I'm a little afraid to upset the current balance. When it becomes increasingly clear that there is no difference between cable and broadcasting, I'm not sure if the government will loosen control over broadcasting or increase control over cable.

Sorry Xavier, but all I can think of is : good riddance. This is one of those rare things the left and the right in this country can agree on: we don't need our government to serve as a censor or nanny. There's an off button on the TV, V-chips, etc.

Does this mean NBC will replace the Today Show with Jenna Jameson Live!? Hardly. Broadcast networks would still be beholden to advertiser preferences.

Yep. I'd note that the bill that Stuart Benjamin mentions just passed the House - the one that increases fines for indecency, etc - passed by a margin of 391-22.

As much as the blogosphere huffs and puffs about indecency regulation, it seems to be VERY popular with the public. Even if the government can't regulate it, I doubt we're going to get a lot of "indecency" on broadcast TV any time soon.

(Oh, I would have loved to throw in some snark about some sitcom being so bad as to be "indecent", but I watch so few sitcoms any more that I can't even think of any!)

It can't happen too soon. I am so sick of all that blurring out on the Howard Stern show on E!. Seriously, anything that can get rid of the blurred dot on any station is a step towards a better America.

And what will happen to sports telecasts if the inadvertant f-bomb becomes a reason for a huge fine?

It can't happen too soon. I am so sick of all that blurring out on the Howard Stern show on E!. Seriously, anything that can get rid of the blurred dot on any station is a step towards a better America.

And what will happen to sports telecasts if the inadvertant f-bomb becomes a reason for a huge fine?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't want the FCC to engage in any censorship. That's why I'm afraid that the end result here will be more rather than less censorship. Unfortunately, you're wrong to think that this is something the left and the right can agree on. Censorship is extremely popular.

Xavier,
That's why I'm afraid that the end result here will be more rather than less censorship.

How you figure ? Odds are, the Supremes would rule for broadcasters.

Unfortunately, you're wrong to think that this is something the left and the right can agree on. Censorship is extremely popular.

I think censorship is more popular with the apolitical types than with those who would label themselves as being on the starboard or port side of politics.

Well, let me frame this a bit differently.
First let me say for those who don't know it, I earned my bread and milk (And a certain number of scars) as a broadcaster for around 15 years beginning in 1973, just after Nixon resigned.

I do not view restictions on broadcast media a free speech issue. Never have, doubt I ever will.

I made mention of this surrounding the case of one Howard Stern. Said Stern:

"This is not a surprise. This is a follow up to the McCarthy type "witch hunt" of the administration and the activities of this group of presidential appointees in the FCC, led by "Colin Powell Jr." and his band of players. They and others (a senator from Kansas City to a congresswoman from New Mexico) are expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and watch and how we should think about our lives. So this is not a surprise. It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S. It's hard to reconcile this with the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". I'm sure what's next is the removal of "dirty pictures" like the 20th century German exhibit in a New York City Museum and the erotic literature in our libraries; they too will fall into their category of "evil" as well.---Howard Stern, April 8th 2004

Even opponants of the FCC's have written me, following a write-up I did on that one, suggsting that Stern's over the top comments were sent just to elicit a response form his listeners, the vast majority of which wouldn't be able to agrgue a free speech case properly if their lives depended on it. IN atht write-up, I said:

-1-

Stern old sod, this isn't a free speech case. Should I sue Clear Channel because they won't hire me, and that thereby they're infinging on my right to free speech? If that argument won't fly, how can yours?

Granted that free speech is in fact part of the constitution. That's not the issue at hand here, however. What you're looking for is not free speech, but a guaranteed audience, which the constitution does not provide for, particularly in a publicly owned venue, which the EM spectrum decidedly is.

You want to sell tapes of your show?
Great. Good luck to you.
Want to put it on satellite radio?
Yeah, that'll work.
Cable TV?
That works, too.
Caberet shows?
Great.
If nobody's stopping you from doing any of these... and they're not... then your free speech isn't being violated.

