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."

[rwfromkansas]

HBO is basically porn at night.

[rwfromkansas]

The FCC is demanding they offer ala carte?

That is great! :)

[tutstar]

Yeah let's just continue to wallow in filth, vulgarity, rudeness, nudity, homosexuality, and whatever else may come next.

Let's drag this country's morals completely into the sewer! and it won't take much more to do that.

/sarcasm

[tutstar]

ping...

[ReignOfError]

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.

They do -- not by banning it, but by enabling technology to filter it. The V-chip and cable/satellite parental controls allow parents (or just folks who don't want to stumble upon the nasty stuff) to filter what they don't want to see.

I'd like to see them take it a step further -- allow the customer, at request, to receive a cable converter that is restricted by default. Or, for that matter, set up the cable box with something like the old VCR+ codes, so that users could find an organization they trust and lock out a whole range of channels at one step. You could also work out a system for DVD players that lets you lock out films by MPAA rating (or, again, a third-party rating service).

I'm willing to accept broadcast as an exception to the first amendment for technical reasons, because bandwidth is scarce, and because only the government can effectively enforce the licenses. There is no such rationale for regulating print, cable, satellite, home video or the Internet. But the technology exists for the industry to regulate itself, and it will if consumers demand it.

[Racehorse]

You're not understanding though. Ala carte is going to be more expensive on many levels.

Your concerns surprise me.

The only concern I take rather seriously, though I note the validity of all your objections, is the length and complexity of the form required to order ala carte cable service.

Other than that, the data base field is simply ones and zeros, switch on, switch off.  Having had some years of experience working with military databases, I have no doubt our cable industry will have little problem adapting technology in service to consumer choice.

As for the myriad reasons you fear the cable provider might find to raise prices, I ask a simple question, "what's new about that?"  Cable and telephone companies have made an art of dividing and subdividing every conceivable task and then finding a reason to charge a fee for doing something they had to do anyway.

[steve-b]

The FCC is telling the companies to come up with a way for customers to CHOOSE (you libertarians love that word) which channels are available in their homes

The FCC just invented a couple of amazing new devices known as "an off switch" and "a channel selector"?

[steve-b]

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

[steve-b]

I am all for limited Government but surely there should be some modest rules put into place

LOL. You sound like a CAIR apologist declaring that of course he's against terrorism but surely American and Israel should make a few more concessions.

[steve-b]

To those whose only evident core principle is "freedom from government,"

Those people are called "conservatives", and this is a site that is designed to cater to them. If your core principle is opposed to freedom from government, you might try a more congenial forum.

[steve-b]

I'm willing to accept broadcast as an exception to the first amendment for technical reasons, because bandwidth is scarce, and because only the government can effectively enforce the licenses.

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.

[Walkenfree]

"Not while our grandchildren are in the room."
I was referring to the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident.
Precisely my point, no control there.

[IranIsNext]

Sure, anything that means parents don't actually have to do any parenting must be good, right?

[Mr. Jeeves]

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.

How about we extend those decency standards to cover government spending - particularly on indecent 250 million dollar "bridges to nowhere"?

[Guenevere]

We took cable out of our home when we had our children there....in their formative years.

Sure, we couldn't protect them from 'the world' but it helped knowing the easy access wasn't available homewise.

We have cable now....and the free reign of sex, perverted sex and skin is getting worse.

As adults, we can choose what to watch or not to watch...

...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.

[savedbygrace]

It's too late to get a laugh now, but to explain:

First you wrote, "We can handle a boob now and then."

And I replied, "Not while your grandchildren are in the room, I hope." Referring to handling a boob, which in turn refers to extra-curricular activity 'tween grandma and grandpa. It was a joke. If I stepped over the line, I'll apologize, but I WAS joking.

More clear now?

[Wolfie]

There is ample legal precedent that the FCC has zero regulatory authority over satellite & cable TV. Anything they did would immediately be taken to court, and struck down.

Yep. And ain't it a beautiful thing? This is largely about big campaign contributors demanding that the gov't do somehting about the competition that is cleaning their collective clock in the marketplace.

[Austin Willard Wright]

FCC to Consumers: We'll put you in jail unless you obey our dictates!!

[Lazamataz]

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

It's not broadcasted, therefore the FCC doesn't get to vote.

[Wolfie]

"It Takes A Village", after all.