Even the one Republican in the room of 400 or so — radio host John Carlson — was against further loosening of media ownership rules in yesterday's unofficial meeting of the FCC in Seattle. Here's a wrap up of the meeting from co-sponsor The Seattle Times.

Two especially interesting speakers weren't mentioned in the above piece.

The first was David Groves of the Washington State Labor Council, who talked about how labor is no longer covered as a beat at newspapers, and that union officials can only get in print when they hold strikes or engage in labor disputes. Not so long ago, most respectable newspapers had a labor reporter, but now, they only have business reporters.

Groves' testimony showed how the stripping down of newsrooms accomplishes two things for the media owner: it increases profit and provides less leeway for reporters to do anything but the immediate task in front of them. When Groves calls to try to drum up interest in this or that labor issue, the No. 1 excuse he hears from editors is that no reporters are available. By squeezing their staff, media owners can keep unseemly topics out of the paper. And this is an industry with 19% profit margins.

The other speaker who caught my interest was Kathy Gill of the University of Washington's Communications Department. She was the only early speaker to bring up the topic of the digital commons and the hot-button issue of Net Neutrality. She used a simple analogy to talk about the Net Neutrality debate, comparing it to a system where one phone company could discriminate against another. Imagine if Cingular could charge more or block a call from Qwest. That's essentially what's at the heart of the Net Neutrality debate, but for those still wondering what the fuss is all about (aka, the folks who think the Internet is a series of tubes — and Ted Stevens ain't the only one), few people have framed the issue so succintly and persuasively. Let's get Gill on a bigger stage, please.

She also had this to say about the irritating label of "Net Neutrality": "What we really should be saying is that we are resisting network discrimination." Right on, Prof. Gill.