Interesting People mailing list archives
more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:12:34 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com> Date: April 24, 2007 5:46:52 PM EDT To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox comSubject: RE: [IP] more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV
Why all this effort for a la carte programming? There's this Internet thing and you just choose the video streams you want but I guess acknowledging that would require that the FCC admits that it is no longer hep.
We seem to be intent on going through the complex regulatory machinations to take a bad idea of having privileged service providers acting as gatekeepers and now micromanaging it rather than just severing the legacy link that ties bits to the particulars of the path.
But what does a la carte mean -- why stop at channels? That's a strange concept in its own right a channel is just another kind of content bundling. Why can't I just choose whatever packages I want from single shows to a season of a given sports league?
Why is the FCC redoubling its efforts to manage the most minute details of a marketplace? And now they want to offer us violence vouchers to control how much violence we see?
When does the whole idea of a Federal Speech Commission become sufficiently absurd for us to call the whole thing off?
-----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 16:42 To: ip () v2 listbox comSubject: [IP] more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV
Begin forwarded message: From: "Paul C. Lembesis" <lembesis () emerson-associates com> Date: April 24, 2007 1:08:59 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV for IP if appropriate: The report may be a way to encourage cable to adopt a la carte programming, but that would not mean anything for broadcast television. For broadcast, there is a real likelihood of either new legal regulation or new self-regulation of some kind to restrict violent programming. For any law, it will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible, to find a definition of "violence" that is sufficiently precise to pass constitutional review. However the courts are aware of the increasing violence in our culture and they may be favorably disposed to a new law. I think that broadcasters might be willing to adopt a voluntary code but for the fact that cable would not go along. Cable content has always been held to a lesser standard and cable companies will expect to continue to be held to a lesser standard by the courts. So it may be hard to find a compromise, leading to a long-drawn battle. Paul Lembesis On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:01 AM, David Farber wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com> > Date: April 24, 2007 7:23:19 AM EDT > To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, ip () v2 listbox com > Cc: lauren () vortex com > Subject: Re: [IP] FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and > basic cable TV > > [For IP, if worthy] >> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> >> Here we go. The FCC is about to release a report to Congress >> suggesting that lawmakers enact legislation controlling "violent >> content" -- not only on broadcast television but apparently on >> "basic cable" channels as well. >> >> See: http://tinyurl.com/267ea5 (Washington Post article) >> This is so far out from my understanding of both the limits of the
> FCC's power and that US law basically cannot regulate "violent > content" > that I thought there must be another aspect to the story. > > Aha! Page 2 of the article: > > "According to FCC sources, the report's recommendations include the> creation of an "a la carte" system that would allow consumers to buy
> only the cable channels they want -- a favorite plan of Martin's > that > is widely opposed by cable companies." > > THAT's what this is about - the "a la carte" cable-pricing issue. > The "violent content" posturing, and any proposals for new laws, are > just an excuse, in order to get to a "compromise" proposal of having > an "a la carte" cable-pricing system justified by saying consumers> need to able to choose not to have the violent "basic cable" channels.
> > No need to ask "who benefits?" - it'll be in the report. > > -- > Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com > Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ > Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV David Farber (Apr 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV David Farber (Apr 25)