And this is the way it should be. Government should keep it's hands out of subscription services people choose to pay for with their own money. I am a proponent of regulation of open airwaves since they can be easily accessed by children, but beyond that its up to parents to be responsible. If people want to go as far as to PAY for something that has filth to flow into their home than they have to be aware of what they are paying for and decide if that is something their child may access. And some parents just don't mind their kids watching the filth on stations like BET. Sometimes its watched as a family . (Yea I said it, cause its true!)
Now that the FCC won't touch cable and satellite services, there is still a question left looming. Will the FCC ever try and regulate Internet Radio and TV broadcast? I think this would destroy all the opportunity the Internet provides. It would allow big businesses to work with Congress to set new barriers for upstarts trying to broadcast online. People have to pay a fee to get online so it should be treated like a subscription service. (Yes there are free Internet services, but even with those the user must subscribe for the service.) I think one day this issue of Internet regulation is going to bubble up and it would be wise for people to stand against those efforts.
Web site operators can help prevent any regulatory efforts by ensuring that any sensitive content is not too easy to access.
posted
i hear ya darnell.like that saying that i question.by the people..(what people) for the people(what people were they talking about...it's all about money and power. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the middle class is a myth created by the government to keep people divided by class.my "people didn't come on the mayflower or stopped at ellis island in ny....
Posts: 25 | From: pemberton/ft dix nj | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters. ... Sen. George Allen, a Commerce Committee member and Virginia Republican, told reporters he would be "hesitant to expand it to those" services.
While lawmakers and some parents groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off." ... Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content.
"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.
HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!
It starts with trying to go after Cable and Sat subscription services then the Internet which is also a subscription service IMHO.
Better let your Senators know to say no to this right now! Else Congress will be telling YOU what you can listen to and view on services YOU PAY FOR.
While Smut is bad, trying to control subscription services via government is not right!
Control open airwaves YES, control subscription services NO!
posted
This is not the first time that a Congressman has set his sights on the cable industry and I'm sure it won't be the last. The same applies to webcast- ing. Though its unlikely that this type of regula- tion will happen, it is possible. That's why those of us that put these people into office need to give our elected Congressmen a proverbial nudge every now and then just to remind them that we're keeping an eye on things (even if we aren't).
DC Bailey Century Broadcasting
Posts: 78 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also watching the attempts to apply the new campaign finance rules to web sites. That is also another piece of regulation I've got issues with. Especially now that some folks are calling for expansion of it.
Next thing you know, I'll get locked up for supporting a candidate on my own web site...
Not exactly what I consider freedom when I own a venue and can't use it how I wish.
Posts: 1673 | From: Suwanee, GA, USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Last year, FCC Chairman Michael Powell told the broadcasters group that he did not "generally support the extension of content rules to cable and satellite unless Congress supports a statement asking us to do so."
If decency rules were extended to Cable and Sat it would open a new Black Market that would make the problems in the "war on drugs" look like a party.
Posts: 1673 | From: Suwanee, GA, USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
No matter your political view, stand up for your RIGHT to establish your own venue of speech and express it openly to the public!
Posts: 1673 | From: Suwanee, GA, USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Speaking about the proposed extension of decency rules:
quote:POWELL: Well, to be fair, I think the congressman said he was open to looking at it. But he said the important thing, which is one of the reasons I don't personally don't really support an extension. Which is A, it's very likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affords much more significant First Amendment protection to medium other than broadcasting, like newspapers and cable and the Internet.
And the Supreme Court has made very clear that you have to use the least restrictive means. And when you use medium like cable and potentially satellite radio, you have other technical ways that you can restrict and block content where the consumer maintains more control.
And then finally the consumer has expressed some volition in its choices by choosing to pay for and subscribe to cable channels.
So I think when the Congress takes a hard look at this, if they really study the constitutionality, they'll find, as they have before, that it's difficult and unwise to extend it.
posted
The 3/16/2005 edition of WSJ.com has an article titled Disney's Support of Indecency Rules For Cable Television Could Backfire.
Basically Disney is supporting government extending indeceny rules to cable TV. In hopes that in turn Congress will not press for à la carte programming so aggressively. Of course that is likely to backfire.
Posts: 1673 | From: Suwanee, GA, USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. (Yea I said it, cause its true!)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
