Andrew Breitbart passed away today. The conservative blogger impacted politics by targeting Democrats and liberals, particularly by posting provocative videos and pictures.

Mr. Breitbart’s most infamous posting was that of former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sharrod making allegedly racist statements about individuals she assigned to help some years ago. It was quickly determined that his posts blatantly distorted the true context and message of Mrs. Sharrod’s statements.

Yes, political warfare in cyberspace can be bloody and is usually anonymous, however, the true thought drivers are more than willing to step out there and express their thoughts and opinions, and an increasing number of Americans via the use of social networks are willing to engage these conversationalists.

Cable television will for a long time be the primary distributor of political news and opinion. Social networks, however, provide the ability for the everyday citizen to engage. This is another reason why broadband adoption is important. Policy makers should ensure onerous rules do not drive up the costs for the unserved and the underserved to get online via high-speed broadband.

Policy makers should avoid creating unnecessary barriers to market entry; barriers that would keep 21st century journalists like Andrew Breitbart from bringing their opinions and perspectives to the marketplace of ideas.

The American Cable Association, Free Press, and Time Warner in a letter dated 14 November 2011 gave the Federal Communications Commission an earful about certain practices by local broadcasters intended, allegedly, to skirt the FCC’s ownership rules.

Yes, you heard me. ACA, Free Press, and Time Warner. Talk about the joining of heaven (business and free market warriors) and hell (anti-market whining Free Press) getting together to wage war against broadcasters. Reminds me of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Anyway, the triumvirate, along with some other side kicks, wanted to make the FCC aware that local broadcasters are entering into shared services and other contractual relationships to share resources, including newsrooms and staff. These actions, according to the triumvirate, have a negative impact on localism, broadcast station competition, and journalistic independence.

As a layman, I never say journalism and broadcast in the same conversation. Newspapers have journalists. Broadcasters have overpaid news readers that get their news from local and national newspapers and wire services.

Yes. Maybe I’m biased, but if the triumvirate and the FCC want to craft policy that addresses localism and journalistic independence, they also have to take into account the current business environment. Newsrooms, whether print or broadcast, are taking a beating.

You see, there is this thing called the Internet. People are adopting broadband so that they can gain quick access to multiple sources of news, local, regional, and national. Broadcast stations are responding to this, especially as online publications go multimedia. Ever read The Wall Street Journal? Their video content is first rate.

Anyway, I hope the FCC takes this into account while listening to the anti-business judgment hen pecking of Free Press and company.

I’m all for app development, creativity, and free market capitalism, but this piece in The Wall Street Journal caught me Afro-Carib-Irish eyes this afternoon.

Seems like broadcast and cable channels are considering developing applications for wireless devices that would allow viewers to interact with TV show actors and advertisement.

Just imagine Bobby Bubba sitting on the couch with the iPad on his lap and the 100 inch flat screen in front of him. Also imagine First Lady Michelle Obama having a fit as she tries to convince home slice to get off the couch.

If you work from home and have a couple kids buzzing around, you should be able to deal with the added distraction apps can provide.

I can see a broadcaster leveraging a platform like Twitter or Facebook to deliver content to listeners or viewers wherever they may be, while eliciting their comments. I guess the big difference is that with the app, a broadcaster can engage real time with the viewer while advertisers hawk their products to Bobby Bubba.

I for one don‘t care for the intrusiveness and would rather that businesses that I regularly patronize, like my grocery store, or gas station, offer me a free download of their app. That way I know who is bombarding me with ads, but I wouldn‘t mind so much because I already have a relationship with the advertiser.

An article posted recently in the St.Thomas Source.com about the continued efforts to deploy broadband in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The territory has contracted with Alcatel-Lucent to construct and deploy cable between St. Thomas and Water Island. The bill is estimated at $5.6 million.

This week’s hurricane activity is evidence that deploying these facilities is necessary to keep insular areas like the U.S. Virgin Islands connected to the mainland.

The Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau issued a statement yesterday about Hispanic television viewership. They noted that 20% of television viewing in Spanish occurs on cable. Eighty-five percent of Hispanic households have cable or satellite and one-third of Hispanic households have at least four televisions.

The upside here is that since these households are hard-wired, adopting broadband in the home could become easier. Hispanics have a relatively high penetration rate for wireless devices, but given that you can’t type a resume and e-mail it on a cell phone, the shift to cable in the home could also mean a shift to using broadband to access more than and e-mail account or Facebook.