The W
Views: 101500895
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.12.07 0646
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NAB head blasts back at FCC Register and log in to post!
(410 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 905/1083
EXP: 2406454
For next: 55410

Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 996 days
Last activity: 966 days
#1 Posted on 5.2.05 2142.04
Reposted on: 5.2.12 2149.11
    Originally posted by Broadcasting and Cable's John Eggerton
    National Association of Broadcasters joint board chairman Phil Lombardo Thursday blasted the Federal Communications Commission for its unequal treatment of broadcast stations versus cable and satellite when it came to indecency standards, saying that the NAB had a $2.5 million legal fund that could be used to fight the indecency crackdown in court, although he would not identify any particular case.


Oh... this is going to be fun. I don't always agree with what the NAB does, but on this one, I whole-heartedly agree with them.

    Originally posted by Eggerton/Lombardo
    "At the same time that indecency regulations are being ratcheted up against local broadcasters," he said "cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner are raking in hundreds of millions a year from pay-per-view, hard core pornography."


True, but I'll bet the FCC says that the consumer pays for what they do/do not want to see. At the same time, there's a difference of blatant use of indecency and goof-ups, and I think that's where the FCC has gone overboard.

And what happens when local broadcasters start porting video over wireless/cellular? Subscribers pay for that right -- so that muddies the water even more.

One more thing -- if you're going to hem and haw about indecency, et al., FCC -- why not get your government to fund public broadcasting more?
Promote this thread!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 3226/6035
EXP: 32344506
For next: 123021

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 18 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 6.2.05 1333.20
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1352.29
I don't get this.

Cable is only in households where people have purchased it.

Broadcast is available to every person within range of the tower.

There should obviously be different standards for each of these.

Broadcast is like standing naked on a street corner - cable is like being naked in your house with the blinds shut. The same behavior is appropriate in one place and not the other - why is this hard to figure out?
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 675/1040
EXP: 2108289
For next: 105820

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2416 days
Last activity: 886 days
#3 Posted on 6.2.05 1351.26
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1359.02
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Broadcast is like standing naked on a street corner - cable is like being naked in your house with the blinds shut. The same behavior is appropriate in one place and not the other - why is this hard to figure out?


Because those in the indecency crusade say that "everybody" gets basic cable, so it should be regulated (they argue that the majority of TV owners have basic cable). They also argue that they get basic cable for channels like Nickelodeon, TLC, Discovery, and Disney, but they also get FX, MTV, E! and other "evil" channels. Of course, blocking those channels and/or regulating what your own kids watch is too difficult for some parents, so they want either a)government (FCC) regulations of both broadcast TV and basic cable or b) a la carte cable programming (which would take government intervention to make possible) A la carte programming means that you only pay for the channels you want. Of course the propositions I've seen (on the PTC website, and another website I forget) would make my cable bill higher, even if I don't get Disney, Nickelodeon, Noggin, and the other "children's" channels. Some of the edgier channels know that they'd get less subscribers and thus, less money from the cable company itself, so they'd charge more money to those who wanted the channel.

(edited by Roy. on 6.2.05 1455)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1464/1528
EXP: 4110277
For next: 80871

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2889 days
Last activity: 2731 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 6.2.05 1556.21
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1558.15

    Originally posted by Roy
    Because those in the indecency crusade say that "everybody" gets basic cable, so it should be regulated


But this isn't about the indecency crusade, really. It's about broadcasters wanting to be treated like cable providers, to which Guru says:

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Broadcast is like standing naked on a street corner - cable is like being naked in your house with the blinds shut. The same behavior is appropriate in one place and not the other - why is this hard to figure out?


And I am inclined to agree. The only counter-argument that I can think of at the moment is that turning on your TV is much like signing up for cable: you should know what you're getting. Just because you don't pay a fee for broadcast television doesn't mean you aren't voluntarily signing up for it when you turn on your set.

    Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
    One more thing -- if you're going to hem and haw about indecency, et al., FCC -- why not get your government to fund public broadcasting more?


