Posted on 11/29/2005 2:58:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON – Sexed-up, profanity-laced shows on cable and satellite TV should be for adult eyes only, and providers must do more to shield children or could find themselves facing indecency fines, the nation's top communications regulator says. "Parents need better and more tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters, particularly on cable and satellite TV," Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told Congress on Tuesday.
Martin suggested several options, including a "family-friendly" tier of channels that would offer shows suitable for kids, such as the programs shown on the Nickelodeon channel.
He also said cable and satellite providers could consider letting consumers pay for a bundle of channels that they could choose themselves – an "a la carte" pricing system.
If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.
"You can always turn the television off and of course block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"
Martin spoke at an all-day forum on indecency before the Senate Commerce Committee. It included more than 20 entertainment industry, government and public interest leaders with differing views on whether broadcast networks, cable and satellite companies need more regulation.
Cable and satellite representatives defended their operations, and said they've been working to help educate parents on the tools the companies offer to block unwanted programming. They also said "a la carte" pricing would drive up costs for equipment, customer service and marketing – charges that would likely be passed to subscribers.
Others at the forum, such as the Christian Coalition, urged Congress to increase the fines against indecency on the airwaves from the current $32,500 maximum penalty per violation to $500,000.
Since the Janet Jackson "breast-exposure" at the Super Bowl nearly two years ago, indecency foes have turned up the pressure on Congress to do more to cleanse the airwaves. But efforts to hike fines have so far failed.
Even so, Committee Co-Chair Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, told the forum that lawmakers want to see the industry help protect children from indecent and violent programming.
"If you don't come up with an answer, we will," he said.
Congress is considering several bills that would boost fines.
Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said some critics have complained the bills don't go far enough and that decency standards should be expanded to cover cable and satellite.
Currently, obscenity and indecency standards apply only to over-the-air broadcasters. Congress would need to give the FCC the authority to police cable and satellite programming.
Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association said the government doesn't need to intervene, and that there's more room for self regulation.
Some lawmakers also complained about the TV ratings system and said it was too confusing for parents. But broadcasters said they weren't ready to give up on the V-chip and the ratings system it uses to help identify programs with sex, violence or crude language.
Jack Valenti, the former president of the Motion Picture Association of America, cautioned lawmakers to let the industry come up with a solution. Otherwise, he said, "you begin to torment and torture the First Amendment."
Er, the discussions at St. Taliban's over how to "curtail the gun lobby", etc must get... interesting.
I agree 100%. I have no confidence at all in any doctrine that begins with growing government. It's unfortunate that we still have some who are naive enough to believe that anything good can come of it. History is repleat with examples to the contrary.
Oh come on, you're just lying now. There is nothing R-rated about those commercials. If you want I can post the actual criteria for an R-rating for comparison.
It's simply amazing that, given the record, someone who proposes to cure a social problem with a new government regulation isn't horse-laughed out of the debate as emphatically as someone who proposes to cure a disease with magic beads and rattles.
I hate It takes a village!...
Apparently not:
"...but given there are countless homes across the nation with no parental guidelines, no parents home monitoring what their children watch.... ..I'm for FCC regulations someway somehow".
I know what Hillary meant when she said...It takes a village....
..and that's what I'm talking about.
That is a legitimate justification for the government to shut down Joe Blow's transmitter if it interferes with the reception of people who are trying to listen to John Doe's broadcasts. It does not legitimately justify any sort of content regulation.
But the government has to decide whether Joe Blow or John Doe has the right to transmit at a given frequency. There have to be some criteria for who gets a license and who doesn't; at the very least the government has to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for emergency information.
The FCC is tasked with administering a scarce public resource for the common good; and while I'd like to see the market as the main constraint, that isn't technologically feasible in over-the-air broadcasts. The FCC's regulations aren't too onerous, and are subject to public pressure, so if it's not as free as I'd like it to be, at least it's democratic.
The satellite itself is beyond the reach of the FCC (and even the FAA :) ), as are any earth-bound uplinks that reside out of the US.
The FCC has power to regulate the satellite operators. The operators want to do business with customers on U.S. soil. It is in their best interest to be cooperative. It took a long time for the FCC to permit local TV stations to be sent via satellite. The FCC rescind the permission to provide satellite service and to bill for those services on U.S. soil. They could also close the spectrum completely and reallocate it for another purpose. Your libertarian view of satellite operations doesn't square with the laws on the books.
Yeah, and there could be riots outside the FCC building too, which would be fitting. These _____ need to be slapped down, and slapped down hard.
I would glady give up 40 of the junk ones so I did not have to wade through them to get through the 30 semi-decent/viewable ones.
Given a la carte pricing, odds are you'd end up with only twenty channels being offered, only ten of which would meet your "decent/viewable" standard.
Imagine, for example, how long Gore TV could stay on the air with a la carte pricing...
A perfect example of letting the consumer choose who lives or dies among the content providers.
Given a la carte pricing, odds are you'd end up with only twenty channels being offered, only ten of which would meet your "decent/viewable" standard.
I might only want to subscribe and pay for 5 channels. My wife uses the private favorites list on the DishNet receiver to limit the annoyance of surfing over 300 mostly uninteresting items in the program guide.
I live in an area that has very poor HDTV coverage. Only NBC produces enough signal at my antenna. Fortunately, that is also the network that has the single TV program that I watch on occasion. I won't put money into an HDTV without sufficient satisfactory content to make it worthwhile. It is not there yet.
Muslims and TV fans. Really great reasons to riot. Go for it. It will make great reality TV. I watch for a thread on FR soon.
*lol*
You might want to tell their editors that their readers don't appreciate their publishing anti-Western propaganda written by Islamofascist fellow travellers....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.