Congress, FCC Focus on Pay Television Indecency

MyWay (via Dridge) ^

[Happy2BMe]

By Jeremy Pelofsky and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Outraged by how salacious programs on radio and network television have become in recent months, lawmakers vowed on Wednesday to look at indecent shows on cable and satellite channels.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain urged cable and satellite companies to offer parents the ability to pick and choose what channels they get so they can protect their children from violence, sex and profanity, an idea that resonated with other lawmakers and regulators.

Federal regulators and lawmakers have sought to sharply increase fines for bad behavior on over-the-air television and radio stations after a rash of incidents, from the exposure of pop singer Janet Jackson's bare breast to foul language on the radio encouraging sexual violence against women.

The concept is "more persuasive than ever in providing parents control over their television sets," McCain, an Arizona Republican, said during a hearing that was called before the Jackson incident.

But lawmakers also heard that federal power to enforce decency standards on subscription cable and satellite service was limited compared to material on the public broadcast airwaves.

"It seems interesting that we say ... if it's on just a higher channel number, which you can get just by clicking your channel changer, we're going to ignore it and not pay attention to it," Sen. John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, said.

"We ought to look at the whole spectrum of what we get over our televisions," he said.

The Federal Communications Commission was inundated with complaints after Jackson's performance at the Feb. 1 halftime show of the NFL's Super Bowl. All the parties involved, Viacom Inc.'s CBS and MTV networks, as well as the performers and the NFL, apologized for the incident.

Viacom President Mel Karmazin pledged to use technology to briefly delay airing live events to prevent further incidents, but raised a note of caution that taking more drastic action could end live events altogether.

"With an enhanced system in place, some celebrities in fact may believe they can do and say anything based on the assumption that the network will catch the inappropriate-for-broadcast behavior before it airs," he told the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The panel has been holding a series of hearings on the issue and this time decided to focus on the Jackson incident and pending legislation to increase indecency fines.

While Congress and the FCC have proposed sharply boosting fines, FCC commissioners have called for the return of a family hour on prime-time television, tape and audio delay systems to ensure indecent behavior is excised from live events and to consider revoking broadcast licenses for repeat offenders.

"Absolutely the combination of what packages you get and what rights you have to block programming are the right places to look," FCC Chairman Michael Powell told lawmakers. But, "you can't just easily take the broadcast model and roll it over to cable."

McCain said that legislation may be necessary. Powell said the courts have held that cable and satellite companies enjoy free-speech protections more like a newspaper.

The agency recently proposed fining several Clear Channel Communications radio stations for violations and is on the verge of taking action against NBC television stations for an expletive uttered during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards show.

Federal rules bar the airing of obscene material and limits indecent material, often defined as involving sexual organs or activities, to late-night broadcast television and radio.

Karmazin said that increasing fines could put small broadcasters out of business and instead the agency should provide better guidelines for broadcast indecency.

[Happy2BMe]

Eye Wash - Lip Service - Smoke Screens Oh My!

[contessa machiaveli]

i have no problem with broadcast TV being family friendly, but cable TV is a choice...one doesn't have to subscribe to HBO, showtime, etc.
if you don't want your children to be exposed to risque programming stay away from the premium packages and stick to basic cable. parents have got to stop whining and do some policing, their kids aren't my responsibility.

[Happy2BMe]

"..their kids aren't my responsibility."

Yes. That's a good thing.

[PAR35]

stick to basic cable.

Yes, that would keep the children from being exposed to Disney, Cartoon Network, CSpan, The History Channel, TV Land, Hallmark, and Nick, since they are bundled in the premium tier with MTV, Oxygen, Spike, and Bravo.

Everything above Basic should be a la carte'.

[BigSkyFreeper]

CSPAN in the upper tier? You've got to be kidding. CSPAN is in the lowest tier available, even if that means you only get 2 dozen channels.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yeah McCain, lets penalize everyone with higher cable/satellite rates, because thats what the program providers are going to demand if their forced into ala carte'. I have no kids, I don't subscribe to the premium networks, and if I am forced by my provider to pick and choose what I want to watch, a dozen channels might cost more than the 200 I already have. Satellite/Cable providers won't stand for it, they'll bargain for the finest quality at the lowest prices available if they have to.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you have kids and you're subscribing to smut, don't whine and complain to me once the kiddies figure out the numerical password to unlock the "adult guard" on your system.

