post on the Internet Innovation Alliance, Mehlman wrote:

Many in Congress fear FCC micromanagement and seek open auction rules free from FCC interference. The FCC, of course, objects to Congressional micromanagement of their micromanagement, seeking maximum flexibility to set auction rules.

The irony here is that these auctions are needed because the last time this spectrum was assigned, policy makers limited its potential use and transfer. Thus much of the spectrum is under-utilized and our economy suffers for it.

In our recent interview, he expressed concern that the same issues would continue if the FCC were permitted to keep its authority.

“The biggest challenge is if the FCC gets its way and follows through with what many in the House fear they might do, which is limit who’s allowed to compete, I think the very spectrum crunch these very auctions are expected to alleviate doesn’t get alleviated… then problems continue,” pointed out Mehlman.

“I think most people would concede the reason there’s inefficient use of spectrum is because of old government decisions on who could and could not use spectrum,” he continued. “Logically, you want less government constraints in the future.”

Some mobile companies are perfectly happy with the FCC’s authority over the auctions as a group of them led by Sprint and T-Mobile sent a letter to lawmakers asking that the Commission’s position remain the same. AT&T and Verizon are not part of this support since they believe the FCC would favor the smaller carriers.

Incidentally, not everyone agrees that auctions would solve the issue. Rick Whitt, Google’s Washington Managing Counsel, recently indicated that auctions would not completely eliminate the spectrum crunch saying, “Auctions will fall short of meeting that gap.”

Mehlman told us that he agrees with Whitt in that content will likely be created faster than bandwidth can be apportioned. But, he believes that this provides an even greater urgency to get policy in place that would encourage an open marketplace.

“Having everybody eligible to acquire the spectrum and to subsequently sell the spectrum to a higher and better user is letting the market allocate the spectrum,” he said. “If we had done that the first time, we would have less congestion, we’d have more high speed wireless, and, I think, we’d have the same amount of competition.”

“We don’t have a problem with lack of competition, we have a problem with a lack of investment, [and] we have a problem with a lack of spectrum aggregation to meet the marketplace needs,” he added.

Even though Sinclair Broadcast Group CEO David Smith said it was doubtful that Republicans and Democrats would be able to agree on legislation for a broadcast television auction this year, Mehlman thinks it is a possibility. As he explained, this legislation is part of larger jobs bill that both sides want to see pass.

Should auctions be open, or should the FCC have a say? What do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Still, people are creatures of habit, and change doesn’t always come easy. Did you know that many feared the invention of the printing press? Previous to the press, books were unique hand-written works of art which were most commonly read aloud in performances and sermons.

The Bible was the first “pressed” book. It was most commonly read and interpreted by religious figures and scholars. A predominant fear of its mass production was that the layman would begin to consume and interpret its meaning without the guidience of church officials and draw their own conclusion about the content. Not good as far as the church saw it.

Regardless, books became common enough that they were not just for public performance or religeous sermon any more. Everyone knows books are for everyone and are an excepted way to pass on knowledge, learn facts, document history, and entertain us. More recently, we have the evolution of the book, the e-book, and some have anxiety about its role in society.

Let’s look at what book lover’s are thinking on both sides of the coin: For and against e-books domination of the market.

Pros For E-Books:

1). Real books are heavy and cumbersome. Often it is hard for them to stay open on their own and readers have to fidget with them to get comfortable.

2). Real books are expensive. Not only for consumers but also to manufacturers. The books have to be printed, packaged, and distributed. These processes consume materials and resources not to mention what the consumer has to go through to get it from the retailer.

3). Real books can easily be lost or damage. While an e-reader is expensive at first, many books can be read and saved on the device. Even if the reader was damaged, the contents of the publication can be accessed by a replacement reader more easily than a water damaged box of books can be replaced.

4). An e-reader offers much that a book cannot. A dictionary, a clock, internet access, the list goes on. A book is just a book. It has more uses than just reading however; those uses are relatively limited.

5). Privacy. People cannot see what book you are reading. In fact, you can have one e-reader and be reading several books at once. also, if your e-reader is password protected, no one else can even open your book.

Pros for Real Books:

1). A physical book is yours to own and use as you see fit. Make notes in the margins, write your name in it, display it on your bookshelf, cut out pictures from there pages, ect. You own the book.

2). You can loan a book in physical form and not have to worry about infringement of any kind on the authors intellectual property or right to be payed. Physical books allow you to “by hand” pass on the information inside of it and share the experience with others.