Because giving Bill Moyers his own channel is going to stop Janet Jackson from taking her shirt off?
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1631/3428
EXP: 13812262
For next: 147428

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 131 days
Last activity: 131 days
#5 Posted on 6.2.05 1609.23
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1611.42
I don't see how a person can support regulating broadcast but not cable. Why is it fair to say "you don't like cable? don't buy it" but not "you don't like broadcast? don't get a TV."

Personally, to respond to Guru's analogy, I don't think anyone should have a problem with a person standing naked (or whatever other "indecent" activity you want) anywhere they please, provided it is not in someone else's private area (i.e., me entering your home). This has as much to do with the fact that going into public places is a matter of choice as it does to do with my belief that most people who conplain about "objectionable" material on TV or elsewhere make a concious effort to be upset or offended. If it wasn't sex on TV, it would be something else.

The analogy of being naked in public is a bit extreme and one most people right now wouldn't be able to handle. I think a better example is smoking. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and fear what second-hand smoke could do to my body. If anyone came into my apartment and lit a cigarette, I'd tell them put it out or leave. But I would never expect someone to put out a cigarette because they are next to me in some public setting (I may ask politely, but what right do I have to be upset?). I also don't say "smoke what you want there, but in my apartment you only smoke heavilty filtered brands."

To bring it back around, television (broadcast or not) is something I have to make a decision on, and no matter what if I decide to bring it into my home I know the responsbility and consequences. Other people shouldn't have it taken away or limited through harsh regulations just because of the way I run my household.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 6.2.05 1710)
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2575/2679
EXP: 9253397
For next: 63961

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3321 days
Last activity: 3321 days
#6 Posted on 6.2.05 1639.35
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1640.05
Using your analogy, TheBucsFan, these groups like the PTC are the type of people that would knowingly bring a chain-smoker into their home to babysit their children and then blame the person for smoking in front of their kids.

The community should determine what is acceptable and not acceptable on TV and radio. If its unacceptable, don't watch it and knowingly boycott the sponsors. That's too much personal responsibility for the average adult to handle. It's way easier to blame the TV and music and video games and everything else for why your kid is a douchebag.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 65

Posts: 405/1091
EXP: 2222133
For next: 113507

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2900 days
Last activity: 2628 days
#7 Posted on 6.2.05 1653.03
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1653.52
Upon further review, I really, really disagree with what I originally posted here. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

But a question..cable channels can air whatever they want right. I know that they don't do that in practice, but, theoretically, could TBS start to broadcast hardcore porn if they thought that it would be good for business. I ask because, if the FCC ceased to exixst, what makes people think that network TV would be a cesspool of indecency? I think that it would be self policing.

(edited by BigSteve on 7.2.05 1634)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 3227/6035
EXP: 32344506
For next: 123021

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 18 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on 6.2.05 1830.12
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1830.15
The cable industry already provides for parental controls on most digital set top boxes. Modern TVs have V-chips which can block programming below a threshold.

BTW: I'm not for regulating broadcast TV heavily. I personally feel that the country needs to grow up as a whole.

And - if you don't want your kids watching TV unsupervised, then buy a TV that lets you keep them from doing this. After all, you are the one that wants to control everything. Why not enable yourself?
CHAPLOW
Morcilla
Level: 51

Posts: 126/617
EXP: 953727
For next: 60218

Since: 14.5.04
From: right behind you

Since last post: 187 days
Last activity: 187 days
#9 Posted on 6.2.05 1940.31
Reposted on: 6.2.12 1941.37
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Using your analogy, TheBucsFan, these groups like the PTC are the type of people that would knowingly bring a chain-smoker into their home to babysit their children and then blame the person for smoking in front of their kids.

    The community should determine what is acceptable and not acceptable on TV and radio. If its unacceptable, don't watch it and knowingly boycott the sponsors. That's too much personal responsibility for the average adult to handle. It's way easier to blame the TV and music and video games and everything else for why your kid is a douchebag.


BINGO! Thank You, exactly.
In a country of free speech, we have these groups constantly vying to impose their standards of decency on the entire country- 5 star jackasses.

