Martin Says Family-Friendly Tiers Not Lily-White Enough
from the warning-this-post-features-adult-content-and-strong-language dept
The FCC did a pretty remarkable turnaround last year on a la carte pricing of cable channels, suddenly deciding that it really wouldn't be prohibitively expensive for consumers. As we expected, the talk about a la carte has been little more than a tool with which to push cable operators to offer more "family-friendly" programming options, and it's worked. But apparently now FCC boss Kevin Martin thinks the so-called family tiers don't go far enough. While we pointed out several problems inherent in a cable company trying to determine a package of universally non-offensive programming -- while managing to make it attractive to customers -- implementing a la carte just to satisfy the puritans among us isn't the answer. Plenty of options exist to protect people's easily offended sensibilities, whether it's the V-Chip or other parental controls, or the ridiculously radical ideas of parents either paying more attention to what their kids watch, or -- gasp -- getting rid of the cable or TV altogether, if it's so offensive. Mixing morality with telecommunications regulation is a dangerous game, with the almost certain outcome of more inefficient marketplace, rather than encouraging competition, improving service and lowering prices.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shed no tiers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unwanted content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unwanted content
I tell the TiVo what programs I like and it does the rest - there should never be a need for me to know what channel number (or name for that matter) that said program airs on.
BTW, the TiVo also sometimes records programs for me that I don't like - so rather than complaining to "uh huh uh company", I don't watch those shows... and a moment later, I move on with my unaffected life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faultless Parents?
"parents either paying more attention to what their kids watch"
Oh, sure. I've got to block things that I'm forced to pay for, but don't want in the first place.
There are always going to be people that are offended by one thing or another, regardless of what programming is available. Parents have the V-chip, the PIN channel-block method, and the ability to GROUND THE KID FROM THE TV.
The rest of society should not be limited by a parent's lack of disciplinary control over the their own children. When I was growing up [I'm in my late 20's now] if your parent's did want you to be able to watch something, guess what??
They told you not to, and if you got caught the plug got pulled. Did you forget that your television has a plug?
A George Carlin quote sums this issue up perfectly (he was referring to radio media)
"Well pardon me Senator, but did you forget that there are two knobs on your radio? One changes the station and the the other one turns it off...
of course I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable with anything that has two KNOBS on it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faultless Parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Remember, that you ordered a COMPLETE PACKAGE of channels, not just "one from this category" and "another from that category".
You are the person who wants to be special by excluding certain channels from your personal line-up. So yes, yes I do believe that you should need to pay more for the ability to do that.
There are people who don't enjoy certain channels such as Home Shopping Network, UPN, Women's Network, Hallmark Channel, Disney....etc. But instead of bitching about having to pay for these channels, we either don't program then into our cable box's channel listings or just surf right past them when channel surfing... no complaints about that.
learn to accept that not everyone will agree with your way of thinking - and do please remember that your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
yeah, I didn't have a choice in the matter.
>> learn to accept that not everyone will agree with your way of thinking - and do please remember that your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking.
yeah, no shit, they should get their channels and I should get mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
yeah, I didn't have a choice in the matter.
>> learn to accept that not everyone will agree with your way of thinking - and do please remember that your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking.
yeah, no shit, they should get their channels and I should get mine.
Well Sire, I suppose the public should have to pay for a lead shield for you to place around your home so that no OFFENSIVE content on the electromagnetic spectrum can reach your home.
I'm not argueing that tiered cable sucks, because it does; however the point is:
No one is FORCING the content upon you.
You have "opted-in" and thereby have an assumed responsibility to decide what you and your family watch and don't watch.
If someone sent your kid a Hustler magazine through the mail, it would be their fault.
If you ordered one, then it is your responsibility if your kid finds it.
Clear enough logic for the "Censor Inside You?"
--Professor HighBrow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mulsim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mulsim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mulsim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a wide swath
You seem to take a pretty determined swipe at those of us who would like ala cart programming, ignoring some basic facts:
1) Not everyone has a TV with V-CHIP. I don't and I don't intend to buy a new TV soon. Why the heck should I - the one I have works just fine, thank you very much.
2) Not everyone enjoys paying $45+ for a host of content that they never watch. I have no use for ESPN (1 2 or 3 or 4 or 5), Cartoon Network, VH1, MTV, or the 12 home shopping network channels. I simply feel that it is a form of extortion to demand that I pay for something I never use.
3) Are you so full of free time that you can watch what your kids are doing 24x7? Do your kids NEVER go against what they are told? What about the teenagers in your house? Are they not the type that figures out how to reset passwords, or bypass content filters? What about single parents who can't possibly control what their children are doing when they are at work?
4) The cable company is getting $0 out of me right now. Wouldn't they like to be able to sell me *SOMETHING* rather than nothing? And no, I will not subscribe to their "Family Programming" tier, simply because I, not they, need to determine what is right for my family.
The technology exists; let the market decide if it will work. They are scared to offer this because of the sheer fact that they know their pricing structure is bloated, over valued, and there are few options for consumers. The minute some consumers are given a choice, the bubble will pop. HOWEVER, I bet that they will pick up a whole host of other subscribers who, like me, would decide that I could do with 5 - 10 channels that I am willing to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a wide swath
Kids can always go over to their friends house. You can't protect kids 100% Just try and talk to them and teach them right from wrong instead of sitting them infront of the TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Thanks Adelphia, for insisting that for married men, strip clubs are much healthier than just watching it on television - at least in the eyes of the "Family Friendly" groups (just not wives).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't want all this stuff on my internet either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charge those who do not want "it".
Just because you don't want your kids watching a certain television program, doesn't mean that everyone else should also not watch that program.
ATTENTION ALL CABLE/SATELLITE PROVIDERS:
Put up ALL the channels you have available and implement a means at your customer's viewing location to disable these channels if they choose to do so.
Subscribers with boxes to get this option built into that box's software.
Basic/no box subscribers may call your service centers to have "said person's" account deny access to "said person's" request-to-block channels.
If the telephone companies can block certain telephone numbers from being dialed (976, 900...etc), then what is stopping cable television providers from doing the same thing... and if you want to charge an extra $1 for each blocked channel, let the people who are offended pay that extra $1... but please don't discipline those of us who could care less if something offensive flashes on out screen while channel-surfing your wonderful channel lineups.
...
bottom line; Let those who "don't want to have", pay for the channels they psychotically freak-out about having available to them... And let the rest of the community be proud of the huge lineup of channels they do have. And in return, you'll get less complaints asking for additional channels to be added to your lineup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't want all this stuff on my internet eit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I only want 2 channels for my "package". The SciFi Channel and the Playboy Channel, with access to VOD and Pay-Per-View offerings such as the Spice Channel. I shouldn't be forced to subscribe to 150+ channels and have to pay over $100 just for 2 channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]