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."
I have 70 channels on extended basic cable.
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.
a la carte should be mandatory. The only trouble with that is subscribers would have to use digital cable, rather than analog -- and the cable co automatically bumps up the cost of digital for the box, etc.
Still, dropping 40 junk channels (and their current costs) could make up for the added digital connections.
You may be smart enough to turn the channel, but are you fast enough? We were watching the Super Bowl when Janet Jackson had her "accident"? Our grandchildren were speechless, and immediately waited for Grandma & Grandpa's reaction.
We were speechless too!
We mainly object to vulgar language & violence; We can handle a boob now and then.
the FCC might be able to fanagle their way into regulating cable, but I would say that satellites are well out of their jurisdiction.
Not sure if that WAS sarcasm. I've seen some shows where you were lucky enough to see the car chase or whatever it was being shown. Sporting events are a pain to endure because of all the view-obstructing graphics. Sheeesh, enough already.
Lovely. It's like watching the Soviet Union emerge. These so-called pro-family groups present the greatest threat to freedom this nation has ever faced.
Not yet, perhaps.
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.
Ala carte is only going to benefit me if it lowers my bill. If the breaking up of tiers means that I'm going to wind up paying more for less, then it's a no go for me. Unfortunately, breaking up of teirs could easily mean just taht, higher prices per channel.
I love it how you guys invoke Reagan when you really want to defend unrestricted access to porn and drugs and stuff like that. You're about "freedom" and "choice" in about the same way that your heroes, the abortionists, are. It would take a strong stomach to live in the society you would create; I sometimes doubt even the most bilious old fart could do it.
The FCC should be stripped of all authority over content and exist only to ensure broadcasters are sending out their radio and television singals correctly.
If you want to shield your children from smut, take it into your own hands, leave Big Brother out of it.
What makes you think even for a moment that your ability to understand, or not understand why someone else might find it entertaining is in any way requisite for the existence of the programming? In other words, who died and made you supreme ruler who's permission everyone should seek?
Oh, man, you missed the TALKING POINT. Your socially conservative GOP compatriots are NAZIS, not communists. (But calling us Taliban is also OK because, really, we know in our hearts that supporting the unbundling of cable channels is just like 9-11--or even worse.)
At least in my area, you have to pay extra for the Spanish programming. It's not even available on the very expensive platinum package that I subscribe too. As a fan of latin music videos, I'm somewhat dissapointed, but not so dissapointed that I'm willing to pay the price to get it.
That my friend is the scary part. They're begging congress to expand their authority to cable. XM radio will be next. These bastards will never be satisfied.
Wasn't there a case a few years ago where some state like Tennessee or Alabama, or somewhere, brought a lawsuit against not only some porno satellite channel, but also the "stars" themselves?
Seems like someone thought that broadcasting smut onto "their" turf was a punishable offense.
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.