The PK in the Know podcast has been off for the past few weeks so that we could make technical changes to the back end.  This will result in a better feed, but  unfortunately it also means that the feeds have changed.  Please update your feeds by clicking here to subscribe via iTunes, and clicking here to subscribe via other readers.

But now, on to this week's podcast!

Here in Washington, a classic way to get a bad policy passed is to attach it to the back of some unrelated “must pass” piece of legislation. Attaching one bad idea to a bill is sneaky.  Attaching two bad ideas is bold.  Attaching three?  Well, that’s what we have with a trio of horrible wireless ideas that some people in Congress are trying to attach to the upcoming Payroll Tax bill.

It is almost as if the proponents of these additions took a few years’ worth of ideas that will make wireless worse, wrapped them up in a bundle, and glued them to the underside of a bill that – if it does not pass – will raise taxes for millions of Americans.  In this case, these conditions would apply to spectrum freed up by the transition to digital TV broadcasting, and would impact some of the most useful spectrum to become available for years.  What are these conditions?

Last week saw two sets of stories tied to a single report that made bombastic assertions about changing mobile data usage patterns.  While the assertions themselves are a bit misleading, they do point to an underlying truth – when using data on the go is easy and useful, people do it.

NFL fans, it is time to choose - playoffs or email?  Verizon and the NFL announced last month that fans could stream NBC’s wildcard games (Cincinnati/Houston and Detroit/New Orleans), the Pro Bowl, and the Super Bowl on their mobile phones.  What they failed to mention was that taking them up on their offer would probably blow through your entire monthly data limit.  What they really failed to mention was that once you hit your cap, your next email will cost you $10 in overage fees.

Thomas Friedman writes in his column yesterday that none of the Republican candidates has focused much on technological innovation, then proceeds to focus on the matter of “smart cities.” Friedman’s thesis is fairly straightforward: to maintain our competitive edge, we will need to keep pumping up our bandwidth, particularly in cities and towns which historically act as the incubators for The Next Big Thing and all its associated, Highly Useful Little Things. Blair Levin’s Gig U gets favorable mention, and Blair gets quoted a lot on why we want huge bandwidth in urban areas as well as making sure everyone gets access to functional broadband.

We remember the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse as the end of the Civil War, despite the fact that Confederate forces remained in the field for several weeks thereafter. The announcement by AT&T and Deutsche Telekom (DT) that they have told the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to dismiss their application to transfer T-Mo to AT&T “without prejudice” is rather similar.

Any tactician knows that battles can be won or lost by defining the battlefield. Skirmishes like the fight over whether Sprint and C. Spire (formerly Cell South) can go ahead with their private lawsuits against AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile help define the terrain for the bigger fights to come (order here). By ruling on what constitutes a recognizable injury under the antitrust rules and making preliminary determinations about the nature of the market, the Order sets the boundaries of what arguments DoJ can make and what it will need to do to prove its case. Where AT&T manages to have certain market definitions locked in and certain potential injuries excluded as not cognizable under antitrust in these early rounds, it gains an advantage.