Fight Government Censorship in Cable TV
I think all Americans should fight government censorship proposals for cable and satellite TV. Congress has no right telling Americans what they can and cannot see on paid television. Americans make the choice to actively pay for cable or satellite TV services. With today’s technology, one can easily get digital cable and use the cable box to block certain channels, certain ratings, etc.
John Rockefeller is pushing a bill that would allow the FCC to censor cable and satellite-based programming.
These ideas that are being pushed are, in my book, unamerican. Where do we draw the limit? What will be next to be censored?
People are turning to cable because of poor programs on broadcast and to have more of a choice of what they choose to watch. They can pay for certain channels or not. I doubt few Americans want government involved in their viewing choices. I posted the other day about trash TV, and I think we should try to get away from trash TV…especially on broadcast networks. But, the fact is- I want this to be voluntary. Better yet- I want Americans to choose NOT to watch these programs, and parents mainly to make sure their kids watch better programs and stay away from the trash that clutters so much of television. But, again- I do NOT want the government at all involved in any of this. I want freedom from government intervention into my television viewing. If the federal government gets involved in what a cable network can and cannot air- it’s obvious there’s no limit to what areas of life they can control.
Please contact your federal representative and tell them you oppose the congress from trying to censor cable and satellite television. Tell them that this should be a choice by the American people- if we don’t like it, we can switch the channel, use the V Chip technology or even the ratings lock outs built into nearly all digital cable boxes. Let’s stop the government from being even more involved in our private choices.
I should also mention here that I completely oppose the idea of an ala carte system where you pick only the channels you want and drop the ones you don’t. I don’t see how this model will work for consumers. Many consumer groups like this model, because they say they can get rid of certain channels that contain content they don’t want in their homes. Fortunately, the technology already allows for this. Use the V Chip that most of us have in our TV’s today or use the cable box to block the channels, put a password lock onto the thing- and bam- you’re done.
I haven’t seen any models of an ala carte system, but it makes no sense- it would raise prices, I’ve no doubt. A bundle is a much better option…maybe you don’t want all the channels you have, but bundling channels together in a package will be much cheaper for the consumer in general. Having a plan that would allow you to say- ‘I want Disney, USA Network, Bravo, MTV, and CSPAN is all great and good- but I can imagine this will kill cable companies in some regards, which means the prices for all of us will go up. I can’t imagine a scenario where someone says- I want the bundle I have now, all the channels you offer (which is what I currently have with my cable company), but I don’t want any increases. The lost money with the ala carte consumers would drive my prices up- also, it would drive the prices up for the ala carte folks as well. No doubt that the price for each channel will be raised in connection to the lost revenue that the system itself will cause.
I think too many people complain about TV, channels they don’t want, etc. yet refuse to do the simple thing- switch the channel, use the chip, use the box. If it’s a matter of money- they have to realize the ala carte idea will raise prices for everyone. I haven’t studied this issue, but it seems like a no-brainer to me…if you have all your customers in a bundled cable package, and then many move to ala carte where they pick and choose the channels or a tier of channels- they will expect to pay less…and they will…but that lost money has to be made up, of course, and it will be made up with those of us who want a bundle.
In the end, when it comes to government intervention- I say no thank you. Keep government out of what channel I can see and what I can see on that given channel at what time of day. The idea is nice- to “protect” children, but the government is also limiting my rights to watch what I want in the process. There are better, smarter ways- government intervention isn’t one of them.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on February 28, 2006 at 10:43 am, and is filed under Breaking News, Culture, Issues, Politics, Society, Television. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
about 7 years ago
Wow.. I’ve been reading yer site for about a month now, and I gotta say, I don’t agree with you too often… but this time, you got it 100% correct.
If I’m paying for something, I don’t want government intervention telling me what I can or can not listen to, or watch.
The V-chip is out there. When I subscribed to Sirius Radio a few months ago, one of the questiosn they asked me was whether I wanted to block the “adult” type channels, Stern, uncensored comedy bits and stuff like that. I like all that, but I liked the fact that the option was there. If I had kids, I probably wouldn’t let them listen to Stern, or other adult stuff similiar to that. Nice to know I had a choice.
Jeff
about 7 years ago
hey Josh, new poll: 72% of AMERICAN TROOPS think we should leave Iraq in within a year. Remember when I advocated for a withdrawal plan and you called me “radical?” Guess our own soldiers are radical now too huh.
Go ahead, squirm out of this one.
about 7 years ago
With the President handing over control to this countries most important ports to a nation with direct ties to global terrorism and 9/11, you rant about meaningless things like your hampster and now this?
I’m starting to think you are ignoring this fiasco.
President Bush has all but destroyed this countries security.
I say he needs to go, and FAST! Put someone who cares about the security of this country, and it’s people in charge. Things have got out of hand in the White House.
about 7 years ago
I forgot this was YOUR website Mark and I only need post things you find meaningful.
