FCC Indecency Rules Don't Apply to Satellite Radio

SirTwitchALot writes "The FCC has announced that Satellite radio services do not have to comply with the same indecency requirements as traditional broadcasters. Apparently this decision was brought forth by the complaint of a traditional radio station owner, stating that the FCC needs to "level the playing field." Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services."

Comments

And

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does it cost that traditional station owner to be available in nearly every car and home in his area? That's what I thought.

Re:And

[gcaseye6677]

Exactly. If the dude wants a level playing field by applying the indecency standards, we would then have to continue making it level by requiring listeners to subscribe to his station. How many people would be willing to pay and how much revenue would he make compared to the traditional model of ad sales? Sounds like he either didn't think this one through or he was just hoping he could trick the FCC into giving broadcast radio an unfair advantage by placing unconstitutional speech restrictions on a private network.

Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Howard Stern can do what he wants. (WOOT NAKED LESBIAN STRIPPERS!!)

Re:Sweet

[KarmaMB84]

On the radio? That's sad.

Re:Sweet

[scmason]

I agree with the ruling, but that does not change the fact that Howard Stern is a disgusting pig.

Re:Sweet

[SydShamino]

Indeed, he is a disgusting pig, that, somehow, has turned out to be on my side of upcoming Freedom Wars.

It doesn't mean that I like him. It just means that he and I both understand: he has a right to exist, and I have a right to dislike him. And both of us will defend each other's rights, because if I let the (capital R) Right take him then I know I'll be next.

Re:Sweet

[sandman935]

Ya know... I never quite looked at Stern in this light.

You're right.

