FCC to Develop 'Super V Chip' To Screen All Content

An anonymous reader writes "The Senate Commerce Committee has stepped in and approved a legislation asking the Federal Communications Commission to 'oversee the development of a super V-chip that could screen content on everything from cell phones to the Internet.' Since the content viewed by children is no longer restricted to TV or radio Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., the sponsor of the Child Safe Viewing Act, feels that the new law is necessary. 'The bill requires the FCC to review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, TV makers are required to embed the V-chip within televisions to allow parents to block content according to a rating system.'"

V-chip doesn't *SCREEN* content

[b0s0z0ku]

Broadcasters and creators do. The v-chip just responds to rating data encoded in the signal and can block or allow showing depending on the parents' choices.

-b.

Parental Responsibility?

[j.sanchez1]

Does anyone not wonder what has happened to parental responsibility? I know what my kids watch on tv, movies they watch and what sites they visit on the internet, all without government intervention. This will just be another crutch for the negligent parents to use.

The same Mark Pryor...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

This is the same Mary Pryor who is cosponsoring the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act [slashdot.org].

Lost Cause

[Detritus]

Television and films have distribution networks that can be easily regulated and controlled. That model doesn't fit the Internet, where anyone can generate and distribute content. What are they going to do when vast numbers of people, many of whom are not US residents, refuse to "go with the program" and put rating tags on their work? Are they going to demand that Project Gutenberg apply ratings to all of the books that they distribute? What about audible.com?

Even if this becomes law, I can't imagine that it would survive its first challenge in a federal court.

Re:Censoring for Children is like...

[GreyPoopon]

True, but it is mandating (I think) that every adult has to pay for it, presumably in everything from computers to phones, which is still an issue. What's wrong with overseeing the development to make it available as an option to those who want it?

For television content, I suspect the cost is negligible. However, I would have no problem if it were just an available option that we have to pay a little extra for if we want it.
 

There's also the question of how they intend to implement a rating system for the Internet.

I wonder this myself, which is why I didn't really mention it. Probably the best way is to have one of the companies that provides URL filtering start providing a rating system for web sites that people can subscribe to if they want it. This one definitely needs to be an opt-in, though. I would imagine that maintaining a rating system for the internet wouldn't have a trivial cost associated with it, even with a large subscriber base.

Re:Why not...

[russ1337]

...work 10 hour/day jobs to afford their HD Cable with on-demand and HBO, 6MB DSL, 4 cell phones with unlimited texting with 2 year contracts, onstar GPS, the Wii, xbox 360, playstation III, netflix account, Tivo Account, gas, electricity, and food.

The latest Wired magazine has a breakdown of average US household expenses, (I tried to find it online but couldn't). Anyway, from the picture table it was pretty clear that more than two-thirds (~66%) of household expenses go to Telco's/Cable/Tv companies. It was a good prompt for me to revise what services I have vs what I actually need. We now have a pre-pay phone, dropped our DirecTv in favor of free-to-air (timeshifted fav shows with Mythtv) and 2-at-a-time-netflix, and reviewed our internet useage and plan (which didn't change). I'm aiming to drop the standard land-line and go for a VOIP service (Skype calling in) with Cellphone for 911 calls. Overall I think we're saving about $70/month and once the land-line is gone it will be $120/month for very little sacrifice. Ultimately freeing up money to do other things.

Ultimately there are less things for me to 'censor' cos we simply have less services. I agree that it should be the responsibility for the parents to manage what their children watch / are exposed to, and most providers (e.g directv) offer some form of parental control. If a service does not offer parental control (i.e a standard internet connection), then the parent needs to have a good long look at the service and whether it is appropriate for the child to have access to. if your kid 'has to have' a cellphone, there are plenty without data plans and no access to the internet, and for home based things there are third party solutions like net-nanny, or an Astaro gateway for the household.

Re:I dunno if this is Eugenics but...

[jcgf]

Well, truthfully from what I've seen children of "under performing" people are often the over achievers of the next generation.

Most of the children from under performing people I knew grew up to be losers just like their parents. Rags-to-riches stories just don't happen in my experience. I'm sure you can point to a few popular figures that made it despite loser parents, but those are the exceptions not the rule.

Re:Why not...

[MightyYar]

Four words, or does "noone" not count because it isn't a word? :)

NYC is not a pit - it is one of the best cities that I have ever lived in or visited. I'm only here temporarily, but I am really enjoying my stay. Incidentally, it is a great place to have a baby - no need for a car, everything you need is 2 blocks away... just don't ask what it all costs... I couldn't afford any of it if it weren't all subsidized by my wife's employer.

In any event, if all 22 million people in the NYC metro area moved somewhere cheaper, it would probably make that place a pit as well.

Re:Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, straight up day-care is spendy as fuck.