Furthermore, if the parents are doing their job- Janet Jackson's boob is not going to instantly demolarize any kid- Ever.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 1056/1084
EXP: 2454949
For next: 6915

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3046 days
Last activity: 3043 days
#10 Posted on 6.2.05 2033.10
Reposted on: 6.2.12 2034.28
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I don't see how a person can support regulating broadcast but not cable. Why is it fair to say "you don't like cable? don't buy it" but not "you don't like broadcast? don't get a TV."



The airwaves have long been considered public property, which is why they are regulated by the government. You can't do whatever you want in a public park, and you can't do whatever you want over the public airwaves.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 268/449
EXP: 651310
For next: 8859

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 604 days
Last activity: 471 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 6.2.05 2155.37
Reposted on: 6.2.12 2155.45
Okay, here's the thing. I enjoy watching some shows and sometimes wasting my brain watching TV, but I avidly dislike the objectification of women/men displayed on TV. Why do I have to give up my pleasure when other people can easily download porn for their pleasure?

I don't feel I should just have to turn my TV off just because I do not find objectifaction and consistent cursing accetable.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 3229/6035
EXP: 32344506
For next: 123021

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 18 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on 6.2.05 2259.15
Reposted on: 6.2.12 2259.39
Then program those channels off of your TV. Use your parental controls to limit your exposure to shows that offend you. Set a threshold of TVG for your tv. Use the V-chip on your TV. All of these seem to be solutions to your issue.

We can't always limit everything to the lowest common denominator. What I mean by that is not that you are the lowest part of society, but that you want us to only have available the things that you find acceptable. This is an algorithm that continues recursively until the most prudish, repressed people in the country are deciding for everyone.

Hell, the Amish are probably offended that we have TV. Can you give me a good reason why their opinion should be less important than yours?
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1919/2042
EXP: 6349424
For next: 43375

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3092 days
Last activity: 306 days
#13 Posted on 7.2.05 1422.19
Reposted on: 7.2.12 1429.01
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Okay, here's the thing. I enjoy watching some shows and sometimes wasting my brain watching TV, but I avidly dislike the objectification of women/men displayed on TV. Why do I have to give up my pleasure when other people can easily download porn for their pleasure?

    I don't feel I should just have to turn my TV off just because I do not find objectifaction and consistent cursing accetable.


Why do I have to give up _my_ pleasure (raunchy, offensive programming) when other people can easily download non-offensive media for _their_ pleasure? I don't feel I should just have to turn my TV off just because I wouldn't be able to find anything worth watching.

Or we could stick with the current system, where some channels air offensive materials and some don't, and viewers are free to choose between these. Anything that provides the most choices to ALL viewers is the best way to go; let viewers choose from a list from Sermonette to hardcore porn and everywhere in between.

If indecency groups put a quarter of as much effort into supporting programs of which they _do_ approve as they do into demonizing those that they don't, there'd be a lot more "wholesome" programming on the air.
CHAPLOW
Morcilla
Level: 51

Posts: 128/617
EXP: 953727
For next: 60218

Since: 14.5.04
From: right behind you

Since last post: 187 days
Last activity: 187 days
#14 Posted on 7.2.05 1602.47
Reposted on: 7.2.12 1605.13
and B-I-N-G-O Again! If those "indecency groups" would just listen to this kind of reasoning this whole situation would be a whole lot better.

When you go on a crusade, nothing is ever accomplished-
No point is made one way or the other,
all you have are casualties.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 503/2290
EXP: 7512679
For next: 244288

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#15 Posted on 7.2.05 1731.24
Reposted on: 7.2.12 1731.25
This might be why the NAB is starting to grumble a bit.

Lawmakers See Indecency Bill Moving Quickly

I can't really express how wrong I think all of this is without going into some kind of rant. It's just utter nonesense.

Okay, maybe I can....


ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Carly Fiorina ousted at HP
Next thread: Author: Bush 41 = Deep Throat
Previous thread: WWE/Canadian Gov't Present Annoying PSAs
(410 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NAB head blasts back at FCCRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.195 seconds.