Thank you for listening . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

to WCOK, your 24 hour cock station. Cock in your ear, on Satellite, all the time!

~~~

"Privately owned"

[bagel2ooo]

Does FCC control content of any privately owned over-air media medium that requires a closed (black box) type of equipment to access it?

Re:"Privately owned"

[Monsieur Canard]

That's the gist of the argument. Any service which you have to invite into your home (in other words subscribe to) does not have to meet the same standards as any service which can be picked up accidently by a supposedly innocent bystander.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Anonymous Coward]

Does FCC control content of any privately owned over-air media medium that requires a closed (black box) type of equipment to access it?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

If by "over-air media medium" you're including stuff like satellite radio, then no, apparently the FCC does not control that, as shown by this ruling.

If you're asking whether someone could hypothetically start broadcasting encrypted data in the radio band and require a black box to open it, well, that's kind of a moot question, because as far as I'm aware FCC regulations *DO* ban encrypted or "black box" communications on most of the public airwaves, so a radio station wouldn't be allowed to do this anyway.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Jahf]

If I buy a television or radio, plug it in, turn it on and tune it in I am inviting the signal into my house.

Maybe this could be settled by opening a new market for television and radios where you have to call and pay a slight fee to activate the "uncensored" channels.

Or just turn on the V-chip (and put them in radios) and allow the conscious act of turning it off (and to protect kids have a PIN system like ... oh yeah ... the V-chip has) to be the acceptance of the purposefulness of my actions.

The whole Janet Jackson debacle should have been left to the free market. MTV/NFL pissed off a whole boatload of people and that was their fault for not understanding their market. If people had to make decisions based on the history of broadcasters instead of using the FCC as a lobby against the entertainment industry, shows would lose viewers (instead they often create "grudge viewers" who watch just to get mad) and the markets would right the boat while viewers would be more intelligent with their watching habits.

The FCC should be for regulating signals and criminal activity. Subjectively "indecent" content should not be able to be punished in a pseudo-criminal manner by an organization that is not representational of their constituency.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Martin Blank]

Maybe this could be settled by opening a new market for television and radios where you have to call and pay a slight fee to activate the "uncensored" channels.

They have this already. Perhaps you've heard of cable and satellite services?

On occasion, Comedy Central plays the South Park movie, uncut, including the Saddam/Satan bedroom scene and all of the swear words. The run this after 10pm just in case, but it's still there.

Of course, you can still occasionally see some nudity on PBS stations, though they get away with it because it's artful and tastefully done, and some of the darker TV shows on the main three after 10pm would push the lines a bit before the whole Super Bowl incident.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Monsieur Canard]

If I buy a television or radio, plug it in, turn it on and tune it in I am inviting the signal into my house.

But you're forgetting the "Won't somebody think of the children" rule. If I buy a TV just so I can watch Pat Robertson warn me about the evil that gays and *shudder* liberals pose to my existence, what's to prevent my theoretical 5-year old child from turning on the tube and being assaulted by some tripe-spewing volcano of depravity (or an NBA game) coming over the "free" airwaves.

And v-chips? Pshaw I say. I can barely be counted on to form my own opinion when it comes to presidential elections. How am I supposed to regulate what my children watch?

Re:"Privately owned"

[Anonymous Coward]

So only people who pay their monthly subscription fee can enjoy freedom of speech.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Gordonjcp]

The whole Janet Jackson debacle should have been left to the free market. MTV/NFL pissed off a whole boatload of people and that was their fault for not understanding their market.

No, MTV/NFL pissed off about three people, the rest were whipped up into a frenzy by the press. No-one really cared until the media told them they should.

Over here in the UK, more overt nudity is used to advertise kitchen appliances and motor oil.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Jahf]

Except I have to pay for those services ... I am talking about the current advertising-only supported media doing the same thing but providing the service for free (obviously they would do so with equipment that they can protect from something like my lovely TiVo).

I am not fishing for South Park movies or PBS tasteful nudes. If I want to see such things I'll find them online or at the video store.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Jahf]

Yeah, I know. Having travelled to Norway, the UK and Ireland I am familiar with how weird U.S. television policies have become.

Interestingly to me, while there was more sexuality on overseas there were less crime dramas and less violence overall in those areas. I know which of the two I would rather a developing mind see.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, lets get this straight. Satellite radio is every bit as much broadcast as any other radio, even more so. How do you think it allows you to get the same "station" whereever you are? However, it is encrypted, much like DirecTV, and that, coupled with the required decryption unit (which you get as a part of the subscription) is what separates it from the rest of the broadcasters. If a traditional broadcaster wanted to make his or her broadcast service "subscription based" and make it required that listeners "opt in" via a similar manner then I'm pretty sure it would pass the FCC muster.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Martin Blank]

What you were referring to are simply subscription services. XM and Sirius offer this for $10 a month or so. Cable and satellite are more expensive because they offer more channels over an expensive network (or at least that's what they claim). If you can come up with a way to offer similar services for $10 a month over the airwaves, I imagine it would probably do pretty well.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Ironsides]

you can still occasionally see some nudity on PBS stations, though they get away with it because it's artful and tastefully done
This is actually supposed to be blurred out prior to broadcast.

Re:"Privately owned"

[SonicBurst]

A few winters ago, my local PBS station (Mountain Lake PBS), was showing a documentary on birthing. Well, they got to the point where the focused the camera on the woman's crotch (not blurred out), and the transmitter hiccupped somehow, freezing the image perfectly centered on her nether region. This wasn't a problem at the studio, it was a problem at the transmitter/antenna site.

Well, they don't call this station Mountain Lake PBS for nothing. The transmitter is in a pretty remote location and could only be reached by snowmobile at this time of year. So, the image lasted quite a long time (12 hours, IIRC) before it got fixed. As silly as it sounds, the incident made national news. Just thought I'd share.

Re:"Privately owned"

[ATMAvatar]

"If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."
Jack Nicholson

Re:"Privately owned"

[Winkhorst]

None of this would be an issue if the current crop of Washington idiots would bother to read the constitution. I know, I know, most of them can't read--but they could get Condoleeza Rice to read it to them if they really cared....

Re:"Privately owned"

[Catbeller]

Arg. I proclaim there was no Janet Jackson debacle. There was a manufactured debacle on the sadly (now) right-wing cable news channels, right wing radio and most importantly a few "decency" (right wing churches SEE: southern, baptist, fundamentalist ) groups flooded the FCC with complaints. In 2003, 99.8 percent of the complaints come from the Parents Television Council. Here's a sample:

What Powell did not reveal--apparently because he was unaware--was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003--99.8 percent--were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.

Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints--aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS-- were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners' statements.)

A small fundamentalist group is, with Bush and Powell's avid help, bringing down a blanket of censorship on America.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Jahf]

I would counter with the fact that so few people being able to cause such a stink and so much monetary and social damage is a debacle.

I don't say that it was the fault of Jackson that it happened, but it was a debacle and it was attached to her name.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Dun Malg]

If I buy a television or radio, plug it in, turn it on and tune it in I am inviting the signal into my house.

Not exactly. The airwaves are public property. The idea is that one should be able to purchase a radio and access these public broadcasts without having to resort to extraordinary efforts to avoid (for example) profanity. In the "olden days" there was no way to go to 97.3FM from 100.7FM without passing by 99.1FM due to the nature of the analog tuning dial (and TV was similar). This being the case, it wasn't unreasonable to prohibit indecent content "in the clear". Since encryption and coding require an additional layer of intentional processing to render the content, the "inadvertent" argument is inapplicable.

Re:"Privately owned"

[KyleCordes]

There are certainly some smart folks at the FCC... perhaps they could up with a policies to throw away the top few sources of complaints (just as statisticians sometimes throw away a few outliers), and make decisions on what matters to pursue, based on what's left.

Re:"Privately owned"

[I(rispee_I(reme]

She seems to have misplaced the constitution mere hours before it became relevant.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Vombatus]

Over here in the UK, more overt nudity is used to advertise kitchen appliances and motor oil.

In the same ad?

Re:"Privately owned"

[iocat]

People who bitch about their children getting access to things which they should have prevented them getting access to (internet porn, bad tv, inappropriate videogames, guns, drugs) should immediately have their children taken away from them. They are unfit parents. If they want the government to be a giant nanny, they should cede all parental control to the government.

It's really not *that* hard to control a kid's access to media, it just takes a modicum of discipline on the part of the parent. (Speaking from experience as a parent with reasonably high standards about what constitutes acceptable viewing material.)

Re:"Privately owned"

[iocat]

It was kind of tacky though. I mean, I was interested to see the clips the next day, but the real crime wasn't that we saw her tit, it was just the whole horribleness of all pop-music Superbowl half-time shows. And like this old woman flashing her boob was kind of just a gross end point to a gross display. It never would have occured to me to complain (and I didn't), but I did find the entire slut-rock show distasteful.

I guess my point is that just because it was used by the Right Wing to clamp down on public expression doesn't mean that it wasn't also totally lame. Being oppressed doesn't make bad art good.

Re:"Privately owned"

[isdnip]

Indeed, this has been done. It's just not common any more, because cable and satellite are more effective ways of delivering "subscription TV".

Back in the 1970s, there were plenty of these channels, such as Wometco Home Theater, which was sometimes scrambled (subscription-only), and sometimes ran the Uncle Floyd Show (still a legend in New Jersey, where Floyd carries on on cable). You needed a special box, though there were a fair number of plans around to, uh, homebrew the decoder.

I never subscribed myself, and I don't know if they ran much pr0n or other controversial material, but I suspect the Supreme Court's rule against censoring non-broadcast (subscription) services would apply.

In fact, I suspect we'll see more of this, now that Digital TV is on the air. (Tuners are scarce, to be sure, but they exist and will come down in price.) DTV has a 20 Mbps bitstream, which is typically multiplexed into several separate program feeds. So there might be a 10 Mbps HDTV main feed and a half-dozen 1.5 Mbps secondary channels. Already there are companies renting out these secondary streams for subscription services, and over-the-air DTV decoders for these subscription channels. Since these are carrying the same program feeds as cable and satellite, they're not censored.

Re:"Privately owned"

[vettemph]

woman's crotch (not blurred out)

"Hey maw, TV must need a fixin, Pictures been fuzzy all day."

Re:"Privately owned"

[vettemph]

woman's crotch (not blurred out)

Steve: "Is Bush giving the State of the Union Address?"
John: "No, Thats some other pussy on TV right now!"

Re:"Privately owned"

[Catbeller]

Janet didn't look all that happy in that clip, and Timberlake also had the oh-go-what-happened look. Something went wrong, on his end or hers. I don't think it was supposed to happen as it did. What was planned, I don't know. They probably have been instructed to shut up by all involved. Perhaps someday one of them will breath a sigh of relief and tell us what the hell the problem was!

Re:"Privately owned"

[syynnapse]

Are you certain? I think nudity and the like are allowed on TV in educational/medical context.
i.e. MTV can show a doctor giving a breast exam, but not a girl showing her friend her new implants. (all in the same show, mind you)

Re:"Privately owned"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guys, a point here is being missed. This is a weak point of the MPAA AND the RIAA--indecency! This is how we the people can fight these monopolies. Look, a small church inspired pressure group has the whole industry running for cover. More than 90 percent of the complaint letters that regulatory bodies get come from just one pressure group. Well we Linux user can find common cause with the music downloaders and movie downloaders. You see, the music that we listen to and the moviss that we watch are just full of porn and violence. Now I know that most of us like a bit of this now and then, but we like our freedom and fair use a whole lot better. Now if we forego our tunes and movies for a while, say about a year or two or five, and complain about the RIAA's very poor quality products and the MPAA's especially poor offerings. And if we further complain on paper and constantly to the FCC, the Federal Trade Commision, the Homeland Security Department, and any other federal ministry that will listen about the constant bombardment of filth that we and our children suffer because of them. And if we constantly write our congressmen about the media monopoly as malefactors of great wealth who are corrupting our society and waging cultural and moral war on us and every thing that we have ever held dear. And if we get out to political meetings and lobby like we never lobbied before, and work with the church people as brothers in arms to defeat a hated enemy who would enslave us and turn our children into mindless automatons...... Think of the possibilities brothers!! Unite with these church people and together we can bend the winds of change our way and bring these media monopolies down like Theodore Roosevelt did 100 years ago.

Re:"Privately owned"

[databyss]

You could do that easily... Encrypt your broadcast signal and have the radio hardware decrypt them (do cell phones work similar to this?).

But you're range is much shorter in radio so you have a smaller pool of people to get money from.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Lehk228]

MTV is a cable channel, so they could show porn if they wanted to, but they would lose advertisers and go bankrupt if they tried as all of the local cable companies pulled MTV from their systems.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS.

I know LOTS of parents who got ticked off by that whole halftime show. I was watching it with my 12 year old son. Luckily, we decided halfway through the halftime show that our time was better spent taking out the garbage than watching it (his suggestion, not mine). We formed this opinion on our own before the media got involved.

The Super Bowl is one game where all the groups involved (NFL, broadcasters, advertisers, etc) can count on families, especially fathers/sons to be watching it together. They don't need to air that crap. They did and got called on it.

This is freedom of speech in action. They chose to use their freedom to air their version of halftime show, and millions of parents used their freedom of speech to protest it.

Re:"Privately owned"

[iamacat]

Speaking from experience as a parent with reasonably high standards about what constitutes acceptable viewing material.

Maybe you can explain to the rest of us what's so bad about a human body that your children would be harmed by some images of Janet Jackson? They didn't nurse with a blindfold after all. Or is it just a control thing?

Re:"Privately owned"

[SonicBurst]

Damn, too bad I posted here or you'd get a +1 funny...so would the "fuzzy" comment above. Heh.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Ironsides]

Ok, then would you please let them idiots know to support the 2nd amendment as well as the 1st? What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Re:"Privately owned"

[eam]

There's nothing wrong with images of the human body, but there might be something wrong with images of Janet Jackson. I saw it and I was disturbed, and I watched my wife's C-Section without being bothered.

Clothes on or clothes off, Janet Jackson is just wrong. Hell, she's disturbing when she's being interviewed on the radio.

Re:"Privately owned"

[Martin Blank]

In 2002, the Bush administration formally changed the stance of the United States government on the Second Amendment through words incorporated in filings to the Supreme Court on two gun control cases (both of which the Justices declined to hear). The stance is now that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a state right. According to the briefs:

"The current position of the United States is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms." That right, however, continued Olson is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." (Source)

Watch my feet you stupid horsemen!

[deadhammer]

Michael Powell making a sensible decision? Is the apocalypse nigh?

Re:Watch my feet you stupid horsemen!

[Rostin]

Doubtful. The more likely explanation is that zealous /. expectations of irrationality or stupidity have (once again) been stymied by reality.

Re:Watch my feet you stupid horsemen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that or his dad bitch-slapped him silly.

So why can't free media have freedom of expression

[expro]

Pay a premium to have a medium that is slightly freer, yet the medium itself is just as controlled and subvertible.

You PAY for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how they COULD apply. It's not public.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Sartak]

I pay for my cable every month. How come the FCC regulates my South Park, then?

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[ALpaca2500]

i don't think they do... Comedy Central can broadcast whatever the hell they want, e.g. the south park movie, in its entirety, uncensored...

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC killed Kenny!!! You Bastards!

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. If they didn't regulate it then South Park might broadcast an episode where they just said "shit" over and over and over...

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[MeanMF]

Did you catch this episode?

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Dr Reducto]

Cable can broadcast whatever they want. There was a Supreme Court Decision on it. From what I understand though, the reason why Cable channels don't just broadcast hardcore pornography is that they want to keep their advertisers.

This is why MTV is so tame. MTV could allow uncensored rap/nudity/etc, but the advertisers are too conservative to alow such a thing. It's just capitalism at work.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Hatta]

I don't see how they COULD apply. It's not public.

I don't see how the indecency rules could apply to any television or radio. Little thing called the first amendment.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

It kind of goes along with the general right to free speech that we all hold. You're free to say whatever you feel like, but your peers will judge you by what you say.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[servognome]

same reason SPAM is illegal.
Broadcast TV because it is free (as in beer) and is broadcast into your house without your consent then there is a certain level of control the FCC takes.
Cable can do whatever it wants because you have made an extra step of subscribing to the service, therefore you are actively consenting to reception of whatever material. However, Basic cable is neutered because it has to cater to advertisers.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Hatta]

I don't see anything about charging a fee in the first amendment. As long as tv's have off buttons, there's nothing to this argument. In fact, now that the v-chip is in every tv, it should be open season on every type of content imaginable.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[servognome]

I don't see anything about needing to be 18 to view pornography, nor is there anything about consent from the listening party (SPAM/Telemarketing) in the first amendment either.
By your logic if you want to have email or a telephone there's no arguement against SPAM or Telemarketing. In fact with caller ID and "SPAM Blockers" it should be open season.
Technically I should be able to broadcast on any frequency, and FCC limitation of that could be considered blocking my free speech. Society accepts certain levels of restriction on free speech, and we make compromises on how best to serve most of the diverse population.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[realdpk]

"By your logic if you want to have email or a telephone there's no arguement against SPAM or Telemarketing."

Broadcast is passive. Spam (please, it's not all uppercase) and telemarketing is active. They are not analogous.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[krbvroc1]

Cable can broadcast what it wants because it is not using the public airwaves / radio spectrum to transmit its content. Therefore the FCC would not have jurisdiction. However, satellite is broadcast through the air so this seems like a double standard. (What country has jurisdiction?) Like the article says, you could not subscribe to the service, but be provided a satellite receiver in a rental car and be 'subjected' to so-called indecent content.

The ruling seems inconsitant to me.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadcast TV because it is free (as in beer) and is broadcast into your house without your consent

Or you could turn off the damn set. Sheesh.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[servognome]

