Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

FCC and Cable TV. A Proposal.

Feb 8, 2004 1:39AM PST

I propose;


1. That the FCC regulate standard packages for Cable TV and enforce decency standards
on them.

2. That anything which violates such standards must be on a premium pay.

3. That any premium pay channel can be temporarily suspended by the occupants either
with a coded access on the set or cable access box, or by a coded phone access so they
may quickly and easily suspend those premium channels when children would be in the
house.

4. That homes with such premium access other than the standard package, be responsible
for and be fined if children unrelated to them are allowed to view, without their parent's written
permission, the content on such channels while in their home.

5. That anyone on probation (maybe restricted to those convicted of violent and sex crimes)
not be allowed to access such premium channels.

6. That no one on their state's registration as a sex offender be allowed to purchase those
premium channels.

Add to this as befits deceny;

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:FCC and Cable TV. A Proposal.
Feb 8, 2004 5:18AM PST

I think your proposals are an excellent idea. The FCC could easily regulate 1,2,& 3 once given the authority to do so.

At least it could be a start James. We can't keep our heads in the sand box forever. Its getting deeper.

- Collapse -
Re: FCC and Cable TV. A Proposal.
Feb 8, 2004 5:44AM PST

Hi, James.

First of all, I dsiagree with the premise for broadcast, let alone cable. The reason the FCC is allowed to regulate is the limited number of broadcast channels, plus the previous lack of parental controls. Well, all TVs now have a parental control device, and your "modest proposal" would essentially require censorship of such important cultural channels as Bravo and A&E, and require major changes to "the Shield." There's no reason for your proposal, other than for your standards to be imposed on me. There are enough cable channels (hundreds, now) that CHOICE is all that's needed -- not censorship.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
one mistake I think
Feb 8, 2004 8:23AM PST

"Well, all TVs now have a parental control device"

Maybe all new tv's.

I've know mine don't, don't believe my parents or sisters do.

So I guess everyone must be required to buy new tv.

But there is little reason the cable company can't set up a less broad option of channels that do follow broadcast standards for those that want them, even if price is same, since the cable boxes could be set. Hmmm, of course right now analog cable doesn't require box does it?


"First of all, I dsiagree with the premise for broadcast, let alone cable."

Does this mean just James proposals? or are you in favor of making the standards for broadcast the same as cable is now?

roger

- Collapse -
Oh ...
Feb 8, 2004 8:16PM PST

... so you disagree with the FCC altogether? OK.

The reason the FCC is allowed to regulate is the limited number of broadcast channels, plus the previous lack of parental controls.

This sounds a little like your assertion that the Founders didn't include universal healthcare in teh Constitution because back then docs often did more harm than good Wink

(1) Given that the number of channels was small, wouldn't the current FCC regulation of same be the worst kind of censorship?

(2) So since we have parental controls now, why does the FCC even exist anymore? This is the first I've heard of your campaign to abolish the FCC.

(3) Under James' (co-opted Wink) plan, you still have all your choice. It just might make parents' lives just a wee bit easier that they can trust content on regulated stations to be family-friendly. The cable channels would VOLUNTARILY participate in the system I propose. If A&E felt it would have to censor it's content to comply with broadcast standards, it could opt out of inclusion in the "broadcast standard" package. Simple! Why are you so intent on satisfying your choice ... don't the hardworking parents ever get any sympathy from you? Are you willing to endure any inconvenience for the betterment of society or should we just stand idly by and let it all go to pot?

Some of these commercials really gotta go too. I'm already sick of hearing about how an erection lasting longer than four hours requires immediate medical attention!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Censorship? I didn't see any censorship in the proposal.
Feb 9, 2004 5:17AM PST

It just says that you have to pay more if your tastes lean in particular directions. BTW, I think FCC regulation has to do with a limited frequency spectrum, and deciding who gets to use the spectrum for a particular purpose. It has nothing to do with parental controls. Until the era of Hugh Hefner there was no need for parental controls. Since the FCC must choose appropriate uses for a given frequency, it is quite natural that the government then winds up controlling content.

Cable also has a limited frequency spectrum plus it tends to be a natural monopoly. In those conditions, it is quite appropriate for the FCC to regulate the medium.