But radio, and it's cousin, broadcast TV are a different matter, for several reasons, not least of which being (the EM spectrums) are owned by ALL the people, not just those seeking your show. You knew that going in, and to bitch about it now is utter nonsense.

-0-

On that same basis, however, I hold in serious question any attempt by the FCC, or anyone else, to limit programming on privately held mediums such as the ones I mentioned... and I doubt any attempts to reach so far will ever come to fruition.

Bithead has it exactly right. Broadcasters do not have a vested right to the airwaves.

My understanding is that the basis for regulation is that the airwaves are owned collectively and held in trust by the government. So pure broadcasters are at the mercy of the FCC and Congress, they have no First Amendment right to broadcast what they want.

However, with cable coverage reaching 88% of the population we are rapidly approaching a point where the FCC will be irrelevant to television. If the major networks cannot reach an accommodation with the government over regulation I would not be surprised to see them begin to abandon broadcasting to become pure cable stations in the near future.

That enters into another level of argument altogether... that being the future of over-the-air video broadcasting. The bandwidth requirements, even fir the current NTSC scheme are causing many groups to lust after TV station's 'real estate'. You're quite right- ver the air TV is in it's sunset years.

I think you may be over-stating hte case of the FCC being 'irrelevant to television', going forward, however.

As usual, everyone misses the point about the Janet Jackson kerfuffle.

The outrage isn't that somebody showed a b00b on TV. To me the outrage is that CBS deliberately staged an R-rated show at a G-rated event. And they didn't do it for any real entertainment reasons, but only to give traditionalists like me the finger.

The efforts by the FCC and Congress to throw up roadblacks in the downward path some in the entertainment industry are determined to travel may be unavailing in the end. Frankly, though, I have some difficulty seeing these efforts to discourage changes seen as undesirable as "censorship" or anything like it. The assumption by the FCC's critics seems to be that the United States has long been a very oppressive place deeply and hypocritically hostile to free speech, also with not nearly enough sex on television. Small wonder that bloggers' criticism of the FCC and Congress mostly stays within the blogosphere.

"I think you may be over-stating hte case of the FCC being 'irrelevant to television', going forward, however."

Maybe so, I'm sure the FCC will fight like mad to retain its power. But, AFAIK, the constitutional basis for the FCC's TV regulating power would disapear if there was no broadcast TV.

"Frankly, though, I have some difficulty seeing these efforts to discourage changes seen as undesirable as "censorship" or anything like it."

To censor is "to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."

You may think it is good or you may think it is bad to regulate TV content. It is still censorship when you think the stuff should be censored.

Fine, George, fine. So what?

“You may think it is good or you may think it is bad to regulate TV content. It is still censorship when you think the stuff should be censored.”

Censorship is intrinsic in all societies---even the most libertarian. It’s only a matter of where one draws the line. A viable social order should demand that raunchy sexual material not be casually available. Children should not be able to access this sort of stuff during their routine day. An adult should have to go out of their way to find pornography.

Maybe so, I'm sure the FCC will fight like mad to retain its power. But, AFAIK, the constitutional basis for the FCC's TV regulating power would disapear if there was no broadcast TV.

Not so, for several reasons.

It's true that their ability to ban certain programming outright disappears. But the ability... indeed, the charge... springs from the lack of limitations to access.

There is much that the FCC does within the cable/Direct Satalite industry. It maintains jurisdiction over CATV as it would over any other common carrier. In fact this authority was established originally under the Telecommunications act of 1933, (in 1949) and has been reinforced since under the more recent re-write.

(Yes, I do mean 1949... the first cable TV system was developed in 1948, in Mahanoy City, PA, if I'm not much mistaken)

Most of the jurisdiction, though comes not from acts of Congress directly, but court rulings, based on the Tellecomm acts of 33 and (what was it, 98?)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=fcc+%22cable+TV%22