Replies

It is simply out of the federal gov't jurisdiction to dictate what cable providers may or may not provide.

I agree. But is it not within the government's jurisdiction to keep the cable company pushing something into my house that I have asked them to stop doing?

Let me give you an imperfect, but apt, example. Most people, including conservatives, supported the creation of a "do not call" list, blocking telemarketers from calling whenever they wanted and punishing them if they did call someone on the list. The answer to someone in who is on the "do not call" list but receives calls anyhow is not to simply tell them: "if you don't like it, get rid of your phone service." Rather, it is to enforce the law.

The same thing applies to cable bleed. Cable companies are not supposed to allow it to happen. But Roberts' firm and Playboy argued differently.

As far as your point about people seeing a boob for a second or two, you're right, there is a bigger problem. Which is why the law was created in the first place. Cable bleed is a way for the porn companies to get their product into your home against your wishes, and to get your kids hooked.

I work with hundreds of teenagers a week, trust me, the cable bleed of porn is a major issue for teenage males.

Let me give you an imperfect, but apt, example. Most people, including conservatives, supported the creation of a "do not call" list, blocking telemarketers from calling whenever they wanted and punishing them if they did call someone on the list. The answer to someone in who is on the "do not call" list but receives calls anyhow is not to simply tell them: "if you don't like it, get rid of your phone service." Rather, it is to enforce the law.

It's imperfect, all right.

First of all, phone is not an optional service in our society. It's a necessity of life, for safety if no other reason. Cable is a luxury, an additional entertainment alternative above and beyond the options available on commercial television. If you don't want it, don't order it.

Second of all, there's no telephone service one may buy that's not susceptible to spam. You can watch regular TV if you don't like what's on cable. One can't have a limited-service phone with no unsolicited calls.

Finally, spam calls tie up the line and prevent its functioning. I can't take calls that I want if the line's busy with unsolicited calls. If you don't like what might be viewed for a fraction of a second at a time on one channel, you can still watch other channels.

For those reasons, the comparison really doesn't hold.

But is it not within the government's jurisdiction to keep the cable company pushing something into my house that I have asked them to stop doing

If the cable company was forcing their services on you, you could go to court.

But they're not. You can discontinue cable at any time, if the service displeases you.

But is it not within the government's jurisdiction to keep the cable company pushing something into my house that I have asked them to stop doing?

Wrong question, based on a bad premise. Since you are paying the cable company for their service, you have invited them into your home. If they are bringing in something you don't want, don't ask them into your house. In other words, just cancel your service.

It is not the job of the government to police the behavior of your invited guests (the cable company) while they are in your house at your request. That is why there is a difference in law with regard to broadcast TV vs. cable. You have to go our of your way to receive cable - not so with the broadcast channels.