There’s not much news coming out of D7, the Internet executive chat fest, other than that Yahoo’s new CEO is willing to accept “boatloads of money” to sell the company’s Web search business, if Microsoft were willing to pay. They are still talking, sort of. But that is so-o-o last’s year’s story. Move on.

Confererence organizers Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg are looking to stir up a debate by declaring that the Web 2.0 era of the internet is over and Web 3.0 is underway.  

We think something major is happening at the intersection of tech and media, and we think it deserves its own new hyped-up name: Web 3.0.

Their definition of Web 3.0 centers on the rise of cloud computing and the delivery of a host of Web services to easy to use mobile devices running simple clean software. The iPhone, Blackberry, Google, Twitter. In the absence of news, let’s dredge up an old buzzword.

The death of Web 2.0 doesn’t go down too well with computer publisher Tim O’Reilly, who was the first to comment on the Swisher/Mossberg Web 3.0 declaration:

There’s no question that what’s happening in the marketplace is as significant a step forward as Web 2.0, but calling it Web 3.0 seems a bit silly. After all, Web 2.0 was not a new version of the web, but a name that tried to capture what distinguished the companies that survived the dotcom bust from those that survived, and point the way forward for new companies entering the market.

Of course, O’Reilly was the popularizer of the Web 2.0 term and has created a lucrative business out of defining the term to the rest of the world. 

Web 3.0 afficionados will recall John Markoff of The New York Times tried a similar manoeuvre in 2006 when the Web 2.0 craze was in full flower. His declaration of the coming of the Web 3.0 era was timed to coincide with came in the wake of the Web 2.0 Summit, another big annual Internet conference, started by O’Reilly to cash in on the concept. 

Markoff defined Web 3.0 as a coming era when computers would scour powerful Web databases to deliver highly personalised results to Internet users.  His view of Web 3.0 resurrected the decades-old ideas of natural-language search, the capacity to ask a computer a simple question and get a sensible response. 

By that definition, Web 3.0 may take another decade or two.

(Images: D7 Conference site; Nova Spivak)

It looks like CNBC will have to figure out another way to bring in the viewers when the Apple 3G iPhone comes out. The old tried-and-true method, bringing on Wall Street Journal personal technology columnist Walt Mossberg, isn’t going to work anymore.

We got a press release, but will defer to Silicon Alley Insider, which looks like it had the news first — Walt is going to the Fox Business Network instead:

Mossberg is scheduled to appear weekly on Fox Business Network, meaning he will no longer be doing his “Personal Technology” segments on CNBC. Mossberg’s last appearance on CNBC was last week, sources said. He’ll start on FBN on Wednesday with an 11 a.m segment with morning co-anchors Dagen McDowell and Brian Sullivan. His regular weekly spot will be Thursdays at 11 a.m.

And here’s the canned quote from the Fox Business press release, attributed to Fox News Executive VP Kevin Magee:

“Walt is the most well-respected personal technology reporter in the industry, and his insights on new products not only influences consumer purchasing behavior but the technology sector as a whole. We are pleased to welcome him to FBN.”

We like David Pogue and Rob Pegoraro too, but there’s no arguing with Mossberg’s influence on regular people aching to throw their money at gadgets.

The media angle to all this is that CNBC was supposed to have a exclusive agreement for Journal talent appearing on its show, but as Silicon Alley Insider notes, this applies to business news and “regularly-scheduled branded segments.”

CNBC declined to comment.

Walt Mossberg, the world’s most powerful technology product reviewer, opened the final session of the D: All Things Digital conference with an angry tirade against the s-s-s-low state of broadband in the United States.

“WE ARE VERY SLOW,” Mossberg complained of U.S. Internet access speeds.

The target of 61-year-old Uncle Walt’s wrath was Kevin Martin, 42, the boyish-looking chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who was punished on-stage before an audience of high-tech industry insiders.

Mossberg: “You are the head of the FCC. How have you allowed this to happen? I AM DEAD SERIOUS. HOW HAVE YOU ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN?

Martin: “I am not sure I am solely responsible. I am also not sure the charts capture the whole story. I think you do have to put in the context some of the demographics of the United States and some of the countries we are competing against.

Mossberg: Does that explain why we pay $12.50 per megabit in the United States as opposed to $3.09 in Japan and $3.70 in France? Why are we paying four times as much?

Martin: Yes it does. Because it costs a lot more to build out in more rural areas and people who live further apart… We have a history of averaging some of the cost to make it affordable for people in Montana.

Martin should have seen it coming. Mossberg has been on a crusade over slow broadband speeds for some time, including a call to stop calling slower-speed DSL “broadband.” It’s just one of the many things that annoy him about how computer and consumer electronics industries treat their consumers. Other pet peeves include junk programs pre-installed by PC makers Mossberg calls craplets and any device that doesn’t aspire to Apple-scale product design genius.

Here are the stats that Mossberg and Martin were debating:

(Photos: Reuters)