3). Physical books offer an experience that extends to more senses than just sight. Well worn books especially might have this effect. The smell, feel, weight of a book offer a feast to more of the senses. Perhaps the pictures offer more in physical print than those of digital format.

4). A book is a single purpose object. You won’t be distracted by clocks, software updates, or other tasks you can perform on the book. For those hoping to escape reality for awhile and enjoy a good book, this may come as a comfort.

5). A book can be purchased used. Used books offer an opportunity to access material at a discounted cost. Digital versions remain pristine forever and may never be discounted or the opposite, disappear from servers altogether. This could be a disadvantage for readers of older publications.

Conclusion:

So a lot of what fans are saying about the pros and cons of e-books are in direct opposition of one another. I guess it really just comes down to what you need the publication for, where you plan to read it, and what kind of budget you’re on. The same debate could take place for digital versus cd or record format music. A lot of hardcore music lovers still swear by the record for sound quality and overall listening experience.

The debates and speeches get live-tweeted, and there’s a lot of fun to be had from that. But, some folks are hitting the Tweet button sooner than later.

Including this guy…

Newt Gingrich has a long record as a Washington insider & is the only Speaker to be reprimanded for ethics violations mi.tt/zgoIOh

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) January 24, 2012

And this guy…

If you are for paychecks you are with us, and if you are for food stamps you are with Barack Obama. newt.org #withnewt

— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) January 26, 2012

@newtgingrich Let’s have a refreshing debate tonight and not the same old questions and answers.These debates are repetitive!!!!

— April Roga (@swtypy) January 26, 2012

@JohnKingCNN It’s a disservice to serious voters when raucous erruptions at #cnndebate overshadow actual substance.Please maintain order.

— Shirley Widlacki (@patriotmom61) January 26, 2012

Newt promises “there will be plenty of moon taco bells” on our future moon colonies and asks everyone to “get off his back about it”

— Kelsy Abbott (@kelsyabbott) January 26, 2012

Weird that the GOP candidate discussing moon colonies is not the Mormon guy.

— Kasey Anderson (@KaseyAnderson) January 26, 2012

Santorum: Everyone knows moon colonies are a common ploy forthe 10-yr-old boy vote, but the politicians never follow through.

— Pema Levy (@pemalevy) January 26, 2012

Gingrich goes to Miami and panders on immigration. He goes to Space Coast and panders on moon colonies. Can’t wait to see Newt’s Vegas act.

— Alberto Martinez (@albertemartinez) January 26, 2012

The longer “moon colonies” continues to trend the less likely it is that Newt will win…#GOP2012 #cnndebate

— Eric Nichols (@enichols679) January 26, 2012

@MittRomney At tonight’s debate, when Newt attacks capitalism, tell him that this is a Republican Debate, & tell him he’s at the wrong one.

— Chad Jay Mahoney (@CJayMahoney) January 26, 2012

Gingrich divorced his cancer stricken 1st wife. Asked his 2nd wife for an open marriage. Calls CNN “despicable” for mentioning it #CNNdebate

— CJ Werleman (@rationalists) January 20, 2012

I say we add “and book signing” to every GOP event. The GOP Debate And Book Signing. The Republican National Convention And Book Signing …

— Brian Young (@BrianYoung) January 26, 2012

Talk about answered prayers. There’s another Republican debate tonight! I’m sure Newt is mainlining venom right now.

— Margo Howard (@Margoandhow) January 26, 2012

Get set for the vitriolic barbs to be flying back and forth at tonight’s Republican presidential debate in Florida: apps.facebook.com/dailysocial/ar…

— Carmel Melouney (@carmelmelouney) January 26, 2012

Why yes, I’m LiveTweeting tonight’s Republican Debate. 5pm PST, CNN.Get yer jowl-jowls out, Newt!

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) January 26, 2012

Good God, there’s another Republican debate tonight. It’s almost as if they think people enjoy these things.

— Aaron Flynn (@AaronMFlynn) January 26, 2012

Here’s how the Twitterverse responded to this rash of nods from all four remaining GOP candidates.

Newt Gingrich answered the SOPA question first, saying, “I favor freedom.” He said that there are already tools and avenues of recourse in place to allow copyright holders to sue and stop piracy domestically. Gingrich continued:

“The idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations’ economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.”

Mitt Romney chimed in:

“I think he got it just about right… The law as written is far too intrusive, far too expansive, far too threatening to freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet and all those industries connected to it.”