- Collapse -
Counter proposal
Feb 9, 2004 12:21AM PST

1) Given that there is a tremendous wealth and variety of programming choices, parents should select for their children that programming which they deem appropriate.

Or is that too simple?

Dan

- Collapse -
Ahh, if only it was that simple.
Feb 9, 2004 2:39AM PST

How about the majority of the people (remember? democracy?) vote to have certain standards imposed upon entertainment media for the benefit of all? The majority of people deciding they shouldn't have to micro program their TV or cable box in an attempt to block all objectionable material, and then still fail when something like the Super Bowl halftime happens. The majority of the people deciding they are tired of a tyrannical minority that wish to oppose their own lack of standards upon all of us simply to satisfy their prurient interests at the expense of they don't care who.

- Collapse -
There's already a system in place.
Feb 9, 2004 4:57AM PST

If enough people choose not to watch a program the networks will follow thier will and stop showing it. Unless you don't believe in the functioning of a free market system, then you're free to impose a big government solution on an issue of individual responsibility.

Dan

PS: I read somewhere that this was a not a democracy, but a republican democracy.

- Collapse -
Re:Counter proposal
Feb 9, 2004 2:55AM PST

Wow, I wonder how many programs that would be left for the Kids and how are we going to Bleep out the commercials.

- Collapse -
Very good point. Commercials.
Feb 9, 2004 4:51AM PST

Unless commercials are rated too, and certain ones not allowed in certain programming, the exposure to ads about how to improve one's erection, vaginal dryness, and everything else that used to be relegated to women's and men's magazines would still be coming through.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Counter proposal
Feb 9, 2004 5:01AM PST

Cable TV is a business. If they get enough viewers and advertisers and turn a profit, there will be plenty of programming.

Dan

- Collapse -
Parents, and even those who are not parents, may decide
Feb 9, 2004 5:28AM PST

that they would rather try to clean up the entire environment that they and their children live in. If they do that through regulation, what's the problem? That is democracy at work is it not. They are working to preserve their choice to have economical entertainment available to them. They haven't taken anyone's choices away, but they've preserved their own ability to choose.

- Collapse -
Let us all remember
Feb 9, 2004 10:58PM PST

who is so strongly in favor of a centralized, big government, one size fits all, heavy handed, federal bureaucracy interposing itself in a market instead of people excercising their individual responsibility.

Dan

- Collapse -
I'm not in favor of much of that. I just want the FCC to do its job, the
Feb 10, 2004 1:44PM PST

job it has had for more years than we can remember, to keep the trash off the public spectrum.

- Collapse -
Re: just want the FCC to do its job -- That's never BEEN its job.
Feb 10, 2004 10:22PM PST

And despite all the hoopla, KP, the effort to install legal censorship of the airwaves is liable to meet the same fate in the Courts as the CDA. Unless, of course, Bush gets four more years of ultraconservative nominations -- heaven forfend. But I really think he's going down this time.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I just had an odd deja vu moment.
Feb 9, 2004 4:54AM PST

Remember when TV was called the "Boob Tube"? At that time it meant anyone who watched too much television was a "boob". Now it really does mean "Boob Tube" following the advent of Janet Jackson's tortured breast on public television.

- Collapse -
Re:I just had an odd deja vu moment.
Feb 9, 2004 5:30AM PST

Ha, Ha, I can't stop laughing. Maybe, JAMES, You should PROPOSE a new Sit-com called "Boobie Time"

- Collapse -
Now, now. Is that public television or Public Television?
Feb 9, 2004 5:31AM PST

In Chicago, the latter is WTTW.

- Collapse -
I have always wished
Feb 10, 2004 1:36AM PST

(even aside from commercials I don't wanna see) that the cable company would provide a list of channels for customers to choose from. For example 25 channels for $24.99, 35 channels for $29.99, etc. Then, customers could choose the individual channels they want to make up their own "package" from the list.

Cindi

- Collapse -
Now that may be as fair a proposition as has come up yet
Feb 10, 2004 6:14AM PST

And if you wanted to take less than the 25 for the same price, that would be the individual choice too.

roger

- Collapse -
Re:I have always wished
Feb 10, 2004 7:37AM PST

I may eventually get the basic package just so I can use cable internet service. I've been waiting for Verizon to get DSL capability in the phone system around here, but I think we are last on the list. I do have some DSL hope, they recently started the service at some apartments near here, so maybe they'll bring it down the road aways this year. I really would rather have DSL.