I’ve looked at the issue, and there’s nothing to it. The supposed problems that Coast Guard had with it don’t exist- they isolated one sentence of a much larger report in which the Coast Guard said that this poses no security risk. The company from UAE will not, in any way, control the security- this will still be left to the government agencies (coast guard, port authority, etc.) One of the top guys in this deal is an American who has dealt with security issues in this regard for years.
The port authority says there’s no security risk- that the company won’t be in charge of any aspect of security, etc.
This story has become a political issue thanks, mainly, to the media’s distortion of the facts involved. Bush is facing opposition on both sides- even some Republicans are claiming the coast guard nonsense, isolating a tiny part of the report to gain political points. Clearly, Bush has no interest in damaging natl security, and most people admit that he beat Kerry, in part, due to his solid convictions, even in the face of strong opposition such as in this case, on keeping America safe.
You’re in the same boat, in that he’s not handing over ANY security measures over to anyone but the govt agencies already doing the security. The port authority has said that nothing will change in this regard- I’ve seen many interviews with top level PA officials echoing this statement.
about 7 years ago
Have another sip of the Kool Aid man.
about 7 years ago
Who cares about who controls security. This only means that people won’t be able to get into the ports to do harm.
With a nation tied to 9/11 in control of these ports, there’s no telling what kind of materials they might let into the country. Security has no control over this.
And no, it has become a national story NOT because of the media, but because Bush has put the countries security at risk for a few dollars.
Even a good chunk of the Republican party can see the security threats in this.
I have lost all confidence in this administration. He invades a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and gives control of vital US ports to a country that did. It doesn’t make sense.
As per Bush’s “solid convictions”
It’s good to see them tossed out the window for a few campaign dollars.
about 7 years ago
The important point is that security WAS ALREADY BAD at our ports. Bush has done nothing to address the issue of bad port security. And now the Republicans will lose the only thing they have left: the appearance that they can do a better job at national security than Democrats. Once they lose that, it’s over for the Republican party.
about 7 years ago
“And no, it has become a national story NOT because of the media,
but because Bush has put the countries security at risk for a
few dollars.”
Funny, I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence of Bush getting any sort of kickbacks from this or making any money at all due to this deal.
about 7 years ago
Actually, according to the many port authority officers interviewed in the past 2 weeks, there have been siginificant changes in port security. The UAE company, as I said, will not deal with the security issues…those issues are dealt with the same way by the same people- the port authority.
There’s no evidence Bush has anything to gain from this and much to lose in poll numbers- he doesn’t seem to follow poll numbers or decide based on poll numbers. Many of those who came out against this, as I mentioned, incorrectly claimed the Coast Guard said this was a security risk- but as has been reported by many (including Rush yesterday and today)- this just isn’t what the CG said. The report said this was looked into and there’s not a security risk. The section was taken out of the whole text and out of context.
I’ll trust the military over a politician in regards to if something is or isn’t a threat.
And yes, Mark- we all know that the official Clinton policy of removing Hussein was evil and a bad idea and Hussein wasn’t a threat, and all the reports of meetings with top al qeada members before 9/11 means nothing. A man who set up terrorist training camps surely could never have been connected to 9/11. Then you say a nation who WAS connected (2 of the hijackers were from that nation, which doesn’t mean the nation was connected to 9/11- Hussein was obviously more connected with that logic)…on top of that, this company does NOT control the ports as you claim. It’s still in the same hands. The company offloads containers…they don’t control the port, what comes in and goes out, what’s checked and isn’t checked, etc.
about 7 years ago
Oh man, you have to get off of this Saddam has connections to al Queda thing. Not even this administration says that any more! Those reports have been debunked, it’s old news, no one is still making those arguments. Get over it and move on. We were hoodwinked. The sooner you admit that to yourself the better.
about 7 years ago
Oh, of course. When the al qaeda terrorist was injured in afghanistan and was given treatment in baghdad and he was living there when we went in, there’s no connection there. Never.
about 7 years ago
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040722.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
about 7 years ago
no links to al qaeda, no links to al qaeda, no links to al qaeda. (if we repeat it enough, it might come true).
about 7 years ago
Alright then Josh, explain why one nation with ties to terrorists gets invaded, and another nation with direct ties to 9/11 gets control of the ports.
And forget security. It’s not security that I’m worried about.
I could care less who gets into these ports to cause mischeif. Its what might get into the country having a terror supporting nation in charge that worries me.
I am shocked it does not worry you too.
about 7 years ago
The company won’t deal with the security, and you’re not concerned about the security aspects of it, but you’re concerned of what could get in with this company on charge? I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Nations change their ways…this nation has started helping in the war on terror. Same thing with Pakistan when they were forced into changing their ways to help us in defeating terrorism. That was obvious when Musharraf went from the fatigues to the business suits.
about 7 years ago
Nations change their ways? That is a rather narrow way of putting things to defend Bush’s retarded decision.
