FCC chair to cable and satellite TV: Clean up your act or else

ap on San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 11/29/05 | Jennifer Kerr - ap

[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."

[MikefromOhio]

There’s way to much smut on TV and the sad fact is that most parents let their TVs raise their children. I’m glad to see the FCC do something about this.

I have an easier solution for you. DON'T watch it.

[ReignOfError]

If TV sex is the only way you can get your jollies, then go buy or rent a porno.

At least until the Ted Stevenses of the world decide that the FCC needs to regulate video stores.

[Melas]

I might work out in your favor, but it might not. What would happen if you broke up the teirs is that some channels would have to charge more to stay afloat than they currently have to pay. And, ala carte programming would substantially increase the cost on the cable side, since it would be more labor and system intensive to authorize channels on cable boxes 1 at a time instead of in preprogramed packets.

Under and ala carte system, you might be one of those people who's channels choices are unchanged or possibly even cheaper than you presently pay. Maybe, the savings would be substantial enough to offset the increased your provider would have to charge you for the greater logistical burden the ala carte system would place on its resources. However, that's no guarantee. It could just as easily go the other way, and you find yourself paying higher prices for your channels, plus more to the cable company for the greater work load, and find your bill doubled.

[FFIGHTER]

Just what we need more government regulations. God forbid, any Parental Responsibility!

[reagan_fanatic]

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?

Well then - why not take it all the way, genius? Let's broadcast beastiality and sodomy too. And while we're at it, throw in some snuff and pedophile films as well.

After all, who are YOU to judge what someone else finds entertaining?

[Racehorse]

Under and ala carte system, you might be one of those people who's channels choices are unchanged or possibly even cheaper than you presently pay.

Ala carte puts so much of this tiresome debate to rest.

SBC, now AT&T, will offer something like a thousand channels.  Surely, the technology of choice can circumvent the uproar to everyone's satisfaction.

[nightdriver]

"FReeper" = a self-described conservative who thinks the idea of shielding children from harmful or inappropriate material is contemptible. Syn. "bilious old fart"

LOL!!

I think you have just given me my new FReeper nickname! I was considering something like "scruffy curmudgeon," but I like "bilious old fart" better.

Thanks!

[reagan_fanatic]

At least until the Ted Stevenses of the world decide that the FCC needs to regulate video stores.

Don't get me wrong - I am NOT in favor of more gubmint regulation. It would be far better if the broadcasters and filmmakers would have the balls to police themselves when it comes to offensive content.

[NJ_gent]

"I love it how you guys invoke Reagan when you really want to defend unrestricted access to porn and drugs and stuff like that."

Heh, I love how some people like to generalize, use hyperbole, and call everyone who disagrees with them a druggie simply because there doesn't exist a single valid argument for expanding government beyond it's already insanely inflated size and scope. I don't want unrestricted access to pornography, nor have I ever said that I do, so that's wrong. I haven't even mentioned drugs, so that's wrong. As for "stuff like that", could we perhaps be a tad more vague? I almost had some idea what you meant...

"You're about "freedom" and "choice" in about the same way that your heroes, the abortionists, are."

Ok, so I'm a crackhead porn fiend abortionist. What, no cannibalism accusations? Was it actually me over there on the grassy knoll? Come on, now, you completely missed a perfect opportunity to call me a commie queer, too! :-)

You've yet to make a valid argument to counter my perfectly valid points that paid, commercial satellite and cable television providers are beyond the legal scope of the FCC, and that they should be. You've yet to make a valid argument to counter my perfectly valid point that parents, not the government, should take the initiative in ensuring their children are not exposed to materials they, the parents (not the government), consider to be inappropriate. If parents want more tools to help them control what their children can view when they're not around, then parents, not the government, must lobby the issue with their providers.

For suggested talking points on expanding government power, expanding the control of the FCC, and limiting the scope and role of personal responsibility and parental responsibility, please see here. Thanks.

[Melas]

Sigh...I should have expected a pathetic attempt at erecting a straw man from your quarter. Sad.