- Collapse -
I have cable tv and internet, but to the best of my knowledge, one is not required
Feb 10, 2004 8:02AM PST

to have the other.

There is a $10 discount on the cable if you already have tv service, or at least the one I have. Sprint lately has been trying to sell telco DSL, but they're 2 years after the cable company started, or more.

Their only hope is to underprice cable in the areas cable services. And unless they put up some digital relay stations, the boonies will be too far from the switchgear for telco DSL to be worth anything. I'm expecting a year or two of undercutting by $10 a month or more the cable price, then after they think they have as much converts as they can get, to raise prices to the same at least. That's pretty much normal tactics in service wars.

But I think here you can sign up for cable internet without cable tv, although I haven't tried. Granted, you'll pay $10 a month more than someone that has cable, so you'll wonder if better bargain to sign up for both. Which I'm sure is the purpose of it.

roger

- Collapse -
Same here
Feb 10, 2004 11:01PM PST

My provider (Comcast) will let you subscribe to their cable internet service without having to subscribe to cable TV, but the monthly rate is $10 higher.

- Collapse -
High speed really rocks! LOL (NT)
Feb 10, 2004 1:46PM PST

.

- Collapse -
yeah, yeah, I feel the burn...(nt)
Feb 11, 2004 3:25AM PST
Wink
- Collapse -
Funny that you mention that...
Feb 10, 2004 12:09PM PST

In Sweden there used to be (I don't no if still) a debate where the tenant's association (which I represented in my area) made several attempts thru negotiations with the cable companies and the land lords, to give the tenants the right to choose exactly what channels they wanted. That was mainly because usually when you get the basic package in Sweden you get a lot of Arabic channels for the Arabic immigrants, Spanish/Latin American channels for the Latin American community and Slavic channels for that community etc. All in one package! So the top of the tenant?s association obviously questioned why the Latin American community should have to pay for Slavic TV and vice versa. The suggestion was to have a fixed price per channel that you choose. That would definitely be fairer, even here in the USA where you get a lot of channels that you don't want to watch. At least that is my case.

- Collapse -
Since this seems to be a result of the Super Bowl...
Feb 10, 2004 10:18AM PST

Let me just ask you one thing; How many kids do you think have suffered from any kind of psychological or any other kind of damage after seeing Janet Jackson's breast for a split second?

- Collapse -
Impossible to determine, but more than we know.
Feb 10, 2004 10:29AM PST

Remember, kids like to emulate and copy their idols.

- Collapse -
Sorry Charlie
Feb 10, 2004 10:34AM PST

It's not just a split second view of a breast.

It's presenting the flash as normal and acceptable.

It's portraying sexual assualt, a guy tearing off a woman's clothes, in a venue that will make it appear ok.

Sorry Charlie, don't think you get the objection.

If it had been on Saturday Night Live, I doubt there would be any outrage, maybe still debate, but not the insult and injured feeling.

- Collapse -
How about nudity?
Feb 10, 2004 11:51AM PST
"It's presenting the flash as normal and acceptable.

It's portraying sexual assualt, a guy tearing off a woman's clothes, in a venue that will make it appear ok." - RogerNC


I can agree with you that the music industry instead of producing good musicians, they produce a lot of crap such as the show that was shown during the Super Bowl. No doubt. I agree that the increasing commercialization of the music industry (has always been commercial, but not as much at the expense of the quality of the music produced as it is now, IMO.) make the managers/record companies push their musicians to do things that certainly send out the wrong message to the kids. Usually a good look is more encouraged than independent thinking and creativity.
Anyway, so in a movie, you think it would be ok to show a woman's breasts when she comes out from the shower at a regular channel and an hour when kids are still up? If the movie is purely about love and a normal family and their daily struggles, not much violence if any. Man and woman walk around naked talking to each other a couple of seconds before they go to bed and then nothing more. Would that be ok for kids to watch? I mean, it is not flashing. It is not portraying sexual assault. It is simply portraying a human body and a couple going to bed...