You Can't See Tits On The Radio

[eggwards]

Congress wants to extend decency rules used on broadcast stations to cable, satellite and pay services. The current decency standards are related to the FCC being in charge of doling out areas of spectrum that broadcasters can use, and are given to broadcasters who will not charge the American people to receive their program.

On the flip side, pay services like cable and satellite television and radio are considered opt-in and it's harder to justify the ability to regulate and censor content. Of course, that's why racier programming, like HBO's shows, Nip/Tuck and even the soon to be Howard Stern Show on Sirius, finds a niche.

Well, in league with the current administration's appointees, the Congress is wishing to extend the FCC rules to Cable and Satellite, because we need more bureaucracy, and people cannot be able to think for themselves, for they will see and hear things that the people in powers see as "indecent". Obviously they can't find the clicker, the "off" button, the power cord, figure out the channel block, or the ability to walk away from a service that they pay for.

Because of innocent children, adults should not be allowed to find the programming they want, Apparently.

But wait, Congress has thought about giving you some choice. A suggestion from the Congress is to allow people to choose channels a la carte. Well, the Cable and Satellite Industry isn't too crazy about that because some offerings that you might currently get might not find enough buyers to keep justifying carriage. Really, who's watching C-Span, anyway?

Still, there's opposition to this plan from a seemingly surprising source, yep, those very Christian Broadcasters that would want to keep you from watching Skinemax and LOGO. Suddenly they realized that people could choose not to receive their channels as well, lessening their potential reach.

I certainly could do with out the Purple-Hair Lady channel.

Comments

[aadroma.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but if you're PAYING for the services, there should be no reason that those should in turn be subject to censorship. Really, just what am I paying for, then?

I certainly could do with out the Purple-Hair Lady channel.

What channel is THAT?! :: laugh ::

[gullinbursti.livejournal.com]

You must never have come across TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) AKA The Jesus Channel, with the amazingly coiffed Jan Crouch:



Her hair proclaims her the Antichrist, in my opinion. It is generally a vaguely lavender color, and very very large...

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

These people are just as bad, or worse than Jim and Tammy Faye back in the 1980's. At least the Bakker's were somewhat entertaining, but they got caught and that was that. The Crouches are much more savvy and probably won't get caught for fleecing their flock.

I wonder where someone gets lavender hair color?

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've taken those out of my lineup, so I don't even see them when I flip through channels. It's not the shopping that's the problem, it's the horrible patter of the hosts trying to get you to buy.

[furfairy.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering where exactly in our constitution does it give the feds the right to do this. They've become too powerful.

[bigmacbear]

Exactly. "What part of 'Congress shall make no law' didn't you understand?"

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, Congress, through the FCC is charged with protecting America's interest in broadcast spectrum, as it's been decreed that spectrum belongs to all Americans. Unfortunately only a few companies own the majority of it.

That being said, Satellite services do use spectrum space to broadcast, but all of their services are opt-in, since you have to pay to receive content, unlike over the air broadcast television and radio. cable however, makes no actual broadcast, so I don't know how they can lay claim to their programming.

[nomadvak.livejournal.com]

I hate the blue hairs.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

The blue hairs that preach, or the ones that are suckered out of their life savings by these guys?

[cubziz.livejournal.com]

I agree... it's quite funny about how quickly they turned around when they realized their channels would be on the chopping block too.

Personally, I'm all for splitting up the channels. It just gets us one step closer to dedicated channels. "FriendsTV, friends ALL the time..."

The reason of why cable is now considered "fair game" for being controlled is that a majority of people now get their signals from cable instead of standard broadcasting and thanks to the FCC, it will be impossible starting in 2007 when the old frequencies go silent.

As such, Cable is the new "broadcast" medium.

Sadly, since there's little competition, it will stay that way.

HOWEVER... satellite providers are typically still viewed as opt-in and thus shouldn't even be caught in this latest round. One more reason to switch to satellite programming.

Let's just how the Religious Right keep their mitts away from the "Star Wars" satellite, lest "Oops... The DirecTV satellite just stopped responding. Gee. That sucks."

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Now if we only had an administration that would look into the finances of these evangelilst bozos. We haven't had a good Jim and Tammy Faye scandal in quite a while.

There is a wonder how many channels we can actually support, you know? There would be a lot of channels I've never watched on cable that I would be happy to ditch and save some money.

Indecency TV is a double-edged sword

[gmjambear]

In my opinion, shopping and religious programming are indecent. I doubt that there are enough people who would write to the FCC about that.

Re: Indecency TV is a double-edged sword

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Of course not. Still, is the use of the public airwaves to promote a particular religion actually and endorsement?