The FCC can regulate broadcasting, defined as "moving content". On the other hand "speech in a place" is protected by the first amendment. So the way we define blogs, the words we use, start to matter if we want to protect ourselves under the first amendment.
Deeper meaning is conveyed through metaphors, borrowed vocabulary. Time is talked about in terms of money; life in terms of travel; business, politics, sports in terms of war (the war box is the most popular in many ways)
For blogs we have three metaphors
1- It's about shipping ("content")
2- It's about real estate ("design", "sites", "addresses")
3- It's about writing. ("journals")
It's about writing. There's nothing wrong with the two other metaphors, but if we present ourselves as content providers we will fall under the FCC rules. "Big C" (Copyright) people want to regulate "content", churches and lobbyist want to restrict "content". They assume we are consumers. We are not. We are producers.
Blogs are by readers and writers for readers and writers. They don't "deliver information", they inform. We are all authors of each other. Authority is measured by Google and Technorati by inbound links. It is both earned and granted. Thus the blogosphere goes beyond democracy. Blogs, like Open source, are the demand side supplying itself. Blogging grows from protocols, standards, and practices, not just by raw number of users. In the blogospheres, traffic and stickiness are irrelevant, hyperlinks and trackbacks are.
Blogging is about rolling snowballs downhill, rather than pushing rocks uphill
In conclusion, we need to see the net as a place, not as a medium.
The Cluetrain has hardly left the station
PS: Doc's presentation can be found here