Now Hear This Electronic Newsletter, May 3, 2007 Posted by Bob at 05/03/07 10:31 AM

Channel Choice Could Provide a Consumer-Friendly Solution to Television Violence

Change the channel or turn off the television.

That’s the usual advice parents get from big media companies when they complain about the growing level of violence on television.

It’s frustrating for parents because there is a constant stream of extremely violent programming flowing into their homes over the airwaves and through the cable these days, and even the most vigilant parents don’t have time to constantly monitor what the kids are watching.

At the same time, it’s not fair – and probably not legal – for the government to order media companies to pull the plug on some of the most entertaining and critically-acclaimed programs on television because they contain graphic violence, such as The Sopranos.

Several years ago, Congress asked the Federal Communications Commission to study the problem of violence on television and come up with some possible solutions. Last week the FCC finally responded with a report and a handful of recommendations.

While we certainly don’t agree with everything in the FCC report on television violence, we do find one proposal especially intriguing – Channel Choice, also called “Cable a la Carte.”

Channel Choice means cable television consumers would be able to choose and buy only the individual channels they want to receive. That would be dramatically different from the current situation where consumers are forced to buy big bundles of channels – including many channels they might not want or ever watch – just to get the programs they want.

Channel Choice would put consumers firmly in charge of the programming flowing into their homes. Parents concerned about violent programming could buy only non-violent channels. An added benefit would be that parents would no longer have to pay to subsidize channels they find objectionable.

Similarly, all consumers would not have to pay to subsidize channels they don’t want or watch.

Gene Kimmelman, vice president for federal and international affairs at Consumers Union, sums it up nicely.

“Letting consumers, not Congress, the FCC or cable companies, decide which programming is right for their families is an appropriate, market-based response to growing concerns about violence and other objectionable programming on cable television," says Kimmelman. "Consumers should neither have to take extraordinary steps to block programming they don't watch and don't want to receive, nor pay for channels they find offensive or otherwise inappropriate."

Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Communications Workers of America, and Free Press have sent a letter to Congress urging legislators to take steps to give consumers the ability to pick and pay for only the channels they actually want to purchase.

The groups said the size of the bundle has contributed to skyrocketing cable prices, which have increased by 70 percent, nearly two and half times the rate of inflation, since Congress deregulated cable prices in 1996.

Channel Choice is preferable to other regulatory approaches suggested by the FCC, such as time-channeling, which face greater constitutional hurdles, require more government intervention and do less to empower consumers, the groups said.

By allowing consumers to vote with their wallets rather than forcing them to buy channels they never watch, the marketplace will respond by providing programming that is more diverse and of greater quality than the homogenized and repackaged programming forced on consumers today, the groups said.

You can learn more about Cable Choice by clicking here.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

NEW ON www.hearusnow.org

Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on www.hearusnow.org

Public Interest Groups Ask FCC to Stop Anti-Competitive Cell Phone Locking, Application Blocking by Wireless Industry

Consumer Groups Laud FCC's Channel Choice Recommendation, Urge Congress to Take Action

Consumer Groups Call for National Broadband Policy to Bring Universal, Affordable Internet Access to Everyone

NEW ON “NOW HEAR THIS”

Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on “Now Hear This”, our blog:

Media Consolidation Hearing Provides a Lesson in How Not to Cover the News

U.S. Falling Behind Further and Faster on Broadband

Now That You Mention It, We Do Charge Early Termination Penalties...

A Strange Way to Serve the Community

Vonage Patent Case Could Hurt Phone Competition

comments (3)

1 Posted by 208-339-5176 at 05/03/07 03:54 PM

Good read, keep up the good work. Iam ready for channel choice.
mike

2 Posted by bilbo1507 at 05/04/07 01:56 AM

What a bunch of whiners. Why does Consumer Reports always want more government intervention? How about laying off and letting the REAL market decide, a la libertarianism? Duh.

We already have market forces deciding what's on TV. Channels programmers strive to choose content they think people will watch, so their ratings stay good and their commercials get watched. Why does every "problem" need a government solution? I'm sick of the government telling people what to do; that's a big problem with our society. Shut up and change the channel. It works.

3 Posted by bilbo1507 at 05/04/07 02:01 AM

PS. I for one don't want some watered-down "family show" bull crap while I'm watching, for example, Stargate. It's violent, and it would be stupid without violence. I'm not saying I enjoy violence, but blowing sunshine up my ass about how nonviolent the world is does NOT make for good entertainment. I want to see the good guys earn their keep, not see it given to them in some fairy-tale world that only a child will believe. Adult programming for adults; child programming for children.

Maybe parents shouldn't let children watch television at all. Teach them to play chess, play basketball in the driveway, etc. TV will rot their brains. If you're letting your child watch TV you have bigger problems than what programming is available for them.