How is broadcasting more passve than Spam?
Telemarketing maybe, but the fact that it requires action by the listener doesn't dispute the fact that it is a restriction on the first amendment that we accept.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no.

Comedy Central has to follow the guidelines of any other basic cable network- IIRC there's no problem with stuff like "dick" and "titty" (when used in a nonsexual manner) but the "god" in "goddamn" gets bleeped just like on any other network.

I remember one time they decided to allow CC to run an episode of South Park without the word "shit" bleeped, and, of course, they ran with it... I believe by the end of the half-hour they had said it 150 times.

The FCC got something like 50,000 calls the next day.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[archivis]

Ultimately leading to the summoning of a shit demon.

Oh for a can of Lysol...

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[MtViewGuy]

MTV could allow uncensored rap/nudity/etc, but the advertisers are too conservative to alow such a thing. It's just capitalism at work.

You know, I wonder why some company has not seriously considered starting up a premium-subscription music video channel over satellite TV that has less censorship requirements than MTV. There are enough DirecTV and Dish Network users that such a thing is possible.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[realdpk]

Because spam requires storage on your computer/ISPs servers to operate, and telemarketing requires either your time or an answering machine to operate.

Broadcast television, when your TV is off, requires nothing of you.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Lehk228]

Time Warner Digital cable has a large number of uncensored music channels, no music videos just an audio stream with some background images and text for "now playing" but it is pretty cool.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[figgypower]

This should be flamebait... but I'll munch on it just a bit. The first amendment grants you freedom of speech and expression to the degree that it does not hurt and/or overstep the freedoms of another. I.e. slander. In theory, someone could accidentally come across content that goes against their views/religion/beliefs, when they have the right to have those views/religion/beliefs preserved.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[badfish99]

Here in the UK, my kids like to watch German MTV. It plays just the same crap American music, but the rude words don't get bleeped like they do on English MTV. I suppose the idea is that they are just gibberish anyway to the Germans.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[servognome]

Broadcast TV and radio require exclusive use of certain frequencies, which impacts other industries so it is not entirely passive either.
Back to my original point. The 1st amendment doesn't say freedom of speech unless inconvenient. We accept certain restrictions on speech "for a common good." We restrict access to pornography, restrict speech on account of safety(bomb threats, fire in a theater, etc), restrict campaign donations on account of "fairness", and restrict advertising on account of inconvenience.
Restricting broadcast TV and radio isn't a 100% fair, but it's done as a compromise, the networks have the ability to produce programming on cable that which could not be shown on the main network channels; and certain groups can have their "clean" TV.
Personally I think the networks wouldn't change their programming anyway because they are under advertising pressure and would police themselves.

Re:You PAY for satellite radio

[Verteiron]

This is true of Spanish TV in the USA as well. No language censorship at all.

Of course you have to want to watch the Spanish TV in the first place....

A sigh of relief ...

[dcarey]

Well good for them ... I can't imagine the backlash if they had tried to control subscription-based services like this.

I used to care about what happened on regular radio, whether it was begin censored, etc, but regular radio sucks so horribly bad I just don't give a [censored].

I joined XM and never looked back.

Re:A sigh of relief ...

[0x000000]

If they started controlling this as well, it would mean that i could not listen to Howard Stern anymore. Currently i listen to him on Krock in NJ, but i allready got my Sirius subscription.

Re:A sigh of relief ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Backlash? What backlash? No, you'd have the conservative nutcases jumping up and down, cheering. And that's about all you'd see.

And therein lies the problem. Those of us who favor free speech need to get as vocal as those who oppose it. Until that happens, we'll keep losing.

And you should care what happens to local radio, whether it sucks or not. Censorship is censorship, no matter who it affects. If you don't stand up for others when they're being repressed, who will be left to help when they come to repress you.

Re:A sigh of relief ...

[binaryspiral]

I with you 100% - I'm so sick of clearchannel rock, alternative, and all the other crap picked to air by a cash register.

I installed XM and never looked back. Heck, I don't think I remember what my FM presets are even set to anymore.

Re:A sigh of relief ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Clear Channel is part owner of XM, right? Not to knock XM, since I think it's great, but I just wanted to make sure you knew this.

Re:A sigh of relief ...

[Micropolis]

This is untrue they sold there shares of XM. Clear channel has no stake in XM. ZERO.

TV is subscription too

[DumbWhiteGuy777]

This makes me wonder why the FCC has such power over TV. Not that I liked seeing Janet Jackson's breast or anything...

Re:TV is subscription too

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah ... I've never gotten excited over synthetic android breasts either.

Re:TV is subscription too

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never gotten excited over synthetic android breasts either.

No, her brother's the android.

Re:TV is subscription too

[DJayC]

If the Janet Jackson incident would have been on HBO, or some other cable channel, it wouldn't have been a problem. That would be the equivalent of Sirius or XM. However, it happened on a network station, one that is freely available to anyone with a TV and an antenna (much like FM radio)... that's why the FCC was able to penalize the station/Janet.

Re:TV is subscription too

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains the how of the matter. That doesn't rationalize it.

Is it better that we teach people to be ashamed of the human body or is it better that we teach them to idolize the ritualized group violence of something like football?

Personally I say neither, but the FCC seems to go for both.

Re:TV is subscription too

[pdkrocul]

Because TV broadcasts over the "people's airwaves".
Cable TV subscribers often forget that many people in the US don't have cable, and rely on over the air broadcasts.
The FCC controls the process that TV stations follow to obtain a broascast license.
The bigger question is how did the FCC evolve from a technical organization to a decency enforcer?

Re:TV is subscription too

[Anonymous Coward]

no, no, he's not an android, he's an androgynoid.

Re:TV is subscription too

[0x000000]

They are not just censoring breasts, they are also censoring good movies. I'd rather have sex and love in a movie rather than all the violence that they have in movies these days.

Re:TV is subscription too

[Weeb]

No, TV is not subscription too. The broadcast networks can be picked up by anyone with a brain and a half-functioning set -- including children.

Premium cable services like Cinemax and HBO require considerable effort to procure, thus cursing and even softcore smut is permissable on these services. Just like satellite. If Satellite could be censored, you could say goodbye to The Sopranos' 2006 season, among many other shows with content and dialogue that might be "questionable." Hurrah for the FCC.

This time.

Re:TV is subscription too

[Chemical]

I'm pretty sure ALL cable is exempt from FCC censorship rules, since all cable channels are subscription, and are transmitted over private infrastructure. Case in point being uncensored movies they show on Comedy Central late at night. Most of the networks just censor themselves instead, for fear of scaring off advertisers. Since HBO doesn't have any advertisers to appease, they can say whatever the fuck they want, goddammit.

Re:TV is subscription too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have art that reflects life.

Re:TV is subscription too

[Rie Beam]

Well, keep in mind many people, especially in rural areas, still use antenneas to recieve their broadcasting - it sure isn't the best quality, but it's still open broadcasting nonetheless.

Re:TV is subscription too

[WillSpyForFood]

Not a Voyager fan, then? Oh, Seven of Nine, assimilate me!

Re:TV is subscription too

[ScrewMaster]

No, I'm not a Voyager fan, and that sucked because I've been a Star Trek fan since 1965. Never could handle Kate Mulgrew as a starship captain. Or a black Vulcan ... now, don't misunderstand me, I like Tim Russ and Tuvok's character was cool and I thought Russ handled the Vulcan psyche better than most who have played them ... but so far as I'm concerned Vulcans should be kinda greenish. And they should have put Neelix in a stasis chamber and left him there indefinitely (one more monologue about alien foodstuffs and I think I was going to be sick.) But I'm definitely a Jeri Ryan fan, synthetic or not.

Re:TV is subscription too

[elemental23]

And you call yourself a geek. For shame.

Re:TV is subscription too

[randomblast]

So, what are you saying? More fake sex, or more fake violence?

Re:TV is subscription too

[Anonymous Coward]

You just made Chi cry.

Re:TV is subscription too

[skavj_binsk]

Yeah ... I've never gotten excited over synthetic android breasts either.

You don't excite them much either, you fleshy meatbag!

Re:TV is subscription too

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that. A good over-the-air signal looks just as good, if not better than, a cable feed of the same station.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC rules that FCC rules do not apply to things outside of the FCC's domain.

Again.

I can't decide whether I find it comforting these kinds of rulings keep showing up so often or worrisome these kinds of rulings are even being CONSIDERED.

Re:So...

[ScrewMaster]

Well ... if there's one thing the private sector has finally figured out is that it can subve^H^H^H^H^Hinfluence government in ways that would have never been considered in previous eras. Rather than operate within the law and make a profit, adapting to changing market conditions when necessary, the modern approach is simply to have the law changed to prevent changing market conditions. That's what I find disturbing. At least here the FCC rejected a blatant attempt by a private organization to encourage the Federal bureacracy to take an anticompetitive stance. Good for them, this time, but next time 'round this will probably involve Congress and then what happens is anyone's guess.

Re:So...

[penguinoid]

I think that the only purpose of this ruling is so that they can tell people who are doing all they can to make television shows "clean and safe for children" to fuck the hell off because we have no right to control it. As for my own children, I would much rather them watching porn than some shows with violence, lies, greed, and just plain being nasty, for no reason at all. (I know that most of this is necessary for the plot, but sometimes it is just too much.)

One of the fow movies that actually made me feel sick was when a government guy walks into someone's house looking for a very bright autistic kid who managed to crack a government code that was put on a puzzles magazine as a test. He wanted to kill the kid because he was a threat to "national security". So the kids parents greet him and the wife offers him a cup of coffee. As she goes to get it, he just shoots her in the back, and then shoots her husband. This totally unnecessary killing just made me feel sick.

kind of funny

[anti11es]

Kind of funny (and rather sad) how instead of fighting the censorship they would rather just have everybody under the same censorship...yey everybody loses.

Re:kind of funny

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kind of funny (and rather sad) how instead of fighting the censorship they would rather just have everybody under the same censorship...yey everybody loses."

I always find it funny when liberals cast battles over business regulations as "us" against the big corporations. Existing companies don't care what regulations are imposed by the government as long as they are uniformly applied to what they view as their competition. If regulations increase costs, then they are just passed on to individuals. That is why having more regulations always benefit the larger corporations, since they are best able to spread the cost over the greater number of customers. Censorship too has its costs which are no less real than financial ones. As we see, larger companies now have a greater financial ability to risk fines, while smaller independent broadcasters will find themselves restraining any "risky" content thus finding themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

That wasn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's over-the-air broadcast TV (ie your local NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, WB, UPN, PBS, etc) and there's cable/etc. Janet Jackson's breast appeared on free, broadcast TV, not a subscription service.

Opie and Anthony

[fuctape]

O&A, on XM premium, is (or maybe eventually will be) the greatest radio show in history.

Re:Opie and Anthony

[christowang]

At least Conner Peterson thinks its great.

Re:Opie and Anthony

[fuctape]

Poor lil' Conner.

"Okay, terrific!"

Level the playing field?

[Faust7]

In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a "level playing field" in protecting the public interest.

Yes! Once the playing field is leveled, to the ground, charred, smoking, apocalyptic, barren of expression... the public interest will have been protected.

Re:Level the playing field?

[Jahf]

That is what happens with the FCC today. It is used -by- the people who it was originally created to defend -against-.

The FCC wasn't set up to protect the interests of the media outlets. It was setup to protect everyone ELSE who might have interest in the use of broadcast spectrum.

Historically this meant being sure that no media outlet became a monopoly, and therefore smaller outlets would rail (rightly at the time) against the larger ones.

Now that the larger ones begin to feel threatened by a new technology they are converting the FCC into a protectionist organization for them at the expense of all.

Re:Level the playing field?

[OMEGA Power]

Seeing as how Clear Channel owns a significant share of XM, I don't see them fighting for more regulation of satalite radio

Re:Level the playing field?

[FrankieShoelaces]

Clear Channed did own a significant share of XM in the past, but that is no longer the case. They now own less than 2% of XM stock, so they have very little say in how the company is managed.

As they have very little stake in the future of XM, they might fight for more regulation of satellite radio to protect their existing radio business.

Re:Level the playing field?

[bnenning]

That is what happens with the FCC today. It is used -by- the people who it was originally created to defend -against-.

Exactly. It's called regulatory capture.

Re:Level the playing field?

[espo812]

Now that the larger ones begin to feel threatened by a new technology they are converting the FCC into a protectionist organization for them at the expense of all.

Thus further demonstrating the foolishness of allowing the government to take more power to regulate things. Which part of the Constitution authorizes the creation of the FCC again?

Re:Level the playing field?

[Lehk228]

The "Interstate commerce" portion has been expanded to goatse like proportions and now includes "anything, ever, whenever"

DUH

[Lord Kano]

It's like Cable TV. They don't have to adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast stations. On comedy central they use language like "Pussy" and "Dick" sometimes, you're not likely to hear that on CBS any time soon.

LK

Re:DUH

[dougmc]

It's like Cable TV.

Well, a better analogy would be satellite TV. In fact, satellite TV would be just about a perfect analogy, in a world of flawed analogies. Cable TV doesn't involve radio waves broadcast through the air (it involves radio waves channeled through a cable.) The FCC regulates radio waves broadcast, so in theory they could go after satellite TV if they wanted to. But cable TV ought to be outside of their domain.

Had the FCC actually decided that satellite radio had to be `decent', then this would not only put a stop to bad language on Comedy Central, but also to PPV porn on Direct TV or Dish Network, for example. Of course, it doesn't have to be just porn -- any show with nudity would be prohibited.

(It's odd how violence is ok, but the slightest view of a nipple and people go nuts.)

In any event, it's refreshing to see the FCC make a good decision once in a while.

Re:DUH

[r00tdenied]

Seems like CBS has said a lot about Dick and Bush lately. SOMEONE CALL THE FCC!!!!111

Re:DUH

[Ellis D. Tripp]

"Cable TV doesn't involve radio waves broadcast through the air (it involves radio waves channeled through a cable.) The FCC regulates radio waves broadcast, so in theory they could go after satellite TV if they wanted to."

The signals only come over a cable for the last part of the delivery. With the exception of locally-originated programming (local news/public affairs channel, public access, etc.), all those cable channels (CNN, HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, etc.) get to your cable provider via SATELLITE. What do you think all those dishes at the local cable office are for?

Re:DUH

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you mentioned satellite TV I'll bring up an interesting fact, did you know that the privacy laws which protects what you buy on PPV from law enforcement DO NOT APPLY! Infact investigators found out that Scott Peterson had ordered pr0n the night lacy went missing. Surprisingly enough the hugeass budget bill Bush needs to sign includes language which will finally make PPV purchases private, so you can order Clifford's Big Movie without anyone mocking you, unless your wife walks in.

Level the playing field?

[NCraig]

What's next, NBC complaining about HBO? Too bad for Saul Levine that he didn't have Clear Channel on his side. I wonder if that would have given his claim any more weight.

If someone asks them

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they supposed to? Just ignore it? They have to say "No, that doesn't apply to us."

FCC does no such thing

[krem81]

Comedy Central regulates it.

Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency

[Jahf]

The basic summary of the decision is that because you pay for the service you are inviting the information in (ahhh, reminds me of "Lost Boys" :) and therefore anything "indecent" is your fault.

I think the whole state of affairs is flawed.

1) If I am a well-off under-18 I likely have access to some form of credit account (even if it is just my debit card attached to my allowance). I can subscribe to one of these services much easier than I can to a satellite TV service because I don't need to deal with an installer.

Is it likely? No, and even then most parents aren't going to care as much. Doesn't change the lack of validity in the presumption.

Plus it doesn't stop me from listening to the music / talk / whatever being played by my friends and simply put satellite radio is a lot more portable than the Playboy channel.

2) I can get access to whatever content I want on the Internet ... and by going to a library can do so for free. I can turn on the radio or TV today and still see stuff that is considered indecent by many yet not by me. By equating subscriptions with privacy, we are forced into a culture where to get information we want we have to pay for it. It is the "new" thing today but it will likely be standard tomorrow.

3) It should be up to the adult or a parent and no one else what is indecent. I personally would MUCH rather have a teenage boy listening to Howard Stern enact boyish fantasies than to have that same teenage boy listening to a radical fundamentalist preacher telling him his thoughts are evil (and I know that the reverse is true for many). I may not consider the preacher indecent (though it gets close sometimes), but that just highlights the point AFAIK.

Point is ... we shouldn't have to pay to get freedom of expression and we shouldn't have to be subject to what someone -else- considers decent/indecent.

Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree. Now we have to pay for freedom of access, By pandering to the possibility of children watching we do several things:

1. We abdicate responsibility for monitoring our children.
2. We force lowest common denominator television with messages dictated by arcane rules that allow exteme violence but nothing related to sexuality.
3. We fail the public interest and the ability to make television truly relevant.

Then again, I am all for revoking the public airwaves from broadcasters and renting it back to them in annual auctions.

Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency

[Otter]

This policy is what is known as a "compromise". Its purpose is not to make you personally 100% happy, nor is it designed to be fully resistant to any labored scenario, analogy or metaphor you might dream up. It's balancing the concerns of 300 million people, and seems to me to be a reasonable job of doing so.

Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency

[0x000000]

3 will fail, as most American parents (I am european), are unable to parent their kids. They are to busy doing other things. In europe we at least still have a sense of parenting.

Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency

[JamieF]

Thank you, Captain Overgeneralization. Your superhuman ability to lump 300 million individuals into a single category that you can then disparage really helps promote reasoned debate.

The world thanks you!

Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're at it, there is a book currently in wide circulation that I beleive must be censored! This book contains descriptions of violence, incest, homosexual rape, adultery, polygamy, even child murder. Obviously anybody reading this book would be inspired to go out and imitate those depraved acts, so it MUST be banned! I beleive the name of the book is "The Holy Bible."

Cheapest shot I've heard:

[harks]

"The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions," such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview." Oh come on. Rental car customers are such a small sample they shouldn't even be considered. Besides, what a company decides to give away to their customers shouldn't make the difference between government censorship of it or not.

Re:Cheapest shot I've heard:

[Just Some Guy]

More to the point, those drivers are not "people without subscriptions". They're renting a car from a company who has arranged for their use of a subscription service on their behalf.

In the same way, HBO is currently broadcast to millions of hotel guests who aren't directly subscribing to HBO, but who have access to that service due to arrangements that the hotel has made for them.

I guess that when you're getting desperate, every crackpot theory seems pretty reasonable.

Re:Cheapest shot I've heard:

[jimmyswimmy]

Even if you do consider the rental car companies, none of them rent to people under 18 nor do they allow drivers under 18. Which means that someone 18 or over must be in the car at all times when it's running, so this is not a good example.

As far as I know, U-haul is the only company that will rent to 18 year olds. All the other companies require you to be 25, unless your company has a contract with them.

I would say that is one piss-poor argument.

Re:Cheapest shot I've heard:

[Mousit]

It's off-topic, but just to mention:

The state of New York has a law stating the minimum age as 18, and is the only state in the U.S. where an 18-year-old can rent a car without some kind of contract or government license (government employees at 18 or older can rent a car in any state).

For everywhere else, the minimum age is actually 21 years old. Most rental companies enforce 25 because of the insurance premiums (25 is when the official "drop" is), but they don't have to. There are several companies that will rent to 21 and over. Enterprise Rent-a-Car comes to mind immediately, because they advertise that fact in many markets where it's appropriate (like here locally, where the Enterprise location is just a mile or two from a University). They simply charge extra (to cover the insurance premium) if you're under 25.

Re:Cheapest shot I've heard:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're point is irrelevant. Rental companies, hotels, etc. are still private enterprises that decide whether or not to offer such services. You still are not forced to utilize those private enterprises.

You may be indirectly subscribing when you go to a hotel or rent a car, but you are still subscribing by deciding to utilize the services of the company that does subscribe.

This "Think of the Children" type of attitude where everything is sterilized has got to stop for, get this, the sake of the children.

Sound crazy? How many high school and college students do you know that drink like crazy and behave in ways we all know they will regret for the rest of their lives? Maybe if they had seen the REAL world before they were thrust upon it they would be more prepared.

Viewing questionable content as a child in the presence of a parent is MUCH preferable to me. Though much more difficult and painful for the parent, the child benefits from the wisdom of the parent and in learning methods of how to deal with such subjects on an emotional AND moral level before they are on their own without the guidance of someone they look up to.

Obviously their are limits (Faces of Death for six year olds :) but we do not, and never will, live in a disney world.

Parents need to define the world that is, not show the world they would like to see.

Re:Cheapest shot I've heard:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're point is irrelevant. Rental companies, hotels, etc. are still private enterprises that decide whether or not to offer such services. You still are not forced to utilize those private enterprises.

Yes, that IS his point.

Re:slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, RTFA!!

Indecency?

[Handbrewer]

Isent indecency regulations unconstitutional? It sounds alot like censorship to me, something that is constitutionally banned in Denmark.
We may not censor anything for whatever reason, i though America had similar laws.
But now that i think of it, i remember all the "bleeps" in imported shows from America, i think indencency laws are oretty dumb, because who has the right to determine what is decent and what is not?

Re:Indecency?

[IO ERROR]

This is the United States, land of the fee and home of the censored.

Re:Indecency?

[teh*fink]

you've hit the nail on the head; that is the argument exactly. problem is, the people in power don't feel a need to change anything, because their idea of decency works for them and their constituents, free speech of whatever minorities be damned...

Re:Indecency?

[t_allardyce]

Sounds like censorship? It is censorship. And not only is it unconstitutional, its also totally pointless because a technological solution exists that would make both sides happy. I think its probably the case that the pro-censorship side not only wants censorship for themselves, but also wants to force it on everyone else because "no-one should be allowed to watch that filth" - sounds like facism? yep it is.

Re:Indecency?

[drooling-dog]

i though America had similar laws.

Well, it's true that we have a somewhat old, quaint document called a constitution, but the real beauty of it is that we can ignore it whenever the hell we please (particularly the first 10 amendments).

The Christian Bible works much the same way. Apparently there's a Republican version of it in which Jesus roams the countryside railing against homosexuals and defending the rich against the poor, but I haven't been able to find it in any bookstores yet.

Re:Indecency?

[Kiryat Malachi]

Technically, the US isn't censoring speech. Since the AM, FM, UHF, and VHF airwaves are owned by the US government (and leased back to stations), they have a right to determine how those airwaves are used - the rule is called 'public interest'. Legal precedent has determined that obscenity on the airwaves is not in the public interest ever, and indecency is not in the public interest between 10 PM and 6 AM (there is, in fact, a difference - legally - between obscenity and indecency).

Essentially, the government has said "A condition of your lease is that you follow these content rules on the air. If you don't, we can fine you or revoke your license." This is skirting one hell of a fine line towards censorship, and is definitely splitting hairs, but that's what law is about.

And to answer your question: who has a right to determine what is decent and what is not? It's called the Miller test, in the case of obscenity, and indecency is defined as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities (indecency is not as bad as obscenity)." These definitions were handed down by the Supreme Court, who have the right to determine how American law is interpreted.

The real issue is the phrase 'community standards', which in the age of the Internet has widely variable interpretation.

Essentially, this decision was pointing out that the reasons for the 'public interest' restriction on the airwaves (which is, essentially, the possibility of children being exposed to obscenity/indecency) do not apply to subscription over-the-air services.

Re:Indecency?

[10101001 10101001]

Technically, the US isn't censoring speech. Since the AM, FM, UHF, and VHF airwaves are owned by the US government (and leased back to stations), they have a right to determine how those airwaves are used - the rule is called 'public interest'.

The airwaves are fundamentally owned by everyone, which means everyone can use them. But, in the public interest, it was decided to regulate the air waves by selling them (who knows why voting wasn't suggested) in sections. Now, the FCC does limit what is said on said airwaves. The FCC is a part of the executive branch, which is funded by Congressional budgeting. The first amendment (which is only a reiteration of what is fundamentally true) states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Executive Branch can do near nothing without being directed by Congress, so it's very clear that Congress has made a law violating this amendment. The US government is of the people and by the people. And the people specifically stated in the Constitution that the government cannot abridge speech.

The fact is, the government doesn't really have a right to control who uses the airwaves because such is an abridgement of speech as well; can you imagine the US directing a group of people in a crowd to speak one at a time to avoid interference and actually jailing people for not going along with what they said? This is reality. If the people of the US wish to allow the government to regulate the airwaves in some constitutional fashion, they need to include an amendment. It's really that simple. Personally I'd go for voting for who gets what band every year. Finer grain splitting of frequencies would mean very quickly that everyone in the US could have their own channel if they want. And then you'd have something like the internet where it takes word of mouth to lead to gateways to other channels that interest you. Wouldn't that be a fine world?

Re:Indecency?

[Kiryat Malachi]

The airwaves are fundamentally owned by no one; the government owns them in the same sense that it owns all public property - it holds it in trust for the people. Note: there is so-called public property owned by private groups - this is not public property, as the owner can at any time rescind the right of the public to use it.

Why wasn't voting suggested? Because we are a goddamn republic, not a democracy, and the people vote on representatives, not on direct issues (with the limited exception of ballot initiatives). And because the FCC decided that the best way to serve the public interest was to *lease* those airwaves; leasing them for money is a more recent invention of the free-market crowd. (and yes, they are leased - the government can revoke the lease if conditions of the lease aren't fulfilled).

The first amendment is limited; you can't shout fire in a theater, you can't incite riots, you can't incite violence against the President. All of these are limits that were placed by interpretation via the courts.

Right to freedom of speech does not imply a right to access, which is the fallacy in your entire argument. The government can limit access to public resources; the airwaves are one of them.

Can I imagine the US directing a group of people in a crowd to speak one at a time to avoid interference and jailing people for not going along with it? Yes, I can. I can certainly imagine them jailing people for place and manner of speech (yelling fire, noise violations, etc.), which is the issue here.

As to your 'finer-grained splitting of frequencies' - you are an idiot, and obviously not an RF engineer. Spectrum is a limited resource, and there is definitely not enough space for 265 million *useful* transmission channels, especially given that different frequencies are useful for different things.

You wouldn't get the internet; you'd get something more like, oh, Hyde Park. Lots of people shouting at the same time so no one can hear what anyone is saying. So no, it wouldn't be a fine world.

Re:Indecency?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like facism? yep it is.

I never realized that fascism was all about nudity and cursing.

Re:Indecency?

[t_allardyce]

Well one of its incarnations is about wearing grey and shouting "Hail Hitler" which im guessing is the oposite of being nude and saying what you like?

Free market regulates it

[Anonymous Coward]

Comedy Central needs these things called advertisers. They can't do anything too offensive for fear of scaring away viewers and thus the advertisers. They do show several movies completly uncut late at night.

Re:Free market regulates it

[penguinoid]

They can't do anything too offensive for fear of scaring away viewers and thus the advertisers.

Don't you mean the exact opposite? Viewers are not scared of pornography; however, quite a few advertizers would most definately not want to associate their company with some sleezy show. "We now take a break from 'Make fuck, not war' to listen to our sponsors, the Toys R Us store" just doesn't work. Although I am sure there are some companies that wouldn't mind quite so much, I really think that the problem would be not to scare away advertizers, not viewers.

Re:Free market regulates it

[nwbvt]

Actually many people would protest should they air hardcore porn. They would then boycott the sponsors, which would be why the sponsors would have such a problem with it. So no, he got it right. Sponsors are cautious because pissed off viewers would hurt business.

Re:Free market regulates it

[TomServo]

Given the recent article on the source of most complaints, it appears more that a very vocal minority would threaten to boycott. Until the majority starts sending letters saying "Thanks for sponsoring this show that's not full of annoying bleeps!", companies will continue to listen to organizations like the PTC.

Re:Free market regulates it

[nwbvt]

Well I don't know what article you are referring to, but just because those complaining makes up a minority doesn't mean the majority approve. Most likely they are a minority as well. The majority (or at least plurality) probably don't care.

What the sponors have to consider is whether or not the ads would piss off more potential customers than they would gain from the ad. They are not trying to make the viewing public happy, they are trying to do what is best for their company.

Re:slashdotted

[northcat]

No, the site is not slashdotted. The story is still the first one on the front page of /. . This is the lowest form of karma-whoring I have seen.

That guy that complained...

[NitroWolf]

That guy that complained needs to be taken out an beaten. Rental cars? Please... if the customers of rental cars don't like the service so much, and find it so obscene, then they don't rent from that rental company any more.

Listening to Satellite radio is a CHOICE. You can't "accidentally" listen to it. You have to actively and willfully make an attempt to listen to it, and thus the FCC has absolutely NO grounds to censor it.

That guy is just a chump and can't compete in the market place, so he wants big brother to step in and fight his battles for him. People like that need to be removed from the gene pool.

I'm so SICK AND TIRED of being told what I can and can't watch/hear by other people. I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation. /sigh

Re:That guy that complained...

[t_allardyce]

I don't think this guy is the problem, the FCC is there like it or not to regulate things, which is fair enough as long as they don't do stupid things. Unfortunately the FCC is staffed by total incompetent jack-offs who sit around all day smoking crack and fundamentalist Christians who are so offended by someone so much as saying crap that they would ultimately like the death penalty for swearing. Now you could say its damn lucky that these people were carefully 'put' out of harms way from any real government jobs, or you could argue that the FCC is way way too much power for them. Id go for the latter and recommend mass lay-offs and get some people in who actually have a clue. It might seem that the complainer is just another fundie' pissed off about people swearing, but I think (i hope, otherwise he is just a total dick wad) he was just trying to push his business interests - his logic being that if his radio station gets fined for the audio equivalent of Jacksons' nipple (not even both!) then why should satellite radio get off scot free, because that would create an unfair business advantage and lock him out of many shows. However, he probably realised that asking the FCC to just stop all censorship would be similar to asking the Saudi Royal family to grow up and stop cutting peoples limbs off like cavemen, so he figured why not go for the more likely option - cutting everyone's balls off - it seems that didn't quite work, which while being a good thing, is totally beside the point.

Re:That guy that complained...

[penguinoid]

People like that need to be removed from the gene pool.

Unfortunately, this won't help. Rather, memes like this need to be removed from the meme pool. I think that memes are hardere to kill than people, as it would require some sort of control over communication, or advertizements. Does anyone know how to kill a meme?

Re:That guy that complained...

[wandernotlost]

I'm so SICK AND TIRED of being told what I can and can't watch/hear by other people. I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation. /sigh

Uh, no need to start your own country. Just go to a country other than the US. When I was in Venezuela I saw the same show I had seen in the US (which was produced in the US) but it hadn't been edited and blurred to remove potentially arousing body parts (and boy, did I suffer some severe psychological damage from being exposed to those nipples). Most other countries that I've been to don't seem to have the same kind of puritanical restrictions on broadcast media that we do in the US.

Re:That guy that complained...

[wandernotlost]

You know, wandernotlost, things like this make me realize that what the ruling majority in America seems to want is not freedom, but more restrictions on what people can do. Don't you think it's funny, in a grotesque, sort of depressing way, that this country was founded with the aim of escaping a dictator who tried to impose religious control (among lots of other things) on people, yet now the government, with the support of about half the people, seeks to impose restrictions on people, those restrictions having a largely religious basis?

Re:That guy that complained...

[wandernotlost]

Why yes, I rather think it is.

Re:That guy that complained...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation.

There is.

Re:That guy that complained...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol
umm, nice thread...

Re:That guy that complained...

[El Cubano]

I'm so SICK AND TIRED of being told what I can and can't watch/hear by other people. I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation. /sigh

Thank you. I am a fundamentalist Christian (Baptist) Libertarian (who sometimes agrees with the Republicans). I have always held that people have a choice. Heck, it even says so in the Bible. GOD gave us choice for a reason.

Regardless, my beliefs are no excuse for me to forcibly impose my beliefs on others. I think that government should stay out of matters like these as much as possible. Since it should be a matter of personal choice, the way I "impose" my beliefs on others is by evangelising and telling people what I believe is right according to the Bible. If they don't want to listen, they can choose (there's that personal choice again) not to.

If I don't want my children to have access to Howard Stern, Playboy, or any other material that I consider objectionable, I am the one that makes sure that they don't have access. Remember, lots of conservatives don't like the prospect of the government "censoring" becuase not all of us have the same definition of objectionable content.

Re:That guy that complained...

[tepples]

Listening to Satellite radio is a CHOICE. You can't "accidentally" listen to it.

What about walking into a retail establishment that subscribes to satellite radio (retail edition) unbeknownst to you?

Re:That guy that complained...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

What about walking into a retail establishment that subscribes to satellite radio (retail edition) unbeknownst to you?

That person will just have to go on and be offended. Nobody cares. There's no fundamental right not to be offended in this country. We don't need to turn the country into a police state because somebody might be offended.

Re:That guy that complained...

[Dun Malg]

What about walking into a retail establishment that subscribes to satellite radio (retail edition) unbeknownst to you?

Being that a retail establishment is PRIVATE PROPERTY, they could be playing a "Butt Slammers IV" DVD on multiple video screens at full volume and there's not a fucking thing you or the FCC can do about it. The FCC doesn't guarantee that you won't hear anything offensive, ever.

Re:That guy that complained...

[JamieF]

Send your thank-you notes to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed for that one.

The idea of attacking separation of church and state, and particularly claiming that the Founding Fathers were fundie Christians and that the US is really a Christian theocracy that's gotten off track, has been most recently promoted by them. Facts that detract from that point of view (such as the fact that many of the founders were also Freemasons, which many fundies believe is a Satanic cult, and that separation of church and state is in the Constitution) are ignored.

Re:That guy that complained...

[JamieF]

>my beliefs are no excuse for me to forcibly impose my beliefs on others.
>I think that government should stay out of matters like these as much as possible.

So what do you do when public schools want to teach your children that a literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation is provably false, and that evolution and the big bang are how the universe actually began?

Do you put your kids in a private religious school? Do you support laws that place evolution on an equal footing with creation (or that outlaw the teaching of evolution)? What do you do about the taxes you pay that go to teaching something that may directly contradict your religious beliefs?

Re:That guy that complained...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, offensive material shouldn't exist? How is this any different than if the retail establishment had playboys out? Or adult movies? Or books?

Re:That guy that complained...

[lightknight]

Not pay taxes, but that's for many reasons.

I'm curious why in these discussions on slashdot, there's always a match between Christianity and Evolution, but none of the other religions. What does Judaism or Islam say on these matters?

And if you're going to teach kids Christianity and Evolution, why not teach them a few more? Throw in some eastern religions, make things interesting.

Re:That guy that complained...

[El Cubano]

So what do you do when public schools want to teach your children that a literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation is provably false, and that evolution and the big bang are how the universe actually began?

Any statement can be proven true or false with the appropriate assumptions. I can prove to you that $2 + 2 \neq 4$. That being said, it doesn't prevent schools teaching things that can't be proven as fact. Science is just the one area where it is most apparent.

Do you put your kids in a private religious school?

When my children are old enough, I intend to put them in private Christian school. However, it has more to do with the overall poor quality of public education than the specific things they teach. I can correct incorrect teaching on specific points at home. I cannot, however, completely compensate for a substandard educational system. If I tried to do that, I may as well homeschool my children. I would like to, but I don't have the time.

Do you support laws that place evolution on an equal footing with creation (or that outlaw the teaching of evolution)?

Of course, I don't support such laws. In fact, I am against any laws that dictate what must be taught or what cannot be taught. To limit education in such a way is to make it impotent. How else will children's minds grow?

I remember a while back (when I was in junior high) hearing about a law that was being proposed to require that government and civics classes could only teach about democracy. That, to me, is flat out ridiculous.

What do you do about the taxes you pay that go to teaching something that may directly contradict your religious beliefs?

Matthew 22:17-21, Mark 12:14-17, Luke 20:22-25, 1 Timothy 2:1-4, 2 Peter 2:9-10. Pay the taxes and pray for those in positions of authority.

Re:That guy that complained...

[seanadams.com]

Listening to Satellite radio is a CHOICE. You can't "accidentally" listen to it. You have to actively and willfully make an attempt to listen to it, and thus the FCC has absolutely NO grounds to censor it.

So your hearing goes up to the FM band but not quite into the 2.3 GHz range?

Re:That guy that complained...

[JamieF]

>In fact, I am against any laws that dictate what must be taught or what cannot be taught. To limit education in such a way is to make it impotent. How else will children's minds grow?

