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

[Melas]

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.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

They did not have much luck last time:

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.

[don-o]

There’s way to much smut on TV and the sad fact is that most parents let their TVs raise their children. I’m glad to see the FCC do something about this.

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.

[Myrddin]

I would be very happy to go "ala carte". I would delete all the shopping, food, sports and uninteresting "music" channels. I hate having to subsidize all that trash. Let the consumer market choose which cable channels survive. Let the trash fail and make room for something better.

[NJ_gent]

"If the Bush Administration keeps this nanny-state stuff up we are going to lose to Hillary Clinton."

Na, not so long as we get a die-hard conservative candidate in '08.

[Boundless]

>> 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.

[Myrddin]

the FCC might be able to fanagle their way into regulating cable, but I would say that satellites are well out of their jurisdiction.

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).

[WashingtonStateRepublican]

"Those who allow such to become normal in their family life have only themselves to blame."

-Yes, but we as a society are the ones that pay when all said and done.

[Myrddin]

Ala carte is only going to benefit me if it lowers my bill. If the breaking up of tiers means that I'm going to wind up paying more for less, then it's a no go for me. Unfortunately, breaking up of teirs could easily mean just taht, higher prices per channel.

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.

[InterceptPoint]

But, but, but, running around nude on TV is FREE SPEECH!

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.

[mugs99]

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.

[NJ_gent]

"Yes, I am all for limited Government but surely there should be some modest rules put into place to prevent the Left from ramming their porn-for-all down all our throats."

I agree completely that porn should not be rammed down anyone's throats. However, isn't there a big difference between something that's openly broadcast to everyone, and something that you have to specificly request to have installed, pay to have installed, and pay to maintain? The cable company cannot enter your home and force you into receiving their service; you have to call them, ask them to provide service, and pay for that service.

That's not really ramming anything down your throat, right? My first response to someone not liking a television program is to not watch it; to change the channel. Failing that, simply call the cable company and cancel the service. When they ask why, cite the inappropriate programming they provided. That's how free market enterprise and personal responsibility can make a difference. If enough people do the same, you can be assured the programming content will change drastically. Otherwise, you're simply in the minority opinion, and therefore have limited options for televised entertainment. I'm not saying everyone should be forced into watching horrible things on TV, (I hardly watch TV anymore) just that the government has no business butting into paid commercial television or radio markets to regulate content when consumers have the ability to remove that content from their homes at will.

"The overly sexualized material that continues to increase does nothing to promote strong family values/ morals/ etc. To not support some modest regulation against the Left-produced smut would be to go against the core principles of the Right."

Is it the job of the government to promote morality in youth? Or does that task fall to parents? I think history has shown what happens when government control overtakes all other controls. Government has always and will always make a terrible parent. A child raised in the woods by wolves will be more responsible, reliable, self-reliant, and civilized than a child raised by the government.

The government's role should be restricted to ensuring that consumers are on equal footing with cable and satellite providers; that is, that cable and satellite providers aren't behaving fradulently or in such a way as to force consumers into anything. In this case, consumers have the choice to change the channel, or simply cancel their service at will if they dislike the programming.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

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. Ad insertion revenues are everything. If you know anything about ADI's and targeted advertising, you will understand. Some of your comments appear to favor an FCC overhaul of rules, granting a distinct advantage to two specific telco's that are lobbying heavily for these changes. But heck, if they are going to spend billions on networks and technology; why not remove content ownership rules? We can put a tariff on advertising while we are at it. Government guarantees that Super-bowl halftime spots are the same rate as a PBS support acknowledgment.

[Boundless]

>> 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.

[madprof98]

-Yes, but we as a society are the ones that pay when all said and done.

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?

[Melas]

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.

[WashingtonStateRepublican]

"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!

[Myrddin]

I only watch one hour of TV per week...and not every week at that. My wife and kids burn time watching the tube. I wouldn't even own a TV if I was by myself. The occasional new movie on DVD would be fine. I have a stack of 20 or so still in the wrapper. I'll watch them someday.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

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.Then you surely understand that content is driven by revenue. Advertising is targeted to subscription rates among the current tiers of service. Swill or not, Madison Avenue will pay a premium for a national ad that gets in front of millions of eyeballs. Saturation marketing. On the other hand, Joe's Grille in downtown Happy, Texas does not want or need to advertise farther away from his establishment than a patron would walk. Joe advertises on his local access channel (that will go away with ala carte), and Budweiser advertises on ESPN.

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.

[reagan_fanatic]

I'll try to refrain from impugning your superior intellect, Melas. Have a nice day.