Friday, we had Alaskan King Crab Quiche and Sunday, I served cannelloni. While there are many versions of cannelloni, I made my filling using smoked pork loin and cured Virginia ham. I chose those particular meats over Italian sausage because they just seemed interesting. The completed dish proved those flavors were indeed winners. The filling worked very well with the marinara sauce and the cheesy béchamel sauce. I'll post that recipe next week. However, the recipe of the week was actually prepared on Thursday. I guess now I have cannelloni ready to go for next week. In any event, Thursday, I made a pan seared gou or drum fish. The idea was to emulate a Chilean sea bass lunch entrée at a local Dallas restaurant called Steel. I used drum fish instead of sea bass because it was $1.00 per pound versus $10.00+ for sea bass. I was astounded by the low price and decided to give the fish a chance. Sea bass is clearly a better fish for searing but the drum fish is more delicate, more like a large trout or fresh water bass. It worked well. I think my version is very similar, good and incredibly simple. In the meantime, Pan Seared Spicy Chilean Sea Bass is today's winner. It is delicately flavored with spicy soy sauce and that is it (I used bottled spicy soy sauce but a recipe is included). This is a simple, tasty and quick dish. Enjoy!
A Different Drum
The announcement last week by Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman, to apply certain provisions of the Title II section of the Communications Act to broadband carriers will take a herculean effort to implement. The six sections deemed applicable will need to be parsed more to determine their full application to carriers and consumers. Three of the sections seem to form the basis for the FCC's decision to increase its ability to reaffirm the principles of net neutrality and desire to revise the goal of the Universal Service Fund (USF). The sections that will require the most attention by the FCC and affected carriers are Sections 201, 202, and 254. The other sections 208, 222, and 255 should have less impact.
Section 201 requires carriers to provide access to other carriers. Additionally, the FCC is given the authority to establish rates that the incumbent carriers can charge competitors for access to their networks. On the face of it, this seems simple enough but has the current structure of carrier access or pricing been in need of fixing? Perhaps, I am missing something but gaining access to broadband has not been an issue to date for carriers. There is some concern about access as we transition from TDM interconnects to Ethernet, but the industry has not had time to establish a new set of practices. The FCC needs to tread carefully here as this could threaten much needed investment and growth. Finally, when it comes to broadband, who are the incumbents and who are the rival carriers? None of us has the network infrastructure on our own to service the entire country. It is only through the execution of national and regional agreements that Broadvox or any other carrier can be a national service provider. Any significant rules changes in this area could alter a carrier's footprint and thereby their customer base and product offering.
More on Wednesday...