Well the problem comes down to time and money. How many alternative philosophies and religions does a school have time to teach?

>a law that was being proposed to require that government and civics classes could only teach about democracy.

That's hilarious, or maybe really sad.

>Pay the taxes and pray for those in positions of authority.

Hmm. Caesar claims to be a born again Christian. Why not ask him to just outlaw the teaching of evolution? It's one thing for Jesus to keep his disciples out of trouble with the Romans; I don't think that applies today.

Re:That guy that complained...

[BandwidthHog]

The FCC doesn't guarantee that you won't hear anything offensive, ever.

All in due time.

The general idea here

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the public airwaves are a special case among all forms of media because they are a publicly owned asset.

This is to say, the electromagnetic spectrum on which radio waves are broadcast is considered by the US government to not be owned by anyone. Rather it is owned by the public, as a whole. Because this makes things somewhat difficult to deal with, the public places regulation of this public resource in trust with the FCC.

The FCC is thus charged with managing this resource in the way that maximizes its good to the public. Part of this means balancing out contrasting desires within the public. For example, I want to watch porn. Many other people do not. Many people want to watch "Survivor". I do not. The FCC deals with this by trying to make a variety of viewing/listening options available to the public, and only trying to hold back these options when they cross some sort of line such that some portion of the populace could reasonably claim the presence of that option is actively detrimental to them-- the so-called "decency" standards.

The reason why the FCC has control over "decency" on the airwaves is not because the FCC has any kind of right to regulate "decency", but because radio and television stations are leasing their broadcast capabilities from the FCC and the FCC places certain requirements on its licensees. However nothing of the sort is happening in any of the cases you cite, nor in the case of satellite radio-- since these are consensual broadcasts in a private medium, not broadcasts beamed into your house whether you want it or not on a public medium-- so they are irrelevant to the question of decency on public radio.

Re:The general idea here

[Jahf]

(parent Anon:0 if you don't seem who I am replying to)

I understand the idea of public trust, I just don't see the system as working anymore.

Simply put there are alternative transmission methods now. I have no problem with the FCC managing the spectrum but the time when they could have any relevant effect on content is gone (very different from when there was no internet, no cellphones, no satellite media and so everyone watched or listened on public analog signals).

If the FCC's content decisions don't stop people from seeing what is subjectively considered "indecent" then all their decisions really end up doing is artificially propping up the pay-for services when the traditional media are restricted. Further they are then mandating that we pay for such services and providing a twisted idea that privacy allows indencency.

In the end I agree with the radio owners who say that the FCC should level the field since the FCC is the one making that field so unplayable. However I don't feel that the FCC should be restricting the pay-for services, rather they should -not- be restricting the others.

Otherwise under the guise of protecting a public asset they are in reality trying to legislate morality and in my final prediction destroying the value of that public asset.

Re:The general idea here

[William Tanksley]

You missed the point of the previous post. The purpose of the FCC is _not_ to "stop people from seeing what is subjectively considered indecent", but rather to manage a publicly owned good. As the manager acting for the owner, they have a right to veto anything they want, subject to the rules of the owner.

I don't agree with the FCC either, but your argument is entirely beside the point and wrong. Especially when you insist that the FCC should be able to control things it doesn't own, simply because it controls things that it DOES own.

-Billy

Re:The general idea here

[Jahf]

No, my argument is well within the point.

Why? Because the FCC is a government entity and was created to protect and serve the people.

I, and many people with the same opinions, am one of those people.

Then realize that you're talking about an organization that has moved from managing the technical usage of an assett used by non-governmental private companies to managing the content that is distributed over said asset.

In other words, the FCC is no longer acting in what I see as a proper method for a governmental entity, it is acting as a super corporation and improperly influencing the actions of the private market.

If you insist on not seeing it any other way, then consider this the voice of a shareholder (I pay taxes and vote) speaking out against company policies.

If you think the analogy is flawed ... I agree ... but it is not my fault that the FCC has tried to move into the realm of business controls.

Re:The general idea here

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put there are alternative transmission methods now.

Well then you should use them.

If the FCC's content decisions don't stop people from seeing what is subjectively considered "indecent" then all their decisions really end up doing is artificially propping up the pay-for services when the traditional media are restricted.

No, because the FCC's job is not to regulate expression. The FCC's job is to regulate one specific information channel. They do that.

The only reason why we need an FCC in the first place is because radio spectrum is a naturally limited resource. There's an upper bound on the number of people that can be transmitting FM radio in a given area at a given moment. The FCC exists to manage those limitations.

Resources like satellite broadcast or the internet are not naturally limited. Therefore the rationale for these resources to be regulated is not present; therefore these resources are not regulated. However, the existence of these non-limited information mediums does not change the fact that limited information mediums like FM radio are still limited. We can pack as many people onto the internet as we like but that does not remove the necessity of managing the limitations that the FM radio resource still possesses.

The point that you observe-- that the FCC's regulation of "decency" on the information channels it regulates have no effect on the availability of "indecent" materials in other media-- is neither hypocrisy nor a flaw. Rather it is exactly how the FCC is and always has been intended to work.

Further they are then mandating that we pay for such services and providing a twisted idea that privacy allows indencency.

The FCC is not mandating you pay for such services. The FCC is merely mandating that such services not take the form of broadcast media in a designated licensed spectrum band. One of the points in this case if you will read the article is that not everyone who uses satellite radio pays for it.

Re:The general idea here

[William Tanksley]

Why? Because the FCC is a government entity and was created to protect and serve the people.

This is where you miss the point. The FCC was not created to protect the people; it was created to fulfill a specific area of the law. The discussion we're having is regarding the publicly "owned" airwaves, the management of which is part of the FCC's mandate.

The owners of an asset have the absolute and uncontestable right to manage it as they see fit.

If you insist on not seeing it any other way,

I do; any other way to see it would be false and useless.

then consider this the voice of a shareholder (I pay taxes and vote) speaking out against company policies.

You don't have to use stockholder language to make sense. What you are is one of the owners of the airwaves, and I understand and respect that you disagree with the management (FCC). My point, and the previous poster's point, is that your disagreement doesn't give the management the right to manage OTHER companies as well. Nor, in fact, does it take away their right to manage what we own. Someone has to manage it!

The only way, the ONLY way to take back control from the tyranny of inoffensiveness is to turn the airwaves over to private property.

-Billy

Re:The general idea here

[Jahf]

The FCC is part of government, it inherits the responsibility of the government it belongs to and was created by.

You can not create a governmental institution and then have it go against the root purpose of the government (well, yes you can, but that doesn't make it correct or in our case constitutional).

As for making all airwaves private property, while I don't disagree with that idea (the FCC would still be needed to make sure frequencies don't stomp on each other and possible regulate monopolies though I dislike that), that doesn't address the niggling point on this thread.

Why? Because the satellite providers are still using regulated (and I believe most often leased) spectrum. The difference is in that they use a subscription model and/or proprietary equipment to get around being regulated. If it is purely because these services are on AM/FM/VHF/UHF/HDTV that would be different, but the way the decisions read it seems that if you encrypt and then require a subscription (one of the uses that has been discussed for the HDTV partial freqs has been for data services) then the FCC say "oh, ok".

The FCC isn't being clear about the who/what/why/how of content regulation. They are being just vague enough to make all of the satellite folks wonder if they will get yanked later.

Based on your "tyranny of inoffensiveness" comment I think we agree on the core principles of where the market should be allowed to go and this is rambling, so I'll drop it.

line 7

[dbcad7]

very well written ! fits right in, I find it kind of funny when this is pulled off well, such as this, however the copycats that will lamely attempt more spoofs such as this will of course make it annoying..

Explain Subcription....

[CoolSilver]

Satellite Radio you pay a monthly fee and is free from the FCC's censoring. My Cable Television is also paid per month. Is this not a subscription? The only difference is satellite radio owns all the stations they provide. They control 100% of the content. Cable television is individully owned and operated. The cable providers can not control what is shown on a specific channel other than not providing it or block it from viewers during certain times. I often wonder why is it such a big deal anymore. Society accepts a lot of behavior on television that is indecent. Indecent is an opinion of the viewer. If you don't like it, turn it off. I do.

Re:Explain Subcription....

[LupusUF]

" Satellite Radio you pay a monthly fee and is free from the FCC's censoring. My Cable Television is also paid per month. Is this not a subscription? The only difference is satellite radio owns all the stations they provide"

The FCC doesn't control cable TV, the FCC can regulate broadcast TV (NBC, CBC, ABC...). While your TV signal may come to you through a subscription service...the broadcast signals are also sent over the public airwaves where anyone with an antenna can get them. If comedy central wants to swear, or even show Janet Jackson's breasts, they can do it. Of course if they go too far they might loose advertisers due to protests and threats of boycotts, but they won't get fined.

But you don't have to pay

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling came because satellite radio is a subscription service-- not because satellite radio is a for-pay subscription service. The important act is the subscription, not the payment. In fact as noted in the article not everyone who has satellite radio pays for it.

Hey FCC, that's good but for an encore...

[Weaselmancer]

...how about laying off cable TV? I've never understood why the Comedy Channel has to edit their damn movies. They're not broadcast transmissions. You have to pay to get them, you can't stick a coathanger antenna out your window and receive them - so what's the problem?

Re:Hey FCC, that's good but for an encore...

[Anonymous Coward]

ever watch it after 10pm? they've been airing movies uncut for a while now. one example being South Park.

as said above somewhere, it's the advertisers that are controlling the content on cable.

Re:Hey FCC, that's good but for an encore...

[dacarr]

It's not so much FCC, near as I can tell, more response to customers. This, despite the fact of double standards - they bleeped out the bleepables during the Friars' Club inductory roast of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner. Go fig.

Re:Hey FCC, that's good but for an encore...

[Mr2001]

It's not so much FCC, near as I can tell, more response to customers.

It's not the FCC at all. Cable channels aren't subject to FCC indecency rules. Comedy Central has shown the South Park movie uncut, as well as the South Park episode that says "shit" 100+ times, and lately they've been showing other uncut movies and stand-up specials during their "secret stash" in the middle of the night.

The only reason cable channels censor their content is to appease sponsors and viewers.

pornography and satellite TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I am completely broke so I certainly will not be buying a satellite dish for a long, long time, but recently I became curious about pornographic satellite TV in the US and Europe for some reason. I don't recall what sparked it, but I think I wanted to know if European pornography channels reached the US. I'll explain what I learned, although take this all with a grain of salt and double-check it.

There are two major types of satellite in the US. One is TVRO, or "BUD" which uses a large dish and receives mostly on the C band (although I believe it can do ku band) - it uses fairly open standards. The other is DBS (Direct Broadcast System) which uses a mini-dish and receives I believe exclusively on the Ku band - it uses very closed standards. Originally TVRO was more popular, but DBS has become more popular over the years. DirecTV, Echostar's DISH network and a new service called Voom are three American DBS companies.

Looking at broadcast maps, it occurred to me that signals seem to be confined to a continent. European porn channels are mostly confined to Europe, American porn channels are mostly confined to North America. I didn't see any satellite that spanned the Atlantic with its signal. Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah or Tennessee and the City of Cincinatti, Ohio have laws against the content of American porn satellite channels, so satellite companies won't sell to subscribers there (or will limit what they can get). Southern states legislatures probably have an effect on the rest of the country, European satellite TV can show a lot of content that American TV can not. But the adult content Americans can get from Europe is limited, if any, at least from what I could see - correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyhow, I'll look up some specifics about the various channels (like TEN, Playboy etc.) and post it as a reply to this message a little later.

Re:pornography and satellite TV

[HarveyBirdman]

A couple of the DirecTV pr0n channels- The Hot Network and Spice Platinum- show a lot of EU porn.

Re:pornography and satellite TV

[RTMFD]

It's amazing how someone (at least AFAICS) posessing this much technical knowledge, plus an ability to learn can be "broke." The economy isn't that bad...

Re:pornography and satellite TV

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm responding to my post as I said I'd do...

In the US, it looks like C-band is very dead for American broadcast porn, because everyone is focusing on DBS/mini-dish. For what exists on C-BAND, the Mototorola 4DTV receiver is needed for most of the reception.

For DBS, in the US, there is the Dish network and DirecTV. DISH broadcasts Playboy, Spice, several TEN channels, and the Private channel which is European, although I'm quite certain it is more toned down than some of the European channels. DirecTV has several Spice channels, Playboy, and some Hot channels. Spice Platinum and The Hot Network are blocked in Utah, Oklahoma etc., so those two channels show more, such as blowjobs or perhaps even anal sex.

Europe has two major satellite groups - Astra and Hotbird (Eutelsat II F1). Pornography is available there with almost no restrictions, aside from there being an age limit of 17, 18 or so for performers. Some countries like England try to ban some continental channels, but people can just take the Chunnel and buy a card in France so it doesn't do much.

Whatever the laws, US satellite can be received in Canada and vice versa. Canada has two mini-disk networks, Bell ExpressVu and StarChoice. ExpressVu broadcast very explicit stuff until 2001, until CBC did a show on how they showd bondage and CBC cancelled Extasy and True Blue, two of the more hardcore channels. ExpressVu has Playboy and a number of channels from Venus. Starchoice has Playboy and Hustler, which is probably the most explicit channel in Canada. A French porn channel, Canal Plaisir is in the works, probably for Starchoice.

I'm curious whether Astra or Hotbird are visible from North America. A look at the footprint of an explicit European channel like Extasi shows that 67 cm. dishes can pick it up in Europe, by the time it gets to Greenland or Pakistan, a 200cm dish is needed. It does seem that Extasi, which is on Hotbird, is visible from North America although I'm not sure how Northeast you have to be (I am in the Northeast of the US), and the dish would have to be larger than 200cm - quite large, if it even is visible. Even a mini-dish is out of my price range currently, so forget about a 300 cm. satellite dish.

Re:pornography and satellite TV

[Anonymous Coward]

But the grandparent's last trip to the casio was?

Re:pornography and satellite TV

[StikyPad]

I didn't see any satellite that spanned the Atlantic with its signal.

That's because, as was recently discovered, the earth is round. And as it turns out, there is not a large demand for satellite TV in the middle of the ocean. I'm fairly certain that the only network which targets the middle of oceans is AFN.

Re:my experience with linux guys

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a weak troll it hurts, "Cyndi".

Go back to your cave.

just like TV

[fractilian]

Its just like HBO on TV. You are payine for it so if you dont want "nauty content" don't buy it.

Re:just like TV

[Anonymous Coward]

> Its just like HBO on TV. You are payine for it so if you dont want "nauty content" don't buy it.

Webster:
Main Entry: naut
Function: abbreviation
nautical

Why would anyone be offended by nautical content?

I guess some people find it shocking to see seamen on their TVs.

Pablum...

[cdrguru]

A tasteless form of hot ceral. Also, used to refer to anything without form or substance that is foisted upon people.

Childproofing is the task of running around your house to make it "safe" for an unmonitored child so they can't start fires, can get at poisons (which they will eat) and can break things.

This is what you get when people utterly refuse to raise their children. Parents today want the schools to do it for them. And, want the government to help. And anybody else they can get - as long as they are left out of the process. So, we end up with a society that has been "childproofed". That is really what we are talking about here, isn't it?

The side effect of this is until our society is completely childproofed, we have abberations where children are incompletely raised. The result of this is rampent welfare ("The government OWES me, man!"), theft ("I want, I want NOW!") and vandalism. So, shops put in expensive theft-prevention equipment and police end up dealing with 20-year-old children that never grew up.

How many older or adult children killed their parents this year? How many killed their parents before 1960? How about adjusting this as a percentage of the population and seeing if there is any growth? This is a sure sign of parental abdication.

Re:Pablum...

[Anonymous Coward]

wah Wah wAh waH wah listen to my crackpot conservative theories, which have no basis except that I'm very angry.

Re:Pablum...

[phriedom]

Its a sure sign that our schools are failing when one can skip the data collection step and post a theory as scientific fact...and it gets modded up.

Why bother finding data to support the theory that parental-abdication is on the increase? We already have a fine conclusion.

Sponsors

[Anonymous Coward]

Comedy central does not get all of its money from cable subscribers (like HBO does), so it must get sponsorship. That means it must have shows that sponsors are willing to pay for. Since sponsors tend to get a bit gunshy around swearing and nudity, most cable stations have to avoid it.

Unfortunately, sponsor censorship is just a fact of life. If you want to pay for all of your own programming, subscribe to HBO (it's well worth it, IMHO), and get all the sex and swearing you can handle. If you want Proctor & Gamble to pay for your programming, you have to let them dictate what will not be part of it.

aQazaQA

Re:Sponsors

[Weaselmancer]

That makes perfect sense - thanks. I didn't know that when you buy advertising time you get to know beforehand exactly what will be in the show.

It's too bad they can't simply say "we're selling advertising time between 8pm and 9pm", but oh well - that's how the system is set up.

Re:Sponsors

[donutello]

Well, you don't really know EXACTLY what's going on. However, ads are usually sold for shows. So instead of selling advertising time between 8pm and 9pm, they sell advertising for "Friends" which is on between 8pm and 9pm. The more popular shows invite more ads while the less popular ones, i.e. the ones users don't watch as much and therefore don't see the commercials on end up being less in demand. That's what the operators use to determine which shows to keep on and which to axe.

So if Comedy Central has a propensity to show South Park with a lot of expletives, it's possible that advertisers will shirk away because they are afraid of offending their potential customers by sponsoring such a show.

However, I don't think that's the biggest determinant in this case. My guess is this has more to do with the cable company and satellite company. If Comedy Central starts broadcasting expletives during "kids viewing hours", it's likely that cable and satellite subscribers will ask their provider to take Comedy Central off or some such.

I do know that Comedy Central shows uncensored and uncut movies after midnight so it probably has more to do with it being in prime time than anything else.

Re:Sponsors

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the advertisers... It's the regional cable providers who must be appeased too.

And worse, every network is basically owned by one of a handful of corporations-- Viacom, Disney, Universal... And if, say, MTV draws fire for crossing the line then detractors are quick to point out they are owned by the sam,e parent company as Nickelodeon. We see this all too often when one of Disney's branches does something controversial (like Miramax...)

Re:I hope

[Concerned Onlooker]

I hope that they use this to keep the NIGGERS off the airwaves.

The above was modded -1 Troll. Interesting how the rants about freedom of expression only go so far, eh?

Re:slashdotted

[tomjen]

Or try http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/646eba25e2702099a 5deb8fda44bfd07/index.html
Sorry for the long URL

