Is it just me or does the fact that President-Elect Barack Obama is broadcasting his weekly address on YouTube not seem like it should be the very biggest deal in the world?

Still, when an article in the Washington Post reported late last week that he would put his weekly Democratic address online in video–on YouTube and his own transition site, Change.gov–as well as the regular radio, the squeals from tech were louder than at a mall appearance by the Zac Efron of “High School Musical.”

While it is a first for the Commander-in-Chief, I am more depressed that it is a first–after all, skateboarding cats made it to YouTube eons ago–than utterly thrilled that he is doing it.

But, when it come to the glacial movement related to politicians and tech issues, disappointment seems to be a better stance than hope.

I could begin with the fact that the U.S. has poor broadband and wireless coverage compared with most comparable nations (Softbank’s Masa Son once told me in an interview that this country was the “third world of broadband”).

Ironically, the price of high-speed access ranks at the top, by really gross margins.

Or that the federal government remains unfocused on a number of important digital issues, from immigration to privacy to net neutrality.

Perhaps because of his more obvious use of Internet tools, from communicating to supporters to raising money to targeting voters, Obama has felt like the first true Internet candidate, well beyond the ultimately unsuccessful inroads made by Howard Dean in 2004.

And now with even more YouTube videos, the Twitters, a much more interactive Web site at Change.gov and, best of all, the possible appointment of a CTO for America, it has been a general lovefest that the Obama presidency has engendered from the Internet community, simply for the focus the sector is now getting.

And more interactive communications are promised, such as regular video interviews with senior members of the Obama administration.

“This is just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said to the Washington Post.

It’s not that BoomTown does not think this is a great thing, but to me, this kind of transparent communication should be as normal as it has become throughout the rest of society as a matter of course.

Also, it would be nice if the Obama videos were also distributed on many other video services besides YouTube, which is the largest, but owned by Google (GOOG), whose CEO Eric Schmidt is a prominent supporter of the new administration.

Still, the four-minute video that Obama released yesterday is a good first step, along with a previous one from transition Co-Chairman Valerie Jarrett, who recorded a two-minute video earlier in the week.

Both are below:

President-Elect Barack Obama

Transition Co-Chairman Valerie Jarrett

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety in this column.

Here’s an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin and Verizon Wireless (VZ) CEO Lowell McAdam jointly. We paired the two together to talk about big issues facing the wireless industry, including low broadband speeds and high prices.

The video of the interview is in three parts, all of which I will post this week.

In this second part, McAdam talks about the wireless giant’s open network initiatives and the impact of aggressive efforts by Google (GOOG) in the space, termination fees and subsidy issues, while Martin discusses the key issues the FCC will be facing, including the transition of the broadcast industry from analog to digital and network neutrality.

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety in this column.

Here’s an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin and Verizon Wireless (VZ) CEO Lowell McAdam jointly. We paired the two together to talk about big issues facing the wireless industry, including low broadband speeds and high prices.

The video of the interview is in three parts, all of which I will post this week.

In this first part, Martin talks about why broadband speed is so slow and prices are so high (the U.S. apparently has density issues!), the difficulty of getting consensus in Washington, D.C. and more open wireless networks, while McAdams discusses the challenges with local governments.

Earlier this week, I visited Dash Navigation, the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based car-navigation device start-up that is being backed to the tune of $42 million by Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins.

There, I got a look at the new GPS device called the Dash Express that went on sale exclusively on Amazon (AMZN) today and was also reviewed by my esteemed colleague Walt Mossberg (Cliff Notes on that: he liked it a lot, but it’s not perfect, although he thinks the $400 Dash signifies a leap ahead in the arena).

A longtime user of such devices–make that a longtime disgruntled user–I have always been annoyed that car navigation has been so removed from the digital and connected revolution taking place everywhere else.

Being able to grab information from the Web and also send it to a device seems an obvious move, so I am glad someone has made it. I am also interested in Dash’s use of devices to help inform the whole system about traffic problems, which will presumably work better as more Dash devices are on the road.

In fact, I am in Los Angeles right now–the epicenter of traffic congestion–and I brought a Dash unit to see how well that works. And I also sent a map of the hot spots from the HBO series, “Entourage.” First stop for breakfast after avoiding traffic on Fairfax: Canter’s, the very funky deli the “boys” get food from.