[PAR35]

Not here. Basic is the broadcast channels, TBS, the Discovery Channel, and a pile of school (mostly from neigboring districts) and government access channels. Also one religious access channel and PPV previews. You can get that for about 13 bucks. Everything else except HBO and its ilk come together for another $32 or so.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Most places I've been to with cable systems, have CSPAN and CSPAN2 on the basic non-digital channels. I subscribe to DISH Network satellite, they have 3 tiers, and I belong to the middle tier. $31.99 for the popular "cable" channels, which includes $11.99 for locals (NY, Denver, LA). I don't subscribe to HBO, but if I did, 11 channels of HBO go for $11.99. PPV is another option that I use from time to time, runs $3.99 a movie for a 24 hour period, so you can conceivably watch a single movie over and over if you wanted. Roughly when you look at it, 120 channels for $31.99 a month.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Course, there's 3 religious channels, and about a dozen public access, education, and community service type channels as well, including NASA TV.

[PAR35]

including NASA TV

I forgot about NASA - I was going from the official list from the cable provider, which doesn't show it on either tier. It is on the TV, however, and I believe it is basic.

Last time I priced a dish, it was about the same price as I am paying now, but I would have the hassle of dealing with set top boxes. That (plus the added price) is why I won't do digital cable.

[BigSkyFreeper]

My sister wants to get a satellite dish, but her problem is she lives in a residential dwelling and her landlord has in her lease that she isn't supposed to be doing any unnecessary damage to the property with drilling holes and such. She priced digital cable and it's about 40% more than what I'm paying for. I remember having basic non-digital cable (24 channels) about 10 years ago, and that price was about as comparable as the price I'm paying for. I hadn't realized then that I was getting ripped off until I did price comparisons.

[PAR35]

landlord has in her lease that she isn't supposed to be doing any unnecessary damage to the property with drilling holes and such.

If you haven't already looked at the FCC factsheet on rental properties, you might want to glance at this:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Basically, she would need an exclusive use area (bacony, patio, etc) on the south side of the building.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Obviously, cable is bundled differently in different cities. I have every single channel you mentioned, in Basic + Expanded Cable (called Standard), except for Oxygen.

I think the movie channels like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc, should be exempt, more or less, from the stricter guidelines. I would, however, like to see stricter guidelines on all the other channels.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you haven't already looked at the FCC factsheet on rental properties, you might want to glance at this: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Hey, thanks for that URL. I'll pass that along to my sister, and she can take a look at it as well, and print it out and let her landlord take a look at it. She might be able to install a dish at her location. She's in a two story 2nd level apartment with a southward facing deck.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I agree that channels like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc., should remain exempt. Afterall, parents decide whether those channel get access to their television by way of the tier pricing and the fact they pay the bill. This provides a convenient filter that doesn't step on anyone's toes.

I also agree that stricter guidelines should be laid out, guidelines that clearly state what can or cannot be aired, especially during the "family hours" of primetime.

Maybe once and for all, they can eliminate alot of the trash that permeates the airwaves in the primetime, much like they did several years ago with setting guidelines with Saturday morning programming that was starting to get out of hand (i.e. violent, risque).

MTV in my mind has clearly defined the term "idiot box" for the past decade or so.

It's about time something was done with the out-of-control trash that's being aired even on such channels as MTV.

[185JHP]

You don't to get buy filth just because you like and want it. The point people somehow don't want to accept is quite simple: "The government is here to govern you."

[PAR35]

I agree with you as to the HBO/Showtime/Starz, etc. channels which are sold separately. I'm not trying to tell other folks what they can pay for and watch. My only concern is what I am forced to accept into my house if I want to watch FoxNews and the Weather Channel.

[Conservative til I die]

You know, I've been criticizing Stern et al, not necessarily because I agree with the FCC, but because of the hypocrisy and ignorant political ranting, but the FCC is starting to go too far, and I honestly believe it's President Bush trying to pander to the religious conservatives, who he has been letting down lately.

As a libertarian-minded guy, I'm not sure if we must have an FCC, but as a conservative, my belief is if we do have to have it, it should have a clear purpose, be strong at what little it *can* do, and leave it at that.

But the FCC is being totally vague, playing pressure games rather than just issuing fines and defining what is obscene.

And now they want to overstep their boundaries and go after cable, satellite, et al?

[Conservative til I die]

The government is actually here to stomp your neck with its boot.