A Good Decision?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this such a good decision?

There should be a level playing field. Censor everything or censor nothing. It is ridiculous to distinguish between over the air and satellite radio. They are both using public airwaves.

Same goes for the recent VOIP rulings. Why tax the poor and give to the rich? Either tax phone calls or don't tax phone calls. If a business is viable it will succeed, if it isn't it deserves to fail.

The Government/FCC should stop playing favorites. There should be a level playing field. Let broadcasters and phone companies compete on equal terms.

Re:A Good Decision?

[DAldredge]

Most everyone making less than 20,000 per year can apply for a 'service' called lifeline that exempts them from paying the telephone taxes.

Re:A Good Decision?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't listen to DAldredge, he is a known liar. Fantasy and reality are the same thing to him.

Re:A Good Decision?

[mutterc]

The point is: Since everyone can get broadcast TV, people feel they have the right to complain about the content.

With cable TV / satellite radio etc., they are subscription services that you have to specifically ask for and pay for. Since they're subscription services, the provider invests in pretty-good infrastructure to block people who haven't paid from seeing it.

The logic is that on a subscription service, if you don't like the content / don't want it in your house, you can simply unsubscribe. Broadcast TV can't be "blocked" from your house (except by not allowing anyone in the house to have receivers :-)

WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[t_allardyce]

What a load of bullshit, this reminds me of the senator who after seeing the video of a marine shooting an injured insurgent in a mosque was outraged and said that embedded news teams should be banned! This is totally ridiculous - OF COURSE the playing field should be levelled, otherwise what is the fucking point of the FCC? The field should however (and this to me is like explaining that the earth goes around the sun) be levelled on the totally opposite direction - get rid of the bloody censorship altogether! WTF are these people smoking?

Now could someone please explain why a V-Chip like system (that either blocks out the audio/video when it gets the signal OR unblocks a scrambled audio/video when it gets the signal) has not been standardised to solve this stupid problem? All the FCC needs to do is find out how many people oppose censorship vs how many are in favour and then decide which system to use and therefore who has to buy new radios/tvs or adaptors if they want to take advantage of it, it really is that simple. Or just do what the rest of the world does and not get so anal about hearing people swear.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[HarveyBirdman]

otherwise what is the fucking point of the FCC?

Spectrum management. Period.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[t_allardyce]

I thought they also delt with anti-monopolisation of media and basic standards etc..?

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[akac]

And it looks like you're in the minority. The FCC DOES do what the majority of people want and the majority DON'T want Janet's breast on OTA broadcasts. The majority DO want censorship to that degree. Just because you feel the right to something doesn't make your opinion the majority opinion.

That's the problem. Too many here on SlashDot are self righteous idiots who think their opinion is the majority one because its obviously right. Well guess what - its not.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Lando]

You question why V-chip has not be standardized, however the V-chip has been required in all television systems sold(new) in the United States since January 1st, 2000.

Obligory wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Goo.cc]

Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. You should know that.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Dirtside]

Too many here on SlashDot are self righteous idiots who think their opinion is the majority one because its obviously right.

Guess what -- you just described about 98% of all the people who have ever lived. Including yourself. It's not a phenomenon confined to Slashdot. Go learn some history.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Dun Malg]

I thought they also delt with anti-monopolisation of media and basic standards etc..?

Spectrum management serves as monopoly regulation. It's pretty hard to buy another radio station if the FCC says you have enough already and won't grant the broadcast license transfer.

"Basic standards" regulation is premised upon the notion that the spectrum is public property and that while you may have an exclusive license to broadcast on a certain frequency, you can't say anything there that you can't say on a street corner without being "indecent". The FCC is about 60 years out of date, there.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[spectecjr]

And it looks like you're in the minority. The FCC DOES do what the majority of people want and the majority DON'T want Janet's breast on OTA broadcasts. The majority DO want censorship to that degree. Just because you feel the right to something doesn't make your opinion the majority opinion.

Incorrect. 98% of all complaints to the FCC come from ONE single lobbying organization.

That's not the majority. That's a lobbying group with an agenda they want to push.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[t_allardyce]

So because the majority want full censorship for themselves and they want to push it on everyone else when a technological solution clearly exists that would make everyone happy, that means the majority is clearly right does it? If everyone wants censorship then fine, but why not use the V-Chip or inverse-V-Chip?

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[t_allardyce]

In that case.. why on earth is full censorship still used? Kinda like mandating that all cars use unleaded petrol (ie NOTHING else is allowed what-so-ever) when hydrogen and electric cars already exist, but these cars must also have a petrol engine for some absurd reason...

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The source you quote is correct, but you're not. Just because 98% of the complaints came from one group DOES NOT mean that the majority wants to see Janet's breast. Your logic is flawed.

Sometimes the only ones speaking out are members of a small, but vocal, group. Why else do you think that gays get so MUCH attention when they are really a VERY SMALL minority?

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your wording is incorrect.

98% of all complaints to the FCC came THROUGH one organization. For the first time, an organization provided an easy way for the public to respond to the FCC. Each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual.

Thus, there were truly 240,000+ individual complaints submitted simply because technology allowed people to respond for themselves.

Gotta love this technology that allows people to get involved.

So what's your problem? You sound as if you actually want to CENSOR those people's right to freedom of speech.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[spectecjr]

The source you quote is correct, but you're not. Just because 98% of the complaints came from one group DOES NOT mean that the majority wants to see Janet's breast. Your logic is flawed.

My logic is not flawed at all. I've shown that the majority of people do NOT complain to the FCC about indecency - that is all.

The original poster claimed that the majority of people do NOT want to see things like that on television, and the FCC was following their orders. I've proven that this statement is nothing but pure unadulterated bullshit.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[spectecjr]

No, your wording is incorrect.

98% of all complaints to the FCC came THROUGH one organization. For the first time, an organization provided an easy way for the public to respond to the FCC. Each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual.

Thus, there were truly 240,000+ individual complaints submitted simply because technology allowed people to respond for themselves.

Gotta love this technology that allows people to get involved.

So what's your problem? You sound as if you actually want to CENSOR those people's right to freedom of speech.


No, I don't want to censor their right to freedom of speech. Similarly, I don't want them censoring anyone else's - which is what THEY are trying to do.

However, that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is that all we know is that those 240000 complaints were submitted to the FCC by the Parents Television Council - an activist group. We do NOT know that "each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual". If you would like to provide evidence that this was the case, please do so.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Yartrebo]

A single tankful of leaded petrol will ruin the catalytic converter.

Would you suggest making leaded petrol legal, but fining you $100 and revoking your registration until your emissions meet federal and local standards (which will require a new catalytic converter and cleaning the leaded fuel out of your gas tank). I guarantee you that if you put leaded petrol in a car that uses a catalytic converter, it will not meet emissions regulations by a long shot. Catalytic converters are the only practical way to get a gasoline car to meet emissions standards, and cities are polluted enough as it is, so no way you could relax those those standards.

Hydrogen and electric are allowed. It's only leaded petrol that specifically is disallowed, and there are substitutes for those with really old cars. The reason hydrogen and electric aren't popular is that they have some very major drawbacks, such as cost and convenience.

Censorship is a totally different story. There is a fundamental right to freedom of speech and noone has ever died from hearing a naughty word. People die by the tens of thousands from air pollution and there is no fundamental right to leaded petrol.

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[t_allardyce]

I think I confused you by using the word unleaded.. you kind of missed the entire point of my example - maybe I should have said its like mandating that all cars meet certain emissions standards, but then banning all petrol/diesel/every other fuel. - Why have a V-Chip if its useless because you can't say anything V-Chip'able? If TVs have V-Chips then why can't people swear on TV and let the V-Chips handle it? - (if its because the V-Chips don't actually work like that then thats pretty stupid because im straight out of university and I could design a suitable standard in a week).

Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid

[Scudsucker]

The source you quote is correct, but you're not. Just because 98% of the complaints came from one group DOES NOT mean that the majority wants to see Janet's breast. Your logic is flawed.

And your reasoning is bunk. Free speech is protecting UNPOPULAR speech, not POPULAR speech.

James Lileks on the subject

[Nova Express]

All I have are my pathetic attempts to draw a distinction between private and public - that is, Howard Stern saying those oh-so-naughty! words on the public airwaves vs. Stern saying what he wants on subscription radio, or Hustler Honey sex-shows in the Superbowl half-time vs. private rentals from the satellite hot-mama feeds. I suppose it comes down to this: you should have to seek these things out instead of having them come to you. Otherwise the coarsening of the public arena continues unabated, and the good & decent fathers who fought hard for Howard Stern's right to say shit - literally - find themselves without an argument when the billboard across from their kid's elementary school uses the same words. Today's crusading moderate is tomorrow's prude.

So What's the Big Difference?

[Esion Modnar]

I'm glad that the FCC won't be trying to extend their influence, but what is the basis of their decision?

Is it mainly technology (satellite vs. land-based), or is it that one is pay-based, and the other is free? This is important.

If it turns out that pay-based is the criterion, then would we start to see some land-based broadcasting systems encrypting their signals and then charging a subscription fee, in order to skirt FCC rules? Or would we start to see the FCC clamp down on any free satellite-based broadcasting companies?

If it's technology-based, what's to stop the FCC (other than Congress) from saying later on, "You know what? We got the satellite stuff too. STFU Howard Stern."

Re:So What's the Big Difference?

[drooling-dog]

I think at least part of the rationale is that a paid subscription service is considered more like a private communication between consenting parties, whereas an over-the-air broadcast is accessible to anybody.

Parent is TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling for all gays to be killed, supporting torture, describing members of various ethnic groups as subhuman etc=Tradtional family values
Sounds like classic Euro-Progressivivm
like your "National Socialism" the Germans and French were so fond of in mid 20th Century.
Doesn't sound like anything here in the land of the Free.

Perfectly sensible

[nsayer]

The big difference between terrestrial broadcasting and satellite radio is that the latter is not, in fact, "broadcasting." You have to pay to receive it. All of the arguments that have been posted have not taken this into account. Because it involves a contract, no minor can sign up for service on their own, so the whole idea of empowering parents to shield their children from naughty concepts, should they choose to, remains intact. And both services will, if you request it, block any channels you wish from your receiver.

A child can buy an AM/FM radio - there is no contract involved. That is the fundamental difference.

That is also true of TVs, but they're significantly more expensive, making it much more likely a parent would know if his child had a personal TV set.

TVs now must, because of type acceptance rules, have ratings enforcement mechanisms (the so-called "V" chip). The reason that the rules have not been loosened significantly is that those rules do not apply universally - TVs smaller than a certain size are exempt. If we *knew* that every TV had a parental control mechanism, then TV-MA programming *should* have no decency rules at all.

The first ammendment does not allow content based censorship unless it is the least intrusive means available to achieve the end of allowing parents to keep offensive programming away from their children. We are rapidly approaching the time when it won't be anymore. I'm looking forward to it.

And by the way, before anyone brings up Cable / Satellite TV channels... I believe that they actually do *not* have to abide by the same decency standards. I believe they do voluntarily (except for the premium tiers, of course, like HBO, Showtime, etc).

Re:Perfectly sensible

[Sloppy]

The big difference between terrestrial broadcasting and satellite radio is that the latter is not, in fact, "broadcasting." You have to pay to receive it.

No, you have to pay to make sense of it. You (and everybody else) still receive it for "free." There's a box up in the sky owned by someone else, spewing electromagnetic radiation into your home without your consent, and the spectrum that it uses, is still theoretically a public resource, thus falling within the original purpose of the FCC. (Of course, it's much fainter and less powerful signal than what we were dealing with in the 1920s, thus the practical need for a specialized antenna.)

Don't lose sight of the (pedantic?) fundamentals. Satellite radio is radio broadcasting.

Now, FCC can apply different standards, based on the idea that some broadcasts are plaintext and some require special decoding. But that's merely a matter of FCC policy, not law -- the first amendment, property rights, etc. don't really come into play. The only real law involved here, is the one that empowers the FCC so arbitrarily.

Re:Perfectly sensible

[nsayer]

The pedantic fundamentals you speak of are not actual legal precedent.

The communications act of 1934, the basis for the FCC's jurisdiction, had a 'secrecy of communications' section. It said that you could monitor any transmission you liked, so long as you did not disclose the content of that transmission to a 3rd party or make any pecuniary gain from it (unless the transmission was directed to you, or was transmitted by a licensed broadcaster, or fit a limited number of exception cases involving CB, amateur and stations in distress).

This was the law of the land until the 1970s, when HBO started up. Various hobbyiests discovered that relatively inexpensive equipment could be used to build a downconverter and watch HBO for free. HBO responded in two ways. First, they encrypted their signal (starting a legal C band subscription service in the process), and second the lobbied the FCC to add a bar against decryption to the communications secrecy section of the communications act.

Satellite radio, by legal definition, is not broadcasting. Decrypting encrypted services which you do not have a right to receive is a violation of federal law.

You can talk about 'spewing electromagnetic radiation into your home without your consent' all you want, but it ain't the law of the land.

Re:Perfectly sensible

[bogusflow]

Whats interesting is that satellite radio does use "public airwaves", although the service itself is subscription only. I had thought there was a good chance that the FCC, in its quest to rid us of Howard Stern, would actually decide to redefine the term broadcasting to include satellite radio on the basis on its use of public spectrum. Of course if that happened then all of cable TV would be exposed to the same regulation as broadcast TV, since cable channels get to the cable company headend via satellite transmission, and those frequencies are "public" spectrum as well. And that would allow the Republican base to finally get some sleep at night, knowing the rest of us won't be exposed to anything offensive (as they define it of course).

This fight isn't over, look for a Senate committe hearing soon, with a nifty demonstration of a satellite radio stood up next to a regular radio, and the Senators asking what the difference is. Then, look for a change to the law to modify the defintion of broadcasting. After all, anyone with a receiver for that band can receive the signal right?? And why isn't that broadcasting. Well its an encrypted signal you say. Hey, its all to protect the children.

Remember:

[Evil Poot Cat]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and several subscriptions.

No, it's not...

[Svartalf]

You don't pay a cent for broadcast TV or Radio. Apparently this guy's beef is that people that rent cars don't pay for the service, much like people that get broadcast radio. Problem is, he's using circular logic. The people renting the vehicles ARE paying for the service in the car by way of the rental of the same. They didn't subscribe themselves, but the rental agency DID.

Re:No, it's not...

[brianosaurus]

This guy's beef is that he bought 3 radio stations and now (after 10 years) satellite radio is starting to affect his aging business model.

He's complaining about something that hasn't even happened. I recently got Sirius (so I'll be ready to hear Howard Stern in a year ;). So far all I've heard is music. No cursing, no obscenity, no COMMERCIALS. That last one is the key.

People won't pay for a service they don't like. The government doesn't need to control "decency" on Sat radio because if people don't like it, they'll drop their subscription. They'll stop supporting it if it offends them, and Sat will have to change to keep their revenue. Its in the Sat companies' best interest to provide programming that people want to hear, because the listeners are the ones paying them.

Broadcast radio stations get money from advertisers and music labels, not the listeners. This guy is just the first one to realize the downside.

Wow...what a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course traditional radio wants to "level the playing field". They've spent so many years making radio generally unlistenable, along with the record labels and their whole payola system, that they have an old, outmoded product that nobody really wants anymore. It just happens to be "free". So when somebody comes along and creates a premium service that, suddenly, people are willing to pay for, the traditional outlets refuse to adapt, and thus complain to the government that their business plan is now obsolete and someone should help protect it.

Didn't broadcast television try the same thing regarding cable television when it first came out?

We've seen it in various forms in lots of different industries. Especially recently. Go figure. And feel free to draw your own parallels.

And here's why the end is nigh...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the top post:

Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services.

Our freedoms shouldn't be contingent on an ability to pay...

I know why this problem exists

[HarveyBirdman]

Here is the source of the problem: idiots.

On both sides.

On one side are those who would just make every other word in a script a four letter one. South Park did a great parody of this in their "shit" episode. It started as one network show saying the word "shit" once, to an episode of Drew Carrey where people just yammered "Shit shit shitty shitter shit shit..."

And on the other side there's the people whose heads explode if someone uses the word "hell" even in an academic context, or the letters c, o, n, d, o and m are used in close proximity to one another.

So you have to find some balance. It seemed like we had it for a long time. I'm not entirely sure what happened to make it all start resonating.

You don't don't want to censor to the point where only two year olds are served by the airwaves, and you don't want zero restraint that allows the airwaves to degrade into a river of shit. Neither state serves the public interest. Both cases are catering to a lowest common denominator, albeit different types- idiots who are idiots because they are 2 years old, or idiots who are idiots because they are dumbfuck asshats.

The solution is to kill more people.

Re:I know why this problem exists

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember seeing a documentary on comic books that took on a similar idiocy. Marvel at the time was under the threat of federal oversight of the content of its comic books. It agreed to join a group consisting of other publishers to obtain a fit for child use rating. After a while of doing what they thought were rather pointless plot lines they decided to get into a kind of social commentary by having Spider-Man/Peter Parker's friend, Harry Osborn, have a drug problem. They showed the drug problem in a very dark light. Harry was abusing drugs and having it affect his health, basically showing "this is your brain on drugs" kind of story line. As it dealt with drugs they got a big NO from the publishing group. They thought the story was an important one for them to tell, especially to children. They dropped the seal of approval they've had and published it any way. They got kudos from numerous parent groups because of the anti-drug story line.

This idiocy also goes for internet filters that are put into library and school computers. Blocking words like "breast" might prevent little Johnny from seeing naked ladies but it also prevents elderly Jane from finding out about life saving treatments for breast cancer.