You mention Pakistan helping with the war on terror. Well, did you know that the majority of the Pakistani people don’t agree with their leader, and would strike the US if they had the chance?
Do you also realize that it’s not the UAE government running these ports? It’s a company from the UAE. There is no telling how many people they have working for them who would help their terrorist pals smuggle a nuclear weapon into the country.
Lord only know they control the gate inside now.
Your bias in this matter is startling.
I wonder what your view would be if it was Kerry giving up major ports to a terrorist country.
You would be on here ranting about how the Democrats are destroying this countries security until your fingers fell off.
Scary.
about 7 years ago
You’re putting words into my mouth. From what I’ve read- I see no problem with it. I would feel the same with any president/congressional leader, etc.
The company isn’t in charge of security, they’re not in charge of what does and doesn’t come in, what is and isn’t allowed, etc.
So, it’s not about this company allowing smuggled nukes in. They do NOT control what comes and doesn’t come in or the security aspects. The port authority still owns and oversees the port, period.
I don’t care what the Pakistani people want or don’t want…I do know their leader has been forced into coming in line, and he and his govt have done a lot to aid us in the war on terror. If Pakistan or other nations capture terrorists, they’re only going to turn them over or even worry about it if we’re allied with them. Same goes for nations like UAE.
The company in question IS owned by the nation itself. It’s a government owned company, not a private company.
about 7 years ago
[The company in question IS owned by the nation itself. It’s a government owned company, not a private company.]
-Like I said. That doesn’t matter. It’s the people that work for said company that could be the risk. THe last thing needed is for a terrorist to infiltrate the company and use one of these ports for the next attack on US soil.
[The company isn’t in charge of security, they’re not in charge of what does and doesn’t come in, what is and isn’t allowed, etc.]
-No Josh. You have it wrong. The majority of the security is done by the Port Terminal Operations team.
The Coast Guard have the right to search containers they deem suspicious, but the majority of the security with regards to incoming shipments is done by the company itself.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
Here is a pretty good link describing the security risks involved, as well as a background of the UAE. It is far from a bias article.
about 7 years ago
If Kerry had supported this during the election his campaign would have been over and Josh would have called Kerry “insane.”
One thing I’ve learned is that Josh is not loyal to a cause, he’s loyal to a man: George Bush. Whatever that man does, he will support. He is part of the republican base that will stay with them to the bitter end. I say fine, go down in flames with this disasterious administration.
about 7 years ago
haha… case in point. A new video shows that Bush was warned about a possible breach in the levees before Katrina hit. Then afterwards said “I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees.”
omg can it get ANY worse for this administration. only 3 more years of this crap.
about 7 years ago
Todd, you’re putting words in my mouth now. I don’t see a problem with it period. You can call me a liar all you want, but I’m fairly sure what I, MYSELF, believe.
I’m loyal to Bush? Hardly. From what I’ve seen of this issue, it’s not an issue. That’s based on the facts, not any sort of loyalty you think I might have.
Bush is now in charge of levees? You seem to think that ANYTHING that goes wrong you pin on Bush, and if something goes right, it had to have been someone else. You seem to be projecting your own feelings onto me.
Mark, your evidence that the company will be in charge of security is a quote from a competing firm that’s in the same business? That’s precious. No one said that port security in general was perfect. I surely never said that. I think it’s fairly pointless to check 40% or whatever the exact number is of containers for radiation. The radioactive container could very easily be in the majority of containers NOT screened. I think that port security needs to be completely overhauled with a system where ALL containers are checked for radiation and even more than that basic step. With the system in place now, which I personally think is a disaster waiting to happen, this new company causes no new security risks in my view…nothing over the already evident risks I think are inherent in the current system.
about 7 years ago
[Mark, your evidence that the company will be in charge of security is a quote from a competing firm that’s in the same business?]
-So you’re saying that the info is not true? If so, which part of it is not true, and please quote sources saying otherwise.
about 7 years ago
And I’m not sure what you mean by competing firm? I only posted a link to a news source. It’s not a port shipping/receiving firm…
about 7 years ago
As usual you are as perceptive as a log.
I didn’t say Bush was “in charge” of the levees. What I AM saying is that he LIED when he said “no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees” when he was warned about the levees days earlier!
I’m saying that Bush was lying when he said we were “fully prepared” to send troops in immediately after the hurricane when we all know it took days.
I’m saying he is not a leader. He asked no questions during that meeting. He’s not inquisitive. He’s not a good manager. I don’t even know what he’s good at at this point. I deal with this everyday in my work environment. If I’m ultimately resonsible for something (in his case, the FEMA response) I probe the issue from every angle so I have some confidence that there won’t be problems. He did none of that.