PDA

View Full Version : US House to consider expanding FCC's authority


Jabrwock
06-15-2007, 05:14 PM
New bill would create family tier, extend indecency standards to cable (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070615-new-bill-would-create-family-tier-extend-indecency-standards-to-cable.html)

If they can pull this off, they might have an easier time arguing that the gov can step in when it comes to movies and games...

A new bill introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday would force cable operators to offer a family tier of programming, along with an "opt-out" à la carte cable programming option. At the same time, it would apply broadcast indecency standards that restrict indecent programming to the hours of 10pm and 6am to cable and satellite networks.

The Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007 is cosponsored by Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and would be the à la carte law that Federal Communication Commission Chairman Kevin Martin says is necessary....

Moving beyond à la carte and family tiers, the legislation would extend indecent programming restrictions that are currently applied to terrestrial TV to cable and satellite networks. "In accordance with the indecency and profanity policies and standards applied by the [FCC] to broadcasters, as such policies and standards are modified from time to time, not transmit any material that is indecent or profane on any channel in the expanded basic tier of such distributor" except between 10pm and 6am.

Rep. Lipinski and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has advocated for expanded indecency regulations, believe that parents need government help in protecting their children from objectionable content. "In today's culture, parents are increasingly worried that their children are exposed to obscene, indecent, and violent programming," Rep. Lipinski said in a statement. "While there is no doubt that parents are the first line of defense in protecting their kids, clearly they need more help."

With the parental controls built into every television set, set-top box, and DVR being sold these days, the need for such legislation seems questionable at best. Unlike broadcast television, which is available to anyone with a TV and an antenna, people subscribe to and pay for cable/satellite. Those who are concerned about the possibility of indecent programming during the daytime already have several options available to them, including not subscribing to cable or using some of the technological means available to block objectionable content.

Garbage Pail Kid
06-15-2007, 07:33 PM
The only reason the FCC has any authority over public TV is because it's partially funded by the government. Cable and satellite get no public funding. This is thinly veiled censorship, and any judge should be able to see that.

kurisu7885
06-15-2007, 08:53 PM
I'd have three answers for this.

No, NO and HELLO NO!!!!

Yukimura
06-16-2007, 12:08 AM
This will get kicked out by a judge in less time then most game legeislation.

What are they thinking? If they cant beat the game industry do the think they can beat the cable industry.

KN
06-16-2007, 06:54 AM
The only reason the FCC has any authority over public TV is because it's partially funded by the government. Cable and satellite get no public funding. This is thinly veiled censorship, and any judge should be able to see that.

I don't get how tv can suck so hard over there. The BBC is completely funded by the government, and it rocks so hard.

bayushisan
06-16-2007, 06:18 PM
This bill fails the constitutionality test in a major way. Like GPK said, Public TV gets public funds so FCC regulations apply. Cable and Satelite programing are not funded by the public (well not by tax monies anyway) therefor the Government has no right to interfere.

KN
06-16-2007, 09:03 PM
This bill fails the constitutionality test in a major way. Like GPK said, Public TV gets public funds so FCC regulations apply. Cable and Satelite programing are not funded by the public (well not by tax monies anyway) therefor the Government has no right to interfere.

I think they're applying magic government logic.

"You know, the cable fees are POTENTIAL tax money".

ZippyDSMlee
06-17-2007, 10:13 AM
I don't get how tv can suck so hard over there. The BBC is completely funded by the government, and it rocks so hard.

you forget the prudes would run TV in the ground here :P

kurisu7885
06-17-2007, 10:31 AM
you forget the prudes would run TV in the ground here :P

Yes, they would. Our government would pussify TV as much as they can. CSI, off the air, Nip tuck, off the air, Discovery channel, shut down, American Idol *shudders* it'll thrive.

ZippyDSMlee
06-17-2007, 10:34 AM
Yes, they would. Our government would pussify TV as much as they can. CSI, off the air, Nip tuck, off the air, Discovery channel, shut down, American Idol *shudders* it'll thrive.