I remember a 9/11 commentary getting put on OTA TV where FCC decency laws were temporarily suspended as they thought it was more important for the documentary to be seen than worry about the occasional uttering of a four letter word by a firefighter or police officer. I found it rather odd to hear such language on TV as I normally watch such family-friendly TV as the History Channel, Sci-fi, TNT, etc. as I imagine many Slashdotters also do.

As any one that knows me will tell you I am no prude and at times I deem appropriate I will make use of shit or fuck in a sentence. Sometimes the use of four letter words to me just shows a lack of intelligence and creativity. One can tell a great story via music, television and speech without resorting to a four letter vocabulary. Sometimes one MUST use such language when context calls for it. I refuse to watch edited-for-TV movies because of this. It just doesn't carry the same weight when the overdub says "Forget you!" when we all know that is not what was said in the unedited version.

For me I welcome our censorship overlords. Not that I think censorship is a good thing but it keeps broadcast TV from turning into an even more deplorable form of "entertainment" as one network tries to do one better in trying to shock the public should censorship suddenly disappear.

As with everything there must be a happy medium. One solution may be the shooting of people, but maybe we could try some other solutions first.

Re:I know why this problem exists

[imthesponge]

"A lack of intelligence and creativity" isn't grounds for censorship. There's plenty of stupid things on, but would it be okay for the government to determine what is too stupid for people to watch?

Re:I know why this problem exists

[mutterc]

The solution is to kill more people.

Sounds typical of American culture - replace sexual content with violence :-)

Re:I hope

[FiloEleven]

Is the comment still here? Then freedom of expression is being fulfilled. We also have a moderation system in place, which means that opinions not expressed by the majority are often going to be modded down to -1 due to the moderators' freedom of expression. If you want to see bigotry and racism in real life, go to a kkk rally. If you want to see it on slashdot, browse at -1.

Leveling the playing field....hmm...

[tdhillman]

Mr. Levine asking the FCC to level the playing field has more than a bit of irony. He appears to complain about indecency, but I sense it is more than that.

Leveling the playing field IMHO involves making sure that all capitalists are able to get an equal shot at the financial pie. He is therefore asking the FCC to censor the freedoms given to satellite so that he can make a profit.

Stern will draw a substantial audience, and garner substantial profit. Levine clearly understands that when the gloves are taken off, Stern will be able to draw that much more revenue, potentially damaging his own revenues.

This is not about indecency. If it was, things far more indecent than a weekly session with the robospanker and liberal use of the f-bomb would never see the light of day. The FCC does not see fit to censor violent images eminating from Iraq or broadcast television.

And any regular listener of Stern with half a brain undestands that he is merely bringing the underbelly of society- a bizarre (and yet occasionally poignant) truth into the open. If you really listen to the man you can see the intelligence behind the show.

57 Channels and Nothing On

[Doc Ruby]

And on Internet radio last night (over my Treo, driving in my car, listening to the world @56Kbps), a DJ was rocking the mic with tales of his own recent sex-for-hire adventures. Stitching together the 70s funk and 80s protohiphop as Nasty As He Wanna Be. He doesn't even have to show up in a broadcast office, or put on pants. When the source is distributed, the host is anywhere, the transmitter is anywhere else (maybe distributed in a DNS roundrobin pool) and the listeners are global, the FCC can "Go Fuck Itself" (TM).

Re:57 Channels and Nothing On

[Mr2001]

OK, I'm curious. I subscribe to Sirius, but that's because internet radio in my car was infeasible. So a couple questions:

1. What kind of player are you using? I couldn't find a free MP3 stream player for PalmOS, and I gave up on writing my own when I found out how hard it was to squeeze an MP3 library into 64k segments.

2. What kind of mobile internet service are you using? I get free 1xRTT data at night through Verizon, but it'd cost a fortune to listen to internet radio in my car during the day.

Re:57 Channels and Nothing On

[Doc Ruby]

I'm using Pocket Tunes. The 15-day trial is free, it costs maybe U$30, which includes upgrades within the same major version# (currently 3.x, though I think they threw the doors open for "free" 2.x upgrades to 3.x last year). I think it's the only Shoutcast player for PalmOS.

I'm using the SprintPCS $15:mo unlimited Internet plan, atop my $45:mo 1500min plan. The connection gets up to 120Kbps, but it's so bursty that it averages at about 80Kbps. However, due to the intense burstiness, and the PalmOS 64KB segment limitation (WTF?), even P-T has trouble with rebuffering. It really does well with =150Kbps, averaging at 300Kbps over 10-15s, and sustainable bursts up to 1.5Mbps. Not too shabby, and crucially "guaranteed" above the 128Kbps enabling threshold of Vonage VoIP and "good" MP3 streams.

While NormSoft figures out how to get the kind of memory management that video players seem to manage on PalmOS, I'm experimenting with VBR->56Kbps encoding, and maybe a "file upload" interface on requesting playlists, which the CGI can calibrate for actual bandwidth on a given connection before sending down the adjusted VBR. This frontier is the vanguard of the mobile multimedia future. Let's get it on!

What the FCC does

[Infonaut]

Spectrum management. Period.

I was unclear on what the bounds of the FCC's mandate actually are, so I did some checking. According to the FCC:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

The FCC has 16 bureaus and offices, including the Enforcement Bureau, which enforces the Communications Act. The Bureau sees its mission thusly: Through firm, fast, flexible and fair enforcement of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules, promote competition, protect consumers and foster efficient use of the spectrum while furthering public safety goals.

The FCC reports directly to Congress, and it seems Congress has given the FCC the responsibility of policing the airwaves on certain matters: t is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene, profane or indecent programming. The prohibition is set forth at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. 1464). Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. 1464. In doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license for the broadcast of obscene, profane or indecent material.

I'm not sure if this fits into the original mandate of the FCC, but since it was established as an agency that reports directly to Congress, and Congress gave it the power to watch out for indecency, it seems that the FCC is about more than spectrum management.

Re:What the FCC does

[khallow]

I'm not sure if this fits into the original mandate of the FCC, but since it was established as an agency that reports directly to Congress, and Congress gave it the power to watch out for indecency, it seems that the FCC is about more than spectrum management.

I bet the prior poster was aware of this. But the original question was what was the point of the FCC. It's sole justification is spectrum management. Otherwise, why have an FCC? Is the risk of dirty pictures on TV, restrictions on business practicess, or even public safety measures sufficiently dangerous that we need to address this at the Federal level? I doubt it.

Re:What the FCC does

[Infonaut]

But the original question was what was the point of the FCC. It's sole justification is spectrum management. Otherwise, why have an FCC? Is the risk of dirty pictures on TV, restrictions on business practicess, or even public safety measures sufficiently dangerous that we need to address this at the Federal level?

So your argument and (likely) that of the prior poster is that while the FCC is involved in policing content, your opinion is that the policing of content is not something that is the purview of the Federal government.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with that sentiment, but given that the coverage of broadcast media extends beyond state lines, if the federal government doesn't address it, nothing that states or local government could do would really have any impact. So your argument essentially is that indecency, the business practices of broadcasters, and public safety issues related to broadcasting should not be dealt with by the federal government, and so should not be dealt with by government at all.

But the Constitution places limits on freedom of speech and behavior. The government watches out for anticompetitive measures in business, has broken up monopolists, and has forced certain industries to amend their behavior in the past.

You can't sell a magazine in 7-Eleven with bare breasts on the cover, so it is unsurprising that bare breasts on an NFL broadcast would be illegal as well. I'm not saying that I agree with a morality that allows wanton violence on TV but frowns on nakedness, but the United States has always been an intensely religious society. There are plenty of inherent contradictions in the zealousness with which we root out pornography while promoting violence, but there is nothing new about this in American society - it goes all the way back to our founding.

tune in, turn on, drop carrier

[Doc Ruby]

This looks more like a "wedge strategy" by the Republican FCC to further their media consolidation to their base, just enough Americans to at least appear to win elections. With this stroke, they send Howard Stern and other "controversial" programmers into a better market, with their approval. Leaving behind the majority of Americans, in a different publishing technlogy controlled by a few corporations like ClearChannel, which are completely connected to the Republican Party and its pet projects, like promoting the Iraq War. The brain drain and ghettoization of publishing means that poorer people, in less media-saturated regions, get only the monolithic media messages that keep them voting for their local global monopolies, with their dollars and their ballots.

Of course the FCC decree that their recent puritanical campaigns won't be prosecuted against satellite networks is, at face value, a win for freedom of expression. But how long before the FCC, its constituency consolidated literally beyond question behind biblical/corporate values, "changes its mind", to stop the "minority" from beaming "their" culture across "our" country? To keep this newly protected freedom, we must use it. We must reach out and connect with our neighbors, family, strangers. Help them find how liberating diversity of info and entertainment can be. They'll want it for themselves, use it for their own purposes. And we'll all get as many channels of diversified crap as we can possibly stand.

Re:tune in, turn on, drop carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think owns all the "alternatives" loser?

Re:tune in, turn on, drop carrier

[Doc Ruby]

C'mon, Anonymous loser Coward, say some more stupid crap to "explain" what the hell you're talking about. At least it'll stop you from TrollMod'ding the thread.

GRANDPARENT IS INSIGNTFUL, PARENT IS THE TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent is a TROLL becuase his values do not match yours? Since when do you get to dictate what should be moderated down just because something does not match your idea of morality?

Re:GRANDPARENT IS INSIGNTFUL, PARENT IS THE TROLL

[flynns]

When you have mod points, that's when.

not sure this is much of a win for freedom

[jjn1056]

Yeah, you can say whatever on a service controlled pretty much by one super big company, and you need to pay to recieve the service, oh, and the company in charge of the service is actively trying to keep people from recording broadcasts.

Maybe this helps Howard Stern, because he is already popular enough, but this does NOTHING for new people trying to break into the system with innovative and potentially culturally challenging content. For that, thankfully we have numerous internet publishing sites.

Personally, I just can't figure out why so many pro open/free software people seem to be interested in this service. I guess it's interesting tech, but it is the old school method of publishing. Satellite Radio is not the future, it is the last gasp of an outmoded and undemocratic model of content publishing.

Re:not sure this is much of a win for freedom

[Mr2001]

Maybe this helps Howard Stern, because he is already popular enough, but this does NOTHING for new people trying to break into the system with innovative and potentially culturally challenging content. For that, thankfully we have numerous internet publishing sites.

I guess you've never listened to satellite radio. It really is like having 100+ streams of internet radio in your car/living room/pirate ship. There's plenty of music on Sirius that you won't find on FM radio, and since they aren't beholden to advertisers, they choose the music they play based on the recommendations of listeners like me.

Re:I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

well said. "you can't it that way on the public airwaves" does not mean "you can't say that."

Fuck Me.

[oliverthered]

Fuck me, this is fucking exceltnet those cunts have fucking been trying to fuck me over this fucking cunt of a radio fucking station that some wankers and I have been fucking around with the idea of for fuck-knows how long.

At fucking last, all the wankers have to do is get the fucker off the ground.
Jew.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all the scumfuck filth losers like Howard Stern have a place to broadcast. What a "victory".

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like it, don't listen to it. It's that simple

What's interesting about the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

is the basis for their ability to censor. The idea was, that since there were so few local radio stations, relative to pluralistic nature of other forms of media, that people with radios should be garunteed of being able to find something to listen to that they wouldn't find objectionable. Nevermind the complete abscense of anything resembeling reason from that line of thought, their baseline was newspapers. But now most major markets have far more radio than newspaper choices. So, by their own reasoning (however defective), shouldn't the FCC lose the power to censor radio stations, but gain the power to censor newspapers?

But once they manage to get a decision allowing them to censor cable, be prepared for satellite radio to be described as "cable without wires" or something equally non-sensical. Personally, I'd love to see Powell anally raped, to death, by robots. Ok, I don't want to actually see it, but I'd like to TiVo it so I can be comforted by the knowledge that it's there.

Re:What's interesting about the FCC

[KarmaMB84]

and run afowl of freedom of the press? :O

Re:What's interesting about the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

A newspaper is no more press than the TV and Radio. Again, something that really highlights the complete absurdity of these old Supreme Court rulings. But just wait, we're due to see what a REALLY conservative court looks like.

Cable

[selphish189]

""The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions," such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview." Just like people who rent Motel Rooms get to see Cinimax afterdark.

Demonoid

[Karl Cocknozzle]

As of five minutes ago, Demonoid was returning this for all http requests:

"Server shutdown in progress".

So they might be puking under the weight of thousands of new users an hour no longer able to access SuprNova et al... Too bad there was no warning, this could've been an (almost) smooth transition. Oh well, score one for the lawyers.

Re:Demonoid

[flahavin]

now its forwarding to google....

Better not go out, at all....

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you walk down the street, and hear
someone yelling "fuck", or talking dirty?

Reality check: There is no way you can
insulate yourself from every "bad" thing in
this world. Deal with it.

Paid Free Speech Zone...

[Anita Coney]

So basically in the US you have to pay extra to get the right to free speech.

Re:Paid Free Speech Zone...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you have to pay if you want to hear vulgarity and juvenile toilet humor.

RE: supply and demand

[King_TJ]

Actually, I think (at least for U.S. customers), it's more of a supply and demand issue.

I think different countries tend to make their porn "fit their tastes". EG. I've seen some things commonly found in German porn that most U.S. viewers would label more along the lines of "bizarre" or even "a little disturbing", rather than "erotic/sexy".

When you couple that with people's "girl next door" fantasies and the like, it just makes sense that Americans would tend to prefer watching porn featuring other Americans and familiar situations/backdrops.

There's probably also some technical issues though... Providers like Dish or DirecTV don't even have a paid subscription model set up for viewers outside the United States. That's why so much of the satellite card hacking comes from Canada. Canadians *want* to watch these satellite networks but can't even order a legal subscription because of where they live.

higher frequency heavenly photons

[technoCon]

The FCC says the broadcast bands are a common good owned by the public and vulgarities ought not corrupt it. The FCC says so, provided the antenna emitting those photons is located on the ground and those photons' frequency is HF or UHF.

But that's not true if the antenna is located in the heavens and the photons are in microwave bands. In such case, those considerations of a public good and civil discourse go to hell.

Sure, it all makes perfect sense.

If American culture is coarse and vulgar then broadcasts to the American public should reflect this on both terrestrial and satellite broadcasts. The FCC should be consistent, applying one standard to the AM & FM and satellite bands.

If the resultant content is coarse and vulgar, that reflects the marketplace's demand for corruption. Don't like it? Improve yourself and those around you. Not enough? It tells you you're failing at the job of being salt and light.

At least until Howard Stern starts on satellite

[nittacci]

The FCC will leave satellite radio along until Howard Stern creates a big splash by broadcasting on Sirius. Then, we're going to see the same sort of religious-right-backsplash we've seen all along, and the FCC will respond. They seem to have it in for that dude, especially after he stopped supporting Bush. This is going to continue until the entire media is one big Sinclair/Clear Channel/Republican ghetto. I accidentally surfed the AM band recently in Chicago, and couldn't believe what I found. Three 50k watt Christian stations, FOUR totally conservative talk stations, and the one station that could be relied upon to stay sane, WCFL (Chicago Federation of Labor), broadasting ESPN! So there. Anybody who believes in freedom, it's time to kiss your ass, or your country, goodbye.

Re:At least until Howard Stern starts on satellite

[ocelotbob]

Or perhaps people have seen socialism for the tripe that it is and have wholly rejected the church of the state. Cable and Satellite TV have been around for decades now and is still unregulated by the FCC other than for the purposes of bandwidth allocation. It's highly doubtful that the government is going to start regulating satelite radio any time soon, it just goes against many decades of precident.

Cable vs Sat.

[hhawk]

You could say that Cable TV is a private subscription system, but it is regulated in that, for example, Cigarette ads are NOT alowed.

FCC has a lot of power..

Re:Cable vs Sat.

[jonwil]

the restrictions on cigarette ads are covered by a different piece of law and the FCC doesnt have the power to control content on cable TV (and indeed subscription sattelite TV is also not under the FCC rules for stuff like this)

Re:Cable vs Sat.

[hhawk]

Which Law? Who administers the law? The FCC or an other agency?

Might not be all that safe to listen to

[Catbeller]

If you purchase a license to decode a satellite radio broadcast, you're on a list. Just mentioning that because, in free radio, no method exists to database the listeners.

It's just a small step to set up a method to catalog when, where, and who was listening to a given broadcast. It's a microscopic next step for the government, or your boss, or your local private investigator to have access to that data.

If this isn't important to anyone, then I am truly sorry for the nation I used to be proud of. Look, anonymous speech is protected by law, but anonymous listening is not. The freedom to speak to power anonymously is useless if the intended listeners are afraid that their attention would be noted.

Right now you need a license by the Feds to publish works on American soil written by "terrorist sympathizers" abroad. They give that a broad definition. The FBI and other intelligence services are definitely infiltrating anti-administration groups to take down names, and in some cases to incite the groups to illegal activity.

Free radio and TV made the 20th century's flowering of new thought possible. Take it away, and there's no medium for people to listen anonymously to "subversive" thought. Monitored internet and satellite radio ain't no substitute.

Re:slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

no, this is a long URL: http://hugeurl.com/?OWZjYmNmMjEzMjEyZTdlNjI0ZDA4Nj BlYmY0ZDA5M2EmOSZWbTB3ZUdReFNYaGlSbVJZVjBkNFZWWXda RzlYUmxsM1drWk9WVTFXY0hwWGEyTTFWakpLU0dWR1dsWmlXRk YzVmpCYVMyTXlTa1ZVYkhCWFZteHdVVlp0TVhwbFJsbDVWR3Rr V0dKR2NIQldNR1J2WlZaYWNsVnJaRnBXTURFMFYydG9SMVZ0U2 tsUmJUbFZWbTFvUkZscVJtdFhSMUpJVW14d1YwMUVWWGRXYTJR d1ZqRlZlVk5yYUdoU2VteFdWbTE0WVUweFdsZFhiWFJYVFZaYW VWcEZXbXRVYkZwMVVXeHNWMkZyYTNoVmFrWlhaRVpPY21KR1Nt bFNNbWhvVjFkMGExVXlVbk5YYTJSWVlsaFNjVlJXWkZOTlJuQk dWMnhPYUZac2NIcFpNRkpoVmpKRmVWUllhRmRXUlhCSFdsVmFU MWRYU2tobFJrNVhVak5vV0ZadE1IaE9SbXhYWWtaa2FsSnNjRm xaYkdoVFYxWldjVkZVUmxOTlZrWTBWako0VDFaWFNsWldhbHBX VmpOQ1dGWXdXbUZTYkU1MFlVWmthR0V4Y0c5V1ZFSmhVekZrV0 ZOclpGaGlWM2h2VkZab1ExZEdXblJOVkVKWFRWZDRXRlpYZEd0 V2JVcElZVWhPVmsxR1dqTlpla1poWXpGV2NscEdhR2xTYmtKS1 ZrWmFiMVF4V25KTlZWWlRZVEZ3V0ZadE1XOWtiRnB4VTJ0MFdG WXdXa3BXTW5oM1lrZEZlR05HYUZoaVJuQm9WWHBLVTFZeFZuVl ZiV2hUVmtaYVVGZFhkRmRrTVdSSFYxaG9ZVkpHU2xkVVZsWnpU a1prY2xadGRHaFdhM0F3VmxkNGMxZHRTbGxVV0doWFRVWndhRn BGWkU5T2JFcHpXa2RzVTJKSE9UTldhMXBoVmpKRmVGZFlaRTVX YkhCeFZXMHhOR0ZHVm5OWGEzUm9VbXh3ZUZWdGREQmhhekZZVl c1d1YxWXphR2hXUnpGSFkyeGtjMVZzYUdoTlZYQkVWa2Q0WVZk dFZrZGFTRlpXWWxkNFZGbFljRmRWUm1SWVpVZDBhVTFXV25wV0 1qVlRWR3hrU0ZWc1VsVldiRlkwVkd4YVlWSXlSa2hQVm5CWFlU TkJkMWRXVm05U01WcDBVMjVXVW1KdVFtRlVWVnAzWVVad1JsWl VSbGRpUmtwNlZsZDRhMkZXU25WUlZFcFhZbGhvY2xSVldsSmxS bVJ6VjJzMVYySklRbmRXVjNSV1RWWnNWMVZzV21GU2VteFlWVz E0YzAweFpISldiVVpwVW10d2VWUnNhSE5XTVVsNllVWm9WMkZy V2t4V2JURktaVzFPUjFwSGJGaFNNbWgyVm0xMFUxTXhVWGxVV0 d4VllURndiMVZxU205V1JteHpWMnQwYkdKSFVsbGFSV1JIWVRB eFJWWnNhRmROYWxaSVZtdGtSMk14VG5WUmJGWlhUVEZKZWxaR1 ZtRlpWbVJJVm10b1VGWnNjRTlaVkVaYVRWWmtjMVp0Um1oTlYx SXdWVEo0YzJGR1NsbGhSMFpWVmxad00xWXdXbUZqVmtweldrWm 9WMkpyU2tsV1ZtUTBXVlpaZUZOcldsTldSVlU1

To coin a phrase

[Linker3000]

In space everyone can hear you scream "f*ck"

Republicans are not Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are dirty Nazi pigs.

Re:Republicans are not Americans

[Anita Coney]

Yeah, but Democrats used "free speech zones" too. So they're no better.

fuck clear channel

[Anonymous Coward]

and their friends.