Ron Paul pointed out that the others were late to the party:

“I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law… The Republicans, unfortunately, have been on the wrong side of this issue.”

Rick Santorum, while agreeing with everyone else that SOPA goes too far, did have a personal axe to grind.

“The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people… The idea that ‘anything goes’ on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that ‘anything goes’?”

Of course, Rick Santorum has been embroiled in his own personal fight with Google and difficulties on the Internet.

Will Mitt Romney keep his 25% momentum rolling? Right now he actually polls at 47%, more than double his nearest rival.

Will flavor-of-the-week Rick Santorum still be relevant by then?

Will Jon Huntsman’s efforts in that state pay off with a surprise?

Will Ron Paul’s never-say-die base pull off a big upset?

Will Newt Gingrich show up? Or will there be a book signing schedule conflict?

Before the Primary on Tuesday, the remaining candidates square off in yet another debate on Saturday the 7th. This one is staged jointly by NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Facebook.

Taking advantage of the nature of social media, the debate will feature days of opportunity for viewers to submit questions, chat up each other about the candidates, and watch videos.

Facebook is highlighting how the candidates use social media, specifically Facebook of course, to interact with voters and get their message out.

Their “U.S. Politics on Facebook” page talks through how the candidates are doing.

The Facebook presence for Meet the Press is pushing the upcoming debate heavily.

As for the event itself. it will take place at 9:00 a.m. ET in Concord, NH. Of course, Facebook will carry a live stream, and video will be available on Facebook afterward.

“Kindle Fire is the most successful product we’ve ever launched – it’s the bestselling product across all of Amazon for 11 straight weeks, we’ve already sold millions of units, and we’re building millions more to meet the high demand. In fact, demand is accelerating – Kindle Fire sales increased week over week for each of the past three weeks. People are buying Kindle Fire because it’s a simple, fully-integrated service that makes it easy to do the things they love – watch movies, read books and magazines, listen to music, download apps, play games, and surf the web,” said Dave Limp, Vice President, Amazon Kindle. “Our family of Kindle e-ink readers are close behind Kindle Fire on the Amazon.com bestseller list. Customers continue to report preferring their Kindle e-reader for long-form reading, and in fact we’ve seen many customers buy two Kindles – both a Kindle Fire and a Kindle or Kindle Touch – this holiday season.”

Not even a mention of a pitch of how Fire will only get better after updates to fix acknowledged problems start becoming available.

So what of all that hubbub about the Fire being kind of a drag? A visit over to Amazon’s website reveals that the tablet has an average rating of 4 stars with over 6,000 reviews, which gives some pretty sound reliability to that high rating, and over half of those reviews give it the highest possible rating of 5 stars. Take this with a grain of salt given the source of this info, but even the “most helpful, critical review” still gave the Fire 3 stars.

As you see, an overwhelming amount of people still found that review to be helpful. What’s more is that the author of that review posted an update fifteen days later to say that “a recent software update seems to have fixed several of the above problems” and praises the improved performance. Although the option isn’t available, that update might have pushed the worst constructive rating – a still better-than-decent 3 stars – up higher.

Several technology sources, including this website, PC Mag, The New York Times, All Things D, and Jakob Nielsen (he disliked it so much he gets two links), have all given the Fire mediocre-to-punishing reviews and yet… people can’t seem to gobble up the Kindle Fire fast enough.

Market analysts are predicting that Amazon will sell as many as 6 million Kindle Fires before the end of this year, which would trump the first-quarter debut sales of Apple’s iPad, the tablet by which all tablets are to be compared. There’s also speculation that the Kindle Fire will grab a sizable chunk of the tablet market next year – a market that, until now, has pretty much been the dominion of Apple.

Maybe it’s the professedly easy usability of the Kindle Fire. Maybe it’s the much more affordable price tag. Maybe Amazon’s got some marketing warlocks on their payroll. Or maybe – just maybe – the tech community’s opinion is not representative of what the average person desires in a tablet. Regardless of how this discord can be explained, the Kindle Fire is not Amazon’s “most successful product” they’ve ever launched without some good reason.

If you’re a Kindle Fire user, are you happy with it thus far? Do you find that the tech community is usually spot-on about all things technological, or are you often in disagreement with the technorati?

1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

How do you define journalism? Let us know.

To me, the most prominent section of this definition is part 3, which essentially points to the objectivity aspect of journalism. However, when you think about this, how many mainstream journalists or media outlets does this aspect describe? And, if this is the definition, should it be enforced? Should journalists set themselves at a higher standard than they currently are?

On the other hand, is this definition even accurate today? Or, has it evolved with the advent of blogging?

These are just a few of the questions that are being raised after Crystal Cox, who calls herself an investigative blogger, was charged with defamation and ordered to pay $2.5 million after an Oregon court recently ruled that she was not protected under the state’s media shield law. As WebProNews covered here and here, Cox was sued by Obsidian Finance Group earlier this year after she accused the firm’s co-founder, Kevin Padrick, of fraud, dishonesty with shareholders, and abuse of his position as the company’s chapter 11 trustee.

Cox, who defended herself in court, said that, because her content was based on information from an inside source, she was protected through the media shield law. The court, however, said that she was not associated with an established media outlet and was therefore, not a journalist.

In the above interview, Cox told us that she does consider herself to be a journalist, saying: “I have taken depositions, I’ve interviewed people, I have over 400 sites, I’ve researched this case, I’ve watched insider meetings… I’m not just any blogger on it.”

“I don’t have one blog… this is what I do all day, everyday, [and] have for years,” she added.

Cox told us that she does not, however, consider all bloggers to be journalists. In addition, she does not think that the perception people have about journalism is correct and said that it wasn’t about getting both sides of the story.

“I think it’s about digging in documents, reading depositions, reading court cases, watching videos – really doing deep investigation,” Cox said. “Real journalists should actually investigate and be willing to read it and be passionate about the story.”

As far as her next steps are concerned, Cox told us that she is still uncertain. She has been in talks with First Amendment experts and other groups to weigh out all her options. She is trying to decide if appealing the court ruling or stepping down will do the most toward encouraging equal rights for bloggers and journalists. If she does appeal, Cox said she would not represent herself.

Ideally, she would like to see her story result in a federal shield law and “for all bloggers to have rights as journalists, if they do what journalists do.”

Is Crystal Cox a blogger or journalist? You decide.

As a result, a lot of the affiliates in the state lost most, if not all, of their revenue. Nick Loper, who was among the affiliate victims, spoke to WebProNews back in August and told us that he lost 70 percent of his revenue almost immediately after the law went into effect. He ended up moving to Nevada and starting completely over.

The motive for California’s law was driven primarily by its struggling financial situation. Because many other states are facing similar scenarios with large budget deficits, they too are contemplating related actions. It’s understandable why states want to impose these taxes, but does that make it right?

Can these interstate tax propositions actually solve the tax problem? What do you think?

Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, doesn’t think that they would. He co-wrote a report with Veronique de Rugy on this topic, and as he explained to WebProNews, the tax issue is very complex and far-reaching.

“The debate about Internet taxation is really an interesting debate, because the sales tax only being a state and local tax is not something that can be easily applied to something that’s interstate in nature, which the Internet and Internet sales clearly are,” he said.

Even before Internet taxes became an issue, states have wanted to impose taxes on interstate companies that provide catalog and mail order services. However, they have not been able to do so because of their constitutional restraints. According to Theirer, the Supreme Court has provided limitations in this area because the states can’t put “discriminatory or unfair burdens” on companies that they don’t have any authority over.

Congress is now trying to get these limitations reversed with new legislation. In August, the “Main Street Fairness Act” was introduced to the Senate. It, in essence, calls for a set of federal guidelines that would dictate how states could collect sales taxes from online retailers.

A second bill, called the “Marketplace Equity Act of 2011,” and was introduced to the House last week. It is similar to the one introduced in the Senate but is a little different since it would give states the authority to require retailers, both on and offline, to collect sales taxes even when customers are located in states where the companies have no physical presence.

“What both these measures try to do is find a way to, essentially, authorize a state-based system of taxation for the Internet,” said Thierer.

“The reason, again, that the courts have not thus far allowed it is because, really, the complexity question. It’s not just that the states don’t have authority over interstate vendors; it’s that if they went to actually impose these taxes, it would create a huge burden on interstate sales and trade.”

States are aware that tax systems are complex, and many of them have joined the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board to simplify the processes. They are working to not only explain rates, but they are also working to clarify definitions such as the difference between a cookie and candy bar. This might seem of minimal value on the surface, but as Thierer explained to us, each of these items is taxed very differently.

He went on to say that, even if the systems were clarified, there would still be issues with this approach. He told us that states want to tax one another’s imports instead of taxing their own exports, which is a process that he calls a “tax cartel.”

