[IP] more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

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.com
Subject: 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.com
Subject: [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

>

>

> -------------------------------------------










-------------------------------------------






-------------------------------------------