News
< FREED PEN USA HONORARY MEMBER ZOUHAIR YAHYAOUI DIES AT 36 | Main | House Reintroduces Freedom to Read Protection Act >
Congress Moves to Regulate Cable, Satellite
March 11, 2005
PEN USA is disturbed by the recent moves in Congress to extend the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) into cable and satellite television stations.
Story Continued...
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, and Representative Joe Baton (R-Texas) want to create a law that puts cable television under the same restrictions as network television.
Currently, FCC has no power to regulate cable and satellite stations, which do not use public airwaves and are subscriber-paid. According to an article by the Associated Press, about 85% of the roughly 108 million U.S. households with televisions subscribe to cable.
“I think we can put restrictions on cable, and I intend to tell them that,” Stevens was quoted as saying at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) annual state leadership conference. According to Stevens, cable is “worse, much worse” than network television, and recounted a moment when he was watching a show on cable and turned off his television in “disgust.”
Stevens is not the only one who would like cable and satellite television to be subject to the same regulations as network television; non-cable networks would like to level the playing field. The NAB points out that cable subscribers still recieve the non-cable networks through their cable connection, so why should cable television be judged differently? Andrew Levin, Executive VP of Clear Channel Communications says his company is concerned with the “growing disparity” between the content in shows on cable versus non-cable networks.
The law would force cable networks like FX and MTV to move their edgier programming to the late night or early morning hours. It would mean censorship of programs such as HBO’s The Sopranos, programs which thrive and depend on the freedom of expression cable television offers. Another way Stevens and Baton suggest to restrict cable is to the have the companies sell channels one by one instead of as a package, so a person can pick and chose which channels they want.
Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is against the proposal. He sees no reason to change the existing rules. The First Amendment will not permit restrictions on cable television, he says, because people have options to control what they see themselves.
Products such as the “v-chip” can prevent certain channels from coming through. People can also always opt to not pay for a cable subscription. The programming (which mostly comes from private facilities) does not enter anyone’s home unless it is not only requested, but paid for.
PEN USA believes the FCC already has enough clout to scare network radio and television stations into self-censorship. Already the exorbitant fines have dampened the level of discourse in this country, since anything that may offend even a few is often not aired on networks. (See Censorship on Television: When Crying “Indecency” Goes Too Far)To spread these restrictions to cable television and satellite television and radio is to put the entirety of the airways completely in control of the FCC and the easily offended few. It would be an affront to the First Amendment and the ideals of freedom of speech.
For more information:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7093351/
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14905