My review: The knishes were delicious and I was not annoyed either, since I was not stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic getting to them.

Here’s a video I did while visiting Dash’s HQ earlier this week:

So what does Google really want from its upcoming current bid for wireless spectrum? Oh, you have no idea the extent of their nefarious machinations!

Click on the image to make it bigger:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

What to think of the announcement yesterday that Verizon will open itself up to consumers who want to use non-Verizon-sold phones for their wireless service?

Was it a bold way to thwart new rivals, like Google and Apple, who are promising–but have yet to deliver–a world without the fascist rule of the “Soviet ministries,” as Walt Mossberg has called the cellphone carriers, with new phones, networks and software?

Or perhaps a clever PR feint by the U.S.’s No. 2 carrier to get regulators (and consumers) off its back as an auction looms for new wireless spectrum, in which Google convinced the Federal Communications Commission to set aside some for a new open network?

Or maybe more consumer confusion, since pricing is unclear and Verizon’s CDMA technology is not compatible with more GSM networks?

Or maybe, just maybe, it means the American market–long held hostage by the onerous rules of companies like Verizon–might finally be like the rest of the world and let consumers make their own choices about the phones and perhaps software they want to use?

Well, we have absolutely no idea, since we’ll believe it when we see it and when other carriers follow suit. Right now, most seem to love their consumer-trapping walled garden approach, through which they think they are protecting consumers from the wilds of the more democratic wireless world.

Thanks boys, but we can handle it, I think.

Nonetheless, others weighed in on the move, although with different takes:

Lowell McAdam, president and chief executive officer of Verizon Wireless;: “This is a transformation point in the 20-year history of mass market wireless devices–one which we believe will set the table for the next level of innovation and growth.”

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin: “Wireless customers should be able to use the wireless device of their choice and download whatever software they want onto it.”

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt: “As the Internet has demonstrated, open models create better services for consumers and stronger businesses for providers.”

Microsoft Corp. Senior Vice President of the Mobile Communications Business Pieter Knook: “Microsoft is very excited to see Verizon Wireless make such a bold move to satisfy the demands of wireless consumers. As people’s mobile needs become more sophisticated and varied, they will require smarter and more adaptable mobile devices. We are proud to support any open access that puts more power in people’s hands to connect them to the information they want when and where they want it.”

Silicon Alley Insider’s Dan Frommer: “Verizon’s announcement will be more meaningful in a few years when more devices–not just cellphones–use wireless data networks.”

Valleywag’s Owen Thomas: “But Verizon’s latest move shows that it’s not that the phone companies are resistant to the idea of openness. They oppose, rather, the notion that Google should get to set the rules for competition–rules that will no doubt smooth the way for the sale of mobile advertising on terms favorable to Google’s offerings.”

TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld: “You didn’t think Verizon was just going to let Google waltz right in and take its customers for a spin, did you? But if Verizon doesn’t make it easy for developers and unaffiliated device manufacturers to get onto its network, it could end up tripping over its own feet.”

Infectious Greed’s Paul Kedrosky: “In practice, what does it really mean? It’s tough to say and the announcement is short on specifics. For now, color me encouraged, but highly skeptical until we have more than some PR puffery. Will they really let you hook up your own GPS device, wireless data thingie, etc., with no additional fees assuming you have an account? I find that hard to believe, but hey, I can be convinced.”

GigaOm’s Om Malik: “Do we really believe that Verizon is going to be happy being Pipes-R-Us?”

Well, that–at least–we don’t believe.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

More ubiquitous wireless, pretty please, Craig (or anyone listening)! Now.

Here’s a link to a great front-page Wall Street Journal article on his efforts by Amol Sharma, as well as video below.

After Walt Mossberg’s “Free My Phone” call-to-arms earlier this week, will Apple’s Steve Jobs foist the wireless banner of liberty?

Click on the image to make it bigger:

But BoomTown was not moved in the least by the post that CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent (pictured here) wrote yesterday on the blog for the wireless industry association’s annual meeting, taking place in San Francisco now through tomorrow.

Titled “Largent to Mossberg…Wish You Were Here in San Francisco,” he was apparently trying to smack back at Walt’s “Free My Phone” piece earlier this week, in which Walt blamed the large cellphone carriers for lack of innovation and compared them to Soviet ministries.

