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.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Martin Says Family-Friendly Tiers Not Lily-White Enough”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
Comboman says:

Shed no tiers?

I don’t buy the “censorship” argument as the cause for un-tiering cable. The same thing is happening in Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060228.gtdigital28/BNStory/Technology/) where the “family friendly” lobby is not a consideration at all. The real reason is competition from satellite, telcos and the internet where customer can now buy individual channels and/or episodes. Cable companies must compete or become irrelevant.

Anonymous Coward says:

No Subject Given

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,

Oh, sure. I’ve got to block things that I’m forced to pay for, but don’t want in the first place.

mark says:

Re: Re: unwanted content

Its very simple: If there is a channel or twenty among the hundreds you’re forced to take with the package that DOES have what you want, you lock out those offensive channels. Its called parental control, even if you’re the one thats offended and don’t have kids. It’s worked for years just fine. Of course, if you’re really angry at the cable provider, do without, listen to the radio, or read. I’m just pessimistic enough to think if they set cable up with a price per channel scheme, after all is said and done, I’ll be paying as much or more than I did before, with fewer potential alternatives for distraction from my miserable existance. (Not really…I only watch the History Channel anyway)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: unwanted content

please don’t cut back the selection of channels in which is given to my TiVo for recording programs it thinks I may like. I have no clue what time or channel certain programs air on/at – and I like it this way because it makes things less complicated after a difficult day of work.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Faultless Parents?

What, do you want The State to raise your kid for you??

“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…”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No Subject Given

“I’ve got to block things that I’m forced to pay for, but don’t want in the first place.”

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.

Michal says:

Re: Re: No Subject Given

>> Remember, that you ordered a COMPLETE PACKAGE of channels, not just “one from this category” and “another from that category”.

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.

Professor HighBrow says:

Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given

>> Remember, that you ordered a COMPLETE PACKAGE of channels, not just “one from this category” and “another from that category”.

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

emichan says:

No Subject Given

I’ve never understood what decency activists are complaining about, unless they’re lying when they claim to be concerned solely about what children have access to. There ARE lots of ways for parents to protect their children from content they don’t want the kids to see. Ratings, for one, and of course, the now ubiquitous v-chips, as well as channel lock-out, and of course, gasp, no cable/TV. I had plenty of friends when I was growing up who didn’t have cable, or whose parents didn’t allow them to watch anything but the educational channels, and this was before the v-chip/ratings/etc. Unfortunately, I think most ardent decency activists are NOT only concerned with children being exposed to inappropriate content. I think many of them are concerned with ADULTS being exposed to certain kinds of content. It is a way to control people, to control modes of thought and expression that do not agree with their own. But isn’t being an adult all about making your own decisions, and being responsible for the consequences? These activists are just trying to make themselves feel important by injecting their views into everyone else’s living rooms.

googly_eyes says:

a wide swath

Carlo,

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 24×7? 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.

mrbonaparte says:

Re: a wide swath

3) Are you so full of free time that you can watch what your kids are doing 24×7? 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?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

No Subject Given

My Cable Company’s main facility is located right next to Spearmint Rhino (the Strip Club that they share the parking lot with), although the company does not provide the Playboy subscription channel because they choose to be “Family Friendly”.

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).

Emre says:

I don't want all this stuff on my internet either

So in this case, if you want tiered service from cable and satelite, can I please get internet service in which I don’t have to look through 1000 S&M sites because I looked up the word punishment to try to find a parenting site??? And I wanna pay less for it since I’m not using that part of the service… this is ridiculous… besides you wanted tv on your own terms… it’s call OnDemand service, Comcast pioneered this and soon everyone followed… beside… Programming choice should be left to parents and not the FCC or Big cable… Teach your kids some freaking morals and proper ideals… and quit buying them video games not intended for them… parents that sign up for the family tier and then turn around and buy gran theft auto for their kid are just plain ideots… learn how to parent befor you get pregnant…

Scooby Wilson says:

Re: Charge those who do not want "it".

ATTENTION ALL PARENTS:
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.

CableGuy says:

No Subject Given

I hope all you a la carte people know that you will pay more than those few channels are worth, probably close to what is paid for tiered programming. It is expensive for the filters to block certain channels on non-converter cable, or you could pay a bit more for the converter that allows the channels to be blocked without the extra equipment(which is the likely way as there is not enough room to put 20 or 30 filters at every house). You will most likely pay more towards the cable companies cost of the channels you want, as they will not be making the money for the bulk channels that are provided.

Leave a Reply to CableGuy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...