[Boundless]

> Ala carte is only going to benefit me if it lowers my bill.

Some people will indeed want it for that reason, but I
suspect most of the alc'ers want it either to control
content entering the home, or (as I my case) objection
to subsidizing hostile propaganda.

> If the breaking up of tiers means that I'm going to
> wind up paying more for less, ...

In most product lines, the "bundle" is cheaper than
the a'la carte ordering of the same configuration.
The reasons for that don't apply where channel on/off
is merely a bit in a secure data pattern, but the
sellers will assume that consumer mindset.

I fully expect the price of most alc channels to be
higher than what they appear to add to the bundles.

> Unfortunately, breaking up of teirs could easily
> mean just that, higher prices per channel.

I'm sure there will be a few configurations cheaper
than the basic bundle, but the sellers will make it
as difficult/expensive as possible for you to get,
for example, just FoxNews.

On the other hand, they might PAY you to take some
of those university channels, PBS, MSNBC, and AlGore's
network.

[mhking]

If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.

The "nanny state" strikes again. Too bad they don't know how to use the "off" button on their remotes, and how to parent their own children...

[Melas]

You're not understanding though. Ala carte is going to be more expensive on many levels. It's going to be require databases with more, and more extensive fields per subscriber in the computer systems, which will mandate more storage space which is a re$ource that the consumer will pay for. It's going to take longer to process subscriptions and changes to subscriptions by human operators, which is a human re$ource that will have to be paid for by the consumer. It's going to be more labor and machien intensive on the accounting side of the business, which again is going to be paid for by the consumer.

That's just from the provider end. That doesn't even account for the myriad reasons why moving to ala carte might cause the originators to raise their rates to the providers, which will be passed on to you.

Anyone with an iota of business sense should be able to plainly see that the teir system is more efficient and cheaper to the consumer.

[Melas]

Well, you seem to understand that it would cost me more in the long run, and that's my beef about unbundling. I'm not willing to see my bill go through the roof so that someone can have the basic cable bundle without MTV.

[rasblue]

If the Bush Administration keeps this nanny-state stuff up we are going to lose to Hillary Clinton. Messing with people's TV viewing pisses MANY people off.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

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.

The bribes and kickbacks might have influenced Martin. He really should look at the cross-ownership of the networks that pay him off. He has never read or understood this. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html

[Boundless]

> Well, you seem to understand that it would cost me more
> in the long run, ...

Not necessarily.
It's going to depend on what you want to watch.

> ... and that's my beef about unbundling. I'm not
> willing to see my bill go through the roof so that
> someone can have the basic cable bundle without MTV.

I expect people on existing bundles to see no change
even if the provider adds a'la carte.

I expect the existing bundles to remain as is,
and priced as is, for the time being. As the
providers suddenly start getting hard (cash-based)
data on what customers really want, new bundles
will emerge.

There will also be alternate providers. Today, if
all you want is FoxNews, and don't have an axe to
grind about the other channel content, Sky Angel
is an economical way to get it.

www.skyangel.com
runs on Dish hardware

[savedbygrace]

We can handle a boob now and then.

Not while your grandchilren are in the room, I hope.

;-)

[WashingtonStateRepublican]

"You're happy to see the government step in and parent children in lieu of parents handling things themselves?

Sure you're on the right site?"

-Yes, if I were at the other site, I'd be pushing for unlimited porn for all, the raunchiest you could imagine, and barnyard sex too, it can be broadcast right after Sesame Street.

I am all for Conservative values… I don’t see how unregulated adult oriented programming fits into Conservative Values….. Yes, I am all for limited Government but surely there should be some modest rules put into place to prevent the Left from ramming their porn-for-all down all our throats.

The overly sexualized material that continues to increase does nothing to promote strong family values/ morals/ etc. To not support some modest regulation against the Left-produced smut would be to go against the core principles of the Right.

[mad_as_he$$]

What about if it has been to a bird before the cable company sends it to my house?