Largent is the rep of the wireless providers, so he had to respond, of course. But his argument basically was a complaint that Walt was not at CTIA’s show to see all the fabulous innovations, and he then also declined to address the core issues that Walt’s essay raised.

Wrote Largent:

If Mr. Mossberg were here at CTIA’s Wireless I.T. & Entertainment 2007 show in San Francisco, he’d see what the wireless world really looks like today. Instead of writing about the old 2G world, he’d see firsthand how we have moved into the 3G broadband world, where options open up for consumers.

“He would see that there are more than 600 different wireless devices available to consumers in the U.S. today, from carriers, manufacturers and third-party retailers. Wireless customers in the U.S. can exchange voice, text and photo messages, can download or watch streaming videos and listen to radio programs. There are more than 150 wireless companies providing service across the country, from nationwide to regional and local providers. And dozens more companies have entered and exited the marketplace, driven by entrepreneurial vision and ambition to make their mark. If those things don’t define the meaning of a free market, what does?”

Largent went on to claim the industry was not static or stodgy and definitely not Kremlinesque, and noted that U.S. customers got the benefit of cheaper handsets than in Europe, for example.

What he left out? That those supposed benefits come at the steep price of limited choice, onerous contracts and inability to be, well, mobile, all of which Walt discussed and Largent did not address.

There was indeed a lot of innovation to be found at the CTIA show from a lot of great small companies, but that innovation comes in spite of the carriers and not because of them.

As Walt wrote:

Let me be clear: Any company that spends billions to build and maintain a wireless network deserves to be paid for its use, and deserves to make a profit and a return for its shareholders. Not only that, but companies like Verizon Wireless or AT&T Inc. should be free to build or sell phones or software or services.

“But, in my view, they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what phones run on their networks, and what software and services run on those phones. We need a wireless mobile device ecosystem that mirrors the PC/Internet ecosystem, one where the consumers’ purchase of network capacity is separate from their purchase of the hardware and software they use on that network. It will take government action, or some disruptive technology or business innovation, to get us there.”

Well, Steve?

Also, what is with this odd graphic from the CTIA show–the slogan for the event is: “One Show. Two Personalities. Enterprise. Entertainment.”

But the picture is a six-person beast (pictured here) that scares us a little bit. (Largent, not so much.)

One was thrown by ContentNext Media, the online news site whose flagship paidContent.org writes all about online media, where I talked to Publisher and Editor Rafat Ali about big trends in cellphones.

He was spot on. It’s mobile search, mobile advertising and mobile–you guessed it–social networking.

All of these trends are still slow coming to the U.S., but not for lack of trying by start-ups (and more because of the innovation-free carriers, according to this most excellent essay by Walt Mossberg posted yesterday). I saw a few interesting products at another event showcasing a variety of mobile-focused companies.

And, of course, I ran right into blogger Robert Scoble, who–as always–had a lot to say. And not always about cellphones (naughty, naughty Scoble!).

Check out the video here:

With thanks to engadget, we repost this portrait of our beloved leader at AllThingsD.com, Comrade Walt Mossberg.

Walt has long railed on the topic of the stifling of innovation by the U.S. cellphone carriers–especially to me over dinner when I am really tired–so it is nice to see it in a terrific piece you should not miss.

That’s especially true this week with the CTIA’s annual conference taking place in San Francisco. CTIA represents the wireless telecommunications industry, including carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers.

Comments on Walt’s post were lively today on the site, many agreeing with Walt and his comparison of the wireless kingpins to apparatchiks of the Soviet Ministries, although some were wary of the burgeoning wireless efforts of both Google and Apple too.

In any case, it’s a great debate and one sure to continue for a long time to come.

Actually, this is a very sly ad for FON, the Spain-based company trying to build a global community of Foneras, people who share their wireless connection using special routers and in turn get to use the WiFi of others. Founded by Martin Varsavsky, some of its investors include Index Ventures, Skype, Google and Sequoia Capital.

While the bizarre matador agonizes over the cost of access, he also utters the classic line to someone in the coffee shop with more immediate safety concerns: “If I’m here, don’t worry for bulls.”

Here you are: