Mark Fleischmann

"Train wreck" and "digital disaster" were just a few of the words being flung at the DTV transition in Congress last week. Analog television broadcasting is scheduled to end on February 18, 2009. And elected representatives are fretting that some analog-TV viewers may not have gotten the memo. Since those who watch also vote, they deem this a problem.

EchoStar, the owner of the Dish Network, is accumulating debt from the recently merged Sirius XM Satellite Radio Inc., according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper speculates that this "could be the first salvo in an attempt to take control of the battered company," either inside or outside of bankruptcy.

A clash is shaping up between DTV broadcasters and other potential users of their spectrum. Broadcasters are getting ready to defend the spectrum they received in the DTV transition which concluded in 2009. But some in the federal government say much of that spectrum that would be better used for expanded cellphone networks and a new generation of wireless internet service.

What The New York Times describes as "an old media vs. new media lobbying battle" is now underway.

If you want to predict the future of the music industry, don't just talk like a pirate. Think like a billionaire. According to Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet and the Dallas Mavericks, the music download business may be in for a major consolidation. Forget about iTunes and the Zune Marketplace, he says. Instead look at what Google has just done in the video file sharing realm: Pay $1.65 billion for YouTube and offer the television networks an estimated $100 million for the right to use portions (as opposed to all) of their programming. Cuban likens it to the moment when Microsoft took over the desktop by selling Office as a $99 upgrade back when word processors, spreadsheets, etc. sold for $500 each. Then he crunches the numbers: If Apple sells a billion tracks a year for 99 cents each, and pays 70 cents per song to the music labels, the music industry gets $700 million, and the biggest labels get $575 million of it. But what if deep-pocketed Google offered that same $575 million to the major labels for the right to use just some of their content free--not their whole catalogues, just hot songs and clips? After all, music executives are already openly rebelling against Apple's rigid pricing. Cuban finishes with an intoxicating rush of speculative questions: "Would it be worth it to Google to pay $575 million and up per year to completely turn Apple upside down? To completely pre-empt their ability to sell iPods? To potentially introduce a new hardware device, or partner with someone who has one? To sell advertising around the music rather than the music itself? Is there a traditional Google arb here of 70 cents per song vs. 70 cents of advertising around the song? Could it sell that much advertising online to justify giving the music away?... Could [Microsoft] position the Zune as the de facto winner by spending $575 million per year with the music labels and giving the first billion songs away to Zune owners?"