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 can't say that I agree since the provider's expenses will go up with the increasing demands of ala carte programming on both computers and human resources. Efficiency will drop across the board.
On March 4, 1996, the Commission adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-84) establishing interim rules to implement Section 505 of the 1996 Act. The interim rules established the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as those hours when a significant number of children are likely to have access to and view the programming. However, before the rules could take effect, Section 505 was challenged in the courts and the Commission was subsequently prevented from enforcing the rules because of a temporary restraining order and a number of stays granted by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 24, 1997, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision to deny the request for a preliminary injunction of section 505. Thus, on April 17, 1997, the Commission adopted an Order establishing May 18, 1997 as the effective date of our rules implementing section 505. However, on December 28, 1998, a federal court in Delaware issued a decision (Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S.) which determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission's rules based on Section 505 could not be enforced. An appeal of this decision was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court also determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Thus, the Commission’s rules implementing Section 505 cannot be enforced. However, persons who wish to prevent the viewing of such programming may do so by obtaining a “lockbox” or by exercising the options provided in Section 504 of the 1996 Act.
Al Gore has a "lockbox" too.
Cart before horse, Friend.
Be gladder that some of us keep lockdown on the tube. No big screens here - I have a 5" B & W to pick up local stations; and the boys can also pick up same when they can unplug from games. Their TV, games and computer is out in the common area - not in their rooms.
But, staring at TV is just not what we do - ever.
Those who allow such to become normal in their family life have only themselves to blame.
>> I expect people on existing bundles to see no change
>> even if the provider adds a'la carte.
> I can't say that I agree since the provider's expenses
> will go up with the increasing demands of ala carte
> programming on both computers and human resources.
> Efficiency will drop across the board.
The costs of the conversion and on-going support will be
borne by those who want alc. The providers won't hit up
the existing customers to pay for it.
I'm not an advocate of mandated alc, by the way, but I
am an advocate of alc, and have fired both a cable and
a DBS provider over it. If enough customers walk away,
market pressure alone will suffice to get alc to
market. In the Dish vs. DirecTv war, for example, the
first one to offer alc will have that sub-market to
themselves, and once a DBS seller gets a customer, they
tend to stay on that equipment.
Don't bet on it. Those satellites don't function without an earth station uplink. RF transmission is under the control of the FCC. Most studio/transmitter links are RF too. Again, the FCC has jurisdiction. The FCC also regulates common carrier services (phone companies) that carry studio links (audio/video/control).
I won't subscribe to cable until it is ala carte AND the prices are proportionately reduced. Until that day comes, the cable connection at the side of my house will remain dormant. I have the same gripe with satellite TV service and XM. Sticking me with a bill that subsidizes content that I will never use is a rip off. When the value of what I want drops below some threshold, I'll just terminate the subscriptions.
Well that't the way it is my house.
My wifey lets me run around naked and I let her call me anything she wants to. When you have a winning formula you need to stick with it. I think the FCC should go worry about radio interference or something and let the public pick whatever garbage they want to watch on teevee.
This is just more political masturbation by the FCC. They refuse to do anything about the fraudulent charity and drug ads running on TV, but they have to look like they're doing something about something.
>> On the other hand, they might PAY you to take some of
>> those university channels, PBS, MSNBC, and AlGore's
>> network.
> If you mean "they" as in the cable or video operator;
> think again.
It was a joke. If the providers ever do get to a'la carte,
they're likely to be shocked at how few customers are
actually willing to pay for that swill.
> Some of your comments appear to favor an FCC overhaul
> of rules, ...
Nope. I'm just a consumer who prefers choice. I'd rather
that the providers figure out on their own that there's
an untapped market of people who want that same choice,
and for a variety of reasons.
EXACTLY RIGHT! To those whose only evident core principle is "freedom from government," the notion of a society (beyond the immediate homefront) is incomprehensible. But their children too have to grow up in such a society. If it's a society steeped in TV porn/violence, their kids will be affected--negatively--by that same culture rot.
I know that from sad experience. We haven't had a working TV in my house since my oldest boy was a year old. My 7-year-old daughter today never watches TV. But my grown sons went to school with kids who were raised by the TV set, and my daughter--in a private religious school--is meeting up with similar folk, and she is picking up some of their values.
I suppose the libertarian fanatics would say, "Well, then, home-school them." That didn't seem to work very well for the parents of David Ludwig and Kara Borden, did it?
Which is entirely fair. If it's not worth it to you, it's not worth it to you. What I pay for cable is worth it to me, and my only concern is that my pricing structure, that so far, I can live with is going to get screwed up by a bunch of do-gooders and I'm going to wind up paying more.
"I suppose the libertarian fanatics would say, "Well, then, home-school them." That didn't seem to work very well for the parents of David Ludwig and Kara Borden, did it?"
-Well said!
Despite all of the protestations regarding the quality content, many still look to the FCC to "fix" the market. Boycott the advertisers that support the crappy channels, write the crappy channel, or cancel your subscriptions. Or worst of all, do not watch it.
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.