“The wrong answer, in my opinion, is to essentially tax everybody up to a higher level,” said Thierer. “The better approach would probably be to tax downward and find a way to have a more competitive tax arrangement, so that we don’t set this collusionary approach that some states want to use.”

“I think that that would create a troubling disincentive to actually seeing more tax competition,” he added.

Thierer also pointed out his frustration with Amazon being at the center of this debate, saying that he was “very troubled” by it. He not only thinks that Amazon is pulling the spotlight away from other online retailers, but he is also disturbed that it is making deals with politicians in order to eliminate its tax own burden. The online retailer has been negotiating with states to avoid or delay paying taxes in exchange for investment and jobs in those states.

“In theory, that sounds great,” said Theirer. “I really do wonder about Amazon’s ability to deliver on it, but at the end of the day, this is really just politics, and it’s not the kind of solution that is ultimately going to serve the broader marketplace or consumers.”

Theirer believes that there is a better approach to the tax issue than the approach that both the states and Amazon are taking. In the report, Theirer and de Rugy propose 3 potential solutions to the tax problem. One option would be to abolish sales taxes entirely. For this to work, states would have to rely on income, property, and various other taxes.

On the other extreme, a second option would be to have a nationwide sales tax that would give states a certain portion of the income. Thierer, however, doesn’t think either of these methods is ideal. Instead, he is advocating an “origin-based sourcing rule” that would apply the structure of offline sales taxes to the Internet.

As he explained, it’s the idea of taxing consumers at the origin of sale, not at the destination, which is what the states want to do.

“The states and localities want to have a destination-based system where they try to figure out where everybody’s going to consume their online goods… that’s what creates the complexity and the costs associated with the plan that they desire,” said Thierer.

On the other hand, he believes his idea would, “create tax competition eliminate the constitutional tax headaches associated with the states’ current plan, and it would make sure that we don’t have a confusing, complicated array of rates and systems for interstate vendors to contend.”

It’s clear that the Internet tax issue is complex, but the big question at the end of the day is – do any of these approaches actually provide a solution to the problem? If so, would you be more apt to follow states’ proposal or Thierer’s proposal?

Do you have ideas for what should be done about Internet-related taxes? Let us know in the comments.

Apart from these two events, the seven candidates talked health care, immigration, abortion, gay marriage and the whole range of topics one would expect in a televised debate. CNN broadcast the debate and host John King ended every segment with what he called a “this or that” question. We learned that Tim Pawlenty favors Coke over Pepsi and former Godfather’s pizza chair Herman Cain prefers Chicago-style deep dish to NY-style thin crust.

With all personal politics aside, any early presidential debate, of either party, serves as a barometer for public opinion. It gives voters an initial glimpse at the candidates and shapes the media narrative for the upcoming campaign. It’s impossible to predict the outcome of the primary right now but “global popularity engine” Likester is at it again, this time tackling the 2012 elections.

Likester is a startup that analyzes Facebook data, specifically “likes,” to determine popularity trends across the social channel. This year they hosted “Likester Idol,” where each week they analyzed changes in the amount of Facebook likes for each contestant and made elimination predictions based on those results. They had a pretty good prediction record and ended up picking Scotty McCreery as the winner six weeks before the finale.

This time, Likester is looking to predict something “more meaningful,” they say. Their goal is to predict the eventual 2012 Republican nominee, and they kicked off their analysis with last night’s debate results.

The post debate analysis is in! All seven declared major Republicans were present, and the results of the data is below. We plan on updating this page bi-weekly, so please check back every few weeks for the latest.

So who won the debate according to Likester? Mitt Romney, as he garnered 19,658 new likes on Facebook from his performance. He is the overall like leader with just under 1 million. Michele Bachmann, who ranks 3rd in overall likes, finished second by gaining 9,232 new likes. Ron Paul, who ranks 2nd in overall likes, finished 3rd in the debate by adding 8,717 new likes.

The remaining candidates finished 4th – 7th in the following order: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum.

Of course, a presidential primary may be a little tougher to predict than American Idol, but it’s possible that social media clout will play a huge role in determining the winner. Facebook played such a huge part in the 2008 election, there is no reason to think that popularity on the social media site won’t be an indicator of the outcome of this race.

Who do you think won the debate? Who looked like a strong candidate? Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann? Or did no candidate look good at all? Let us know what you think.