They have leveled the playing field of broadcast radio to the point that I have to pay to hear new music that isn't shit.

Fuck the FCC. They have no idea how offended I am at some of the rightwing shit I see on broadcast tv. I don't ask for it to be ccensored, i turn the fucking channel.

If I have to buy a device and a subscription to get the content, there is no reason to censor.

Re:I hope

[Concerned Onlooker]

If you want to see bigotry and racism in real life, go to a kkk rally.

And if you want to see misogyny and poor taste, read Slashdot. Look, my point was that there is a bit of hypocrisy in screaming about how the FCC is a bunch of fascist prudes for not allowing all the vulgar language and nudity that the typical adolescent would like to see (which many people find offensive), yet modding down another topic that they find offensive.

No, I'm not fond of racism or bigotry, and I would have modded that post down myself had it appeared under another topic, but it's just too funny that with all the rants about free speech going on people fail to see their own hypocrisy when it comes to something they disagree with. You made the statement that the comment was still here, but I will make the point that modding down is the equivalent of shouting down, of trying to drown out that voice. That's not exactly freedom of expression if you are censured for it, is it?

My point here is that everyone seems to be ranting about how the FCC shouldn't be disallowing words like fuck and shit or the showing of nudity, yet when someone uses the word nigger suddenly that's not OK. And I'm fine with part of that since I hate racism, but where are you going to now set the definition of what is acceptable?

And let me add an apology

[Concerned Onlooker]

I'm sorry to whoever construed my above post as a troll. I was merely hoping to instigate some introspective thought regarding our inconsistencies of thinking, even among otherwise intelligent people. I think that we are all was less rational than we like to think we are, and that for the most part we simply want what we want when we want it.

Telephone taxes

[jonwil]

Why not just get rid of these phone taxes and instead fund emegrency services (911 etc) via a property tax of some kind. (e.g. every property owner must pay a fixed tax or perhaps a %age of the value of their property or something).

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The airwaves are public property."

Which public? The American public? The Canadian public?

Sounds like a load of crap to me. Hope you don't do this for a living.

I Remember Babylon...

[TimTheFoolMan]

I've wondered if the issue of airspace would enter into the discussion. That is, are the satellites in question over US airspace, and if not, can they fall under US jurisdiction? This was the crux of the problem in Arthur Clarke's short story, "I Remember Babylon," where a country hostile to the US determined to destroy the US from within, by cleverly mixing propaganda ("news") with live bullfights, explicit programming, and so on.

Tim

Offensive Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with a Howard Stern or other shock jocks entertaining their loyal audiences. These so called shock jock are entertainers who have succeeded in making people laugh. I find the vile hatred of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reiley et al very offensive. To me these broadcasters do not meet community standards as they incite hatred with their outright lies and half truths. They may not discuss bodily functions or sexual acts, but their broadcasts are just as offensive. These folks do not meet community standards of this country's airwaves and certainly don't meet community standards of fairness and palitibility. If the FCC regulates morality based on the dislikes of a few, what's to stop like minded people from complaining to the FCC about these right wing idiots. Shutting these morons down, may impose a little on my free speech, but for me that would be worth it, just as 'pornographic' material is to others. The FCC needs to clean up all the airwaves of offensive material: porn, religion and one-sided politics just to name a few. The airwaves belong to all of America, and not everyone is Christian, which is a highly offensive religion in a country which purports to have freedom of religion.

Re:Might not be all that safe to listen to

[TomServo]

I don't know much about how Sirius and XM work, but I'd imagine that it's similar to how any other broadcast system works. You never need to send back what station you're listening to to tune into it, you just need to be listening on the right frequency. I don't imagine that the satellite is sending down the specific station you want directly to your receiver, it's sending down all the stations and you just tune the one you want.

Now, it's possible it does talk back to the service to let them know when you change the station, but I don't think that's a requirement for a system such as this. It's certainly not as likely as your internet activities being traceable, and you don't seem to have a huge problem with that, being on the internet and all.

A New Nation, A New Dream

[psychosquee]

Would you need people to help you settle this new nation? I'll sign up to help.

Re:Might not be all that safe to listen to

[databyss]

Odd's are it doesn't transmit. I don't know what equipment would be required to transmit a satellite signal, but i'm sure it probably doesn't fit in your pocket.

Although, i think the poster assumes that the technology exists to broadcast his/her/it's thoughts back to the pentagon for analysis...

Double Standard? Maybe, but...

[Greywolf428]

In the article, Saul Levine states: "The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions." It would appear to me that his complaint about the free service in rental cars is a bit like "FREE HBO IN EVERY ROOM" at the Day's/Holiday/Ramada Inn, etc.
If you don't want to listen to something, change the channel. There's so many choices on Satellite Radio that are clean, family oriented entertainment. Sure, there's some questionable content every now and again on SOME stations, but for the most part, the on air talent is pretty clean. ---- Just because you have one, doesn't mean you have to be one.

It's really strange to me...

[kataflok]

that a country with practically a full length lead over the entire modern world in gun violence cares so much about nipples.

Can we say, "Misguided?"

Chalk up nuthin'

[YouHaveSnail]

Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services.

Well isn't that just wonderful! Perhaps next we'll get to pay to read what we like. Or maybe we'll get to pay to vote.

If you have to pay for freedom, you're not free.

what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to ask ourselves why we even bother to censor "obscene" material in the first place. Honestly, how exactly is hearing a swear word, or seeing a breast harmful to a child? We all choose to be uncomfortable with such material because somebody told us to. it is all just in our heads.

Open letter to the FCC

[Legion303]

Suck a dick.

Sincerely,

[signature]
Steve Pordon

About your 'facts'

[anomaly]

evolution and the big bang are how the universe actually began

The scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate origins. Since it is not observable, nor repeatable, we cannot postulate and test those postulates about origins.

We collect evidence and develop theories about the meaning of the collected evidence, but then both the naturalistic scientist and the creationist are on the same footing.

So-called scientific theories about origins are not testable, nor falsifiable. Should they be taught as 'truth' in the classroom?

I don't think so. Our culture's elevation of science to the position of arbiter of absolute truth is quite bothersome to me.

Don't misunderstand. Science is good, and valuable in its place. Where we go wrong is when we extend what we can know about the universe through good science to what we think we can know through science. When science oversteps its boundaries, it should not be taught in schools as fact.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:About your 'facts'

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Since it is not observable, nor repeatable, we cannot postulate and test those postulates about origins.

It is definitely observable. Everyone knows that changes occur in genetic material as live goes on, either through reproduction or via mutations that often show up as birth defects, cancer, diseases, etc... that much is easily observable.

Usually these genetic changes don't work out very well, but sometimes a change is developed which is actually beneficial to the survival of the organism, and that genetic information is passed on to children and it becomes more widespread. That is observable too. DNA has been recovered from long extinct species. We can compare DNA from living organisms to other species or extinct species to see their relationship, their common origin and how and when the changes occurred.

Once you observe that these genetic changes naturally change life over time (going from simpler to more advanced organisms) it is logical to conclude that all life evolved from the simplest possible living thing and that species were not just plopped onto the planet one day out of the blue.

Re:About your 'facts'

[JamieF]

>but then both the naturalistic scientist and the creationist are on the same footing

Perhaps, but the motive and direction of reasoning differs. Someone who has an idea that they believe in, and who selects evidence based on whether or not it fits that idea, is not following the scientific method. They may call themselves a scientist, but they don't understand the definition of the word if they do.

>Should they be taught as 'truth' in the classroom?

I've taken anthropology, geology, biology (human and general) courses, physics, etc. and every single one of them had a heavy emphasis on the fact that the scientific method is more important than its outputs, and that those outputs often turn out to be wrong as we uncover new evidence that doesn't fit the old model.

At no point did anyone say "this is the incontravertible, eternal, absolute truth." That sort of language is reserved for religion.

People like easy answers, absolute truth, simple rules to live by, heaven and hell, and a universe that comes with an instruction manual. Science gives you a candle in the dark, and you have to decide whether you want the comforting fiction, or the best model that fits reality.

Blood Orgy!

[HarveyBirdman]

Well, we could rape the dead bodies. ;-)

Your premise is flawed...

[eam]

> There are certainly some smart folks at the FCC

Prove it.

Even if you prove it, you'd also need to prove that they have any interest in doing the right thing.

Re:Might not be all that safe to listen to

[Catbeller]

Oh, I'm not saying that it can log your listening habits; it can't -- now. But it means $$ to the advertisers to track cu$tomer$, and the services will slowly add on the capability, probably rolled up with roadside assistance with GPS capability.

Then future agents will track what you listen to. They can't help themselves. The Patriot Act and the intelligence "reform" bill wet their appetites for monitoring subversives. With digital cable boxes watching what you watch, and satellite radio logging what you listen to, Fatherland Security listening to your internet and telephone traffic, how exactly are we "free"?

Change over time

[anomaly]

Of course there is change over time. I'd be a fool to suggest otherwise.

My point is that we can make assumptions about the previous step in the process, but we cannot test the origin. Origins, by definition, cross the boundaries of what is testable within this framework of knowledge. As a result, something apparently supernatural (more than natural, or outside the understood bounds of nature) occurred to establish the universe as we know it.

Science cannot test origins.

WRT the development of species, I have numerous problems:
1. MacroEvolution (change from one type to another - as opposed to adaptation - variation within kind) requires that things move from less ordered to more ordered without something to put them in order. This seems to run contrary to the principle encapsulated within the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that things tend to move from order to disorder. If evolution is true, life moves opposite the natural tendency of the universe.

2. Irreduceable complexity - How can complex biological structures have been developed when individual components would not have been beneficial? Even if a human-type eye developed, it would have had to develop at the same time that the optic nerve and brain components that receive and interpret those signals. It seems unlikely to me.

3. Occam's razor tells me that if I find a watch on the beach, the most likely explanation is that there was a designer, manufacturer, and some cause for the manufactured item to be transported to that location, rather than the parts appearing by chance, and they fell into the correct order by chance.

4. The cambrian explosion shows a huge number of distinct species all at the same time - and no clear transitions - this was so compelling that Stephen Jay Gould developed the punctuated equilibrium theory. As he said, speaking of the fossil record: "Phyletic gradualism was never seen in the rocks"

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Change over time

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Origins, by definition, cross the boundaries of what is testable within this framework of knowledge.

Origins in general, or the ultimate origin of something, tracing back as far as possible, such as to the big bang?

As a result, something apparently supernatural (more than natural, or outside the understood bounds of nature) occurred to establish the universe as we know it.

Not neccessarily. The universe could be infinite. I've heard theories that the universe could be in an endless cycle of expansion/collapse, or that this universe could be a part of another universe... none of this scientificly established of course, but neither is the theory that a god started it all.

1. MacroEvolution (change from one type to another - as opposed to adaptation - variation within kind) requires that things move from less ordered to more ordered without something to put them in order. This seems to run contrary to the principle encapsulated within the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that things tend to move from order to disorder. If evolution is true, life moves opposite the natural tendency of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system - it receives energy from the sun.

2. Irreduceable complexity - How can complex biological structures have been developed when individual components would not have been beneficial? Even if a human-type eye developed, it would have had to develop at the same time that the optic nerve and brain components that receive and interpret those signals. It seems unlikely to me.

Actually the brain is well known to adopt to new sensory inputs and lost sensory inputs even within the lifespan of one human. It is known that when one sense is lost, others become strengthened. Here's an odd slashdot story about an experiment providing a kind of visual input to a blind man via the tongue. It is perfectly reasonable that a brain would gradually adopt to new inputs. So for example, if a member of a species only seeing black and white developed a mutation that provided a tiny bit of color input, the brain could easily adopt and use that input. Carry this out over millions of years and some pretty advanced developments can be made.

3. Occam's razor tells me that if I find a watch on the beach, the most likely explanation is that there was a designer, manufacturer, and some cause for the manufactured item to be transported to that location, rather than the parts appearing by chance, and they fell into the correct order by chance.

I would say Occam's razor leans more towards evolution. Which explanation is simpler:

1) A process which we can currently observe a small part of has been going on for millions of years to develop life from its simplest form to its current form.

2) A supernatural being whose existance cannot be verified intervened at some
point in the distant past to start the above process up midway.

4. The cambrian explosion shows a huge number of distinct species all at the same time - and no clear transitions

Actually there are a number of natural theories explaining the cambrian exlosion, ranging from chemical changes in the atmosphere (increase in oxygen levels) to an extinction prior to the cambrian era leaving "room for growth" of the remaining species, to biological explanations. This article has some information.

Re:Change over time

[anomaly]

The earth is not a closed system
I was afraid that my point about this was not clear. I was not suggesting otherwise. What I was suggesting is that every natural system tends toward disorder - towards equilibrium. Evolution as explanation for the origin of species depends on life running against the current of the universe. It seems implausible.

the brain is well known to adopt to new sensory inputs
Again, I think we're missing each other.

Even if it could, how is it reasonable to suggest that the other components of the eye would have somehow been associated with each other, in the right sequence, and would have worked in any shape or form to begin to send signals down a forming optic nerve?

Talk about lucky! :)

Which explanation is simpler
I think that it is simpler to suggest that the consistency and observable patterns in the universe point to a design. Leave a garden alone for a while, and what happens? Does it demonstrate order, or disorder? Does the garden move toward elegance or chaos?

WRT saying that God's existance cannot be verified, what evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate to you that God does exist?

natural theories explaining the cambrian exlosion
The point is that the cambrian explosion is.

When animals die, what happens to them? They decompose into...essentially dirt.

What happens if when animals die they are covered in soft, moist dirt? Fossils.

What if there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago? Would the evidence from the cambrian era be consistent with what we found?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Change over time

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

What I was suggesting is that every natural system tends toward disorder - towards equilibrium. Evolution as explanation for the origin of species depends on life running against the current of the universe. It seems implausible.

I don't fully understand what "the system" is that we're discussing. If the system is the earth, then the system is not closed and the second law doesn't apply. If the sun were extinguished, then yes it would drift towards disorder. If "the system" is the universe, well, the universe may be a closed system and it may in fact be drifting on its way to disorder (we probably don't have enough information to say one way or the other). The earth's lifespan is just a tiny amount of time compared to the lifetime of the whole universe.

Even if it could, how is it reasonable to suggest that the other components of the eye would have somehow been associated with each other, in the right sequence, and would have worked in any shape or form to begin to send signals down a forming optic nerve?

Things didn't neccessarily go from no vision to human-quality vision immediately. There were slight advances, mostly random. The vast majority of those random, slight advances didn't work out. The species who by chance developed a slightly more advanced visual system dominated those that didn't.

It just makes sense to me.

I think that it is simpler to suggest that the consistency and observable patterns in the universe point to a design. Leave a garden alone for a while, and what happens? Does it demonstrate order, or disorder? Does the garden move toward elegance or chaos?

Disorder and choas as defined by the second law? Again, if the garden were sealed off from everything else, then yes it would eventually die and turn to nothing. If it were out in the open, the outside forces would influence the garden towards something other than complete molecular disorder.

If you're just referring to weeds, well, our idea of disorder differs from nature's. If the garden is exposed to nature, it becomes ordered more like nature. If exposed to a human's energy, it becomes ordered more like the human's efforts. Either way, this garden isn't truly disordered in the physical sense that we were talking about.

WRT saying that God's existance cannot be verified, what evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate to you that God does exist?

You can't provide me evidence that God exists becuase you don't have any evidence yourself. You take the existance of God on faith, not on some proof or concrete evidence that you can just show me.

You believe the world was created by someone named God who had a human son named Jesus and so on... I might say I believe the universe was created by someone named Joe who built the most basic sub-atomic particles to obey certain rules, created energy, mixed it all together and let the whole thing go on its own course with no intervention.

You can't really proove one way or the other. I believe you believe in Christianity (or whatever popular faith you follow) simply because it is popular among those around you and you were raised that way.

The point is that the cambrian explosion is.

Well you cited the cambrian explosion as an instance where a god intervened and caused things to happen that would not otherwise have happend by natural means. I'm saying there were possible natural means for the cambrian explosion to happen.

The reason they don'...

[bishop186]

The FCC was set up to monitor radio and television because there is a set number of frequencies that can come into the home. Digital cable and satellite radio should not be under the guidelines of the FCC because there is no such restriction on the amount of channels there can be as there are with traditional television and radio. It was not so much a victory for subscription's freedom of speech as much as it was just a rehashing of what the FCC is actually set up to do.

faith and intellect

[anomaly]

WRT my comment about the 2nd law, I still think I must not be clear. The universe is the system. We may have only seen a small part of it, but we've seen more than enough to observe order and disorder, and to know that all that we observe tends to go from order to disorder. Evolution claims that biology does the reverse, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

You believe the world was created by someone named God who had a human son named Jesus and so on...
I might say I believe the universe was created by someone named Joe who built the most basic sub-atomic particles to obey certain rules, created energy, mixed it all together and let the whole thing go on its own course with no intervention.

Yes, but what evidence do you have that Joe did it? I have history, archaeology, written records and changed lives that speak in concert with my beliefs.

You can't really proove one way or the other. I believe you believe in Christianity (or whatever popular faith you follow) simply because it is popular among those around you and you were raised that way.
And I think that you believe in evolution because that is what you have been taught is 'fact.' Most people have not critically examined whether evolution is true or not - they accept it as fact in the same way that they accept that gravity works. The evidence for gravity is compelling. I submit to you that development of different kinds of creatures through mutation and time is not well supