FCC Indecency Rules Don't Apply to Satellite Radio 330
SirTwitchALot writes "The FCC has announced that Satellite radio services
do not have to comply with the same indecency requirements as traditional broadcasters. Apparently this decision was brought forth by the complaint of a traditional radio station owner, stating that the FCC needs to "level the playing field." Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services."
Level the playing field? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
If by "over-air media medium" you're including stuff like satellite radio, then no, apparently the FCC does not control that, as shown by this ruling.
If you're asking whether someone could hypothetically start broadcasting encrypted data in the radio band and require a black box to open it, well, that's kind of a moot question, because as far as I'm aware FCC regulations *DO* ban encrypted or "black box" communications on most of the public airwaves, so a radio station wouldn't be allowed to do this anyway.
Indecency? (Score:2, Interesting)
We may not censor anything for whatever reason, i though America had similar laws.
But now that i think of it, i remember all the "bleeps" in imported shows from America, i think indencency laws are oretty dumb, because who has the right to determine what is decent and what is not?
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this could be settled by opening a new market for television and radios where you have to call and pay a slight fee to activate the "uncensored" channels.
Or just turn on the V-chip (and put them in radios) and allow the conscious act of turning it off (and to protect kids have a PIN system like
The whole Janet Jackson debacle should have been left to the free market. MTV/NFL pissed off a whole boatload of people and that was their fault for not understanding their market. If people had to make decisions based on the history of broadcasters instead of using the FCC as a lobby against the entertainment industry, shows would lose viewers (instead they often create "grudge viewers" who watch just to get mad) and the markets would right the boat while viewers would be more intelligent with their watching habits.
The FCC should be for regulating signals and criminal activity. Subjectively "indecent" content should not be able to be punished in a pseudo-criminal manner by an organization that is not representational of their constituency.
Re:Level the playing field? (Score:2, Interesting)
The FCC wasn't set up to protect the interests of the media outlets. It was setup to protect everyone ELSE who might have interest in the use of broadcast spectrum.
Historically this meant being sure that no media outlet became a monopoly, and therefore smaller outlets would rail (rightly at the time) against the larger ones.
Now that the larger ones begin to feel threatened by a new technology they are converting the FCC into a protectionist organization for them at the expense of all.
Re:DUH (Score:5, Interesting)
Had the FCC actually decided that satellite radio had to be `decent', then this would not only put a stop to bad language on Comedy Central, but also to PPV porn on Direct TV or Dish Network, for example. Of course, it doesn't have to be just porn -- any show with nudity would be prohibited.
(It's odd how violence is ok, but the slightest view of a nipple and people go nuts.)
In any event, it's refreshing to see the FCC make a good decision once in a while.
Re:You PAY for satellite radio (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why MTV is so tame. MTV could allow uncensored rap/nudity/etc, but the advertisers are too conservative to alow such a thing. It's just capitalism at work.
just like TV (Score:2, Interesting)
Pablum... (Score:4, Interesting)
Childproofing is the task of running around your house to make it "safe" for an unmonitored child so they can't start fires, can get at poisons (which they will eat) and can break things.
This is what you get when people utterly refuse to raise their children. Parents today want the schools to do it for them. And, want the government to help. And anybody else they can get - as long as they are left out of the process. So, we end up with a society that has been "childproofed". That is really what we are talking about here, isn't it?
The side effect of this is until our society is completely childproofed, we have abberations where children are incompletely raised. The result of this is rampent welfare ("The government OWES me, man!"), theft ("I want, I want NOW!") and vandalism. So, shops put in expensive theft-prevention equipment and police end up dealing with 20-year-old children that never grew up.
How many older or adult children killed their parents this year? How many killed their parents before 1960? How about adjusting this as a percentage of the population and seeing if there is any growth? This is a sure sign of parental abdication.
A Good Decision? (Score:1, Interesting)
There should be a level playing field. Censor everything or censor nothing. It is ridiculous to distinguish between over the air and satellite radio. They are both using public airwaves.
Same goes for the recent VOIP rulings. Why tax the poor and give to the rich? Either tax phone calls or don't tax phone calls. If a business is viable it will succeed, if it isn't it deserves to fail.
The Government/FCC should stop playing favorites. There should be a level playing field. Let broadcasters and phone companies compete on equal terms.
So What's the Big Difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it mainly technology (satellite vs. land-based), or is it that one is pay-based, and the other is free? This is important.
If it turns out that pay-based is the criterion, then would we start to see some land-based broadcasting systems encrypting their signals and then charging a subscription fee, in order to skirt FCC rules? Or would we start to see the FCC clamp down on any free satellite-based broadcasting companies?
If it's technology-based, what's to stop the FCC (other than Congress) from saying later on, "You know what? We got the satellite stuff too. STFU Howard Stern."
Perfectly sensible (Score:4, Interesting)
A child can buy an AM/FM radio - there is no contract involved. That is the fundamental difference.
That is also true of TVs, but they're significantly more expensive, making it much more likely a parent would know if his child had a personal TV set.
TVs now must, because of type acceptance rules, have ratings enforcement mechanisms (the so-called "V" chip). The reason that the rules have not been loosened significantly is that those rules do not apply universally - TVs smaller than a certain size are exempt. If we *knew* that every TV had a parental control mechanism, then TV-MA programming *should* have no decency rules at all.
The first ammendment does not allow content based censorship unless it is the least intrusive means available to achieve the end of allowing parents to keep offensive programming away from their children. We are rapidly approaching the time when it won't be anymore. I'm looking forward to it.
And by the way, before anyone brings up Cable / Satellite TV channels... I believe that they actually do *not* have to abide by the same decency standards. I believe they do voluntarily (except for the premium tiers, of course, like HBO, Showtime, etc).
Wow...what a surprise! (Score:1, Interesting)
Didn't broadcast television try the same thing regarding cable television when it first came out?
We've seen it in various forms in lots of different industries. Especially recently. Go figure. And feel free to draw your own parallels.
And here's why the end is nigh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Our freedoms shouldn't be contingent on an ability to pay...
tune in, turn on, drop carrier (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course the FCC decree that their recent puritanical campaigns won't be prosecuted against satellite networks is, at face value, a win for freedom of expression. But how long before the FCC, its constituency consolidated literally beyond question behind biblical/corporate values, "changes its mind", to stop the "minority" from beaming "their" culture across "our" country? To keep this newly protected freedom, we must use it. We must reach out and connect with our neighbors, family, strangers. Help them find how liberating diversity of info and entertainment can be. They'll want it for themselves, use it for their own purposes. And we'll all get as many channels of diversified crap as we can possibly stand.
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly. The airwaves are public property. The idea is that one should be able to purchase a radio and access these public broadcasts without having to resort to extraordinary efforts to avoid (for example) profanity. In the "olden days" there was no way to go to 97.3FM from 100.7FM without passing by 99.1FM due to the nature of the analog tuning dial (and TV was similar). This being the case, it wasn't unreasonable to prohibit indecent content "in the clear". Since encryption and coding require an additional layer of intentional processing to render the content, the "inadvertent" argument is inapplicable.