Not to mention 50 Christian/religious channels I can see it now god TV 24/7 *dies*

Jabrwock
06-18-2007, 01:12 PM
This bill fails the constitutionality test in a major way. Like GPK said, Public TV gets public funds so FCC regulations apply. Cable and Satelite programing are not funded by the public (well not by tax monies anyway) therefor the Government has no right to interfere.
Actually, the main reason is that the FCC was given authority over the frequency spectrum. To regulate radio communication initially. So since broadcast stations need a license to use the spectrum, the FCC can dictate the rules for using that spectrum.

That and broadcast can be received by anyone with an antenna, satellite & cable need special equipment & (usually) decoders.

KN
06-18-2007, 02:08 PM
Discovery channel

They did WHAT?

That's one of the only channels I watch T_T

Thefremen
06-19-2007, 02:56 AM
Actually, the main reason is that the FCC was given authority over the frequency spectrum. To regulate radio communication initially. So since broadcast stations need a license to use the spectrum, the FCC can dictate the rules for using that spectrum.

That and broadcast can be received by anyone with an antenna, satellite & cable need special equipment & (usually) decoders.

Marconi would be proud! (although I'm not certain if he endorsed the FCC's creation...)

Tollwutig
06-20-2007, 02:29 PM
Great, while I do support having an a la carte system for subscribing to cable channels, the whole indecency is still over South Park probably. The FCC has been itching to fine Comedy Central over South Park since it was first broadcast and yet they can't.

Really though the Cable Channels should just have a "Nothing Indecent" package for the whiny people like the PTC. It could include PBS, and C-Span, and C-Span would only be considered decent when it wasn't covering Congress.


The reason I support a la carte cable channels is the fact that I do not need 5 Golf channels, 7 ESPNs (come on ESPN Classic??? where they show you games that happened 20 years ago? WTF? ) Disney, and a few other tripe channels like MTV.

Really they have the technology they should just do a On Demand only programming. Where you subscribe to certain shows, and can watch them when you want within a set limit. Your basically could sign up for as many shows per week you'd be willing to pay for.

MachShot
06-22-2007, 06:31 PM
Not to mention 50 Christian/religious channels I can see it now god TV 24/7 *dies*

Sad thing is, there really is a God TV. It's specifically called that as well and it is a 24/7 channel.

It's top contenders for ratings are the NASA channel and CSPAN.:D




As for the Idea of an organization that already regulates everything electrical, from light bulbs to computers, to get more power? I hope the Judge has heard of that little movie known as "Big Brother".

ZippyDSMlee
06-22-2007, 07:58 PM
Sad thing is, there really is a God TV. It's specifically called that as well and it is a 24/7 channel.

It's top contenders for ratings are the NASA channel and CSPAN.:D




As for the Idea of an organization that already regulates everything electrical, from light bulbs to computers, to get more power? I hope the Judge has heard of that little movie known as "Big Brother".

ya but image 50 of them with chistain based reality TV and other filler crap running 24 7 all over the place it will make the all the Vh1 and MTV channels look good. or bad.....LOL

Yukimura
06-22-2007, 09:51 PM
I say they should Disolve the FCC altogether and replace it with an agency that cannot regulate content in any way.

Thats how I feel about the FCC, they should be disbanded and never allowed to be brought back. Also, same goes for the PTC and other watch dog groups.

Thats just how I feel however.

ZippyDSMlee
06-23-2007, 11:35 AM
I say they should Disolve the FCC altogether and replace it with an agency that cannot regulate content in any way.

Thats how I feel about the FCC, they should be disbanded and never allowed to be brought back. Also, same goes for the PTC and other watch dog groups.

Thats just how I feel however.

So all watchdog groups should be disbaned because they might interfere with things?

I thought that was the point...wheres theres good theres bad as well.

TheUnholy
06-29-2007, 09:21 PM
This really is not a completely bad bill.

There are good and bad points to it. FCC control of cable/satellite could help such parents that may need "assistance" the monitoring of information to their children. But as strict as what is suggested, no. There are protocols that are already in place to help parents. So does there need to be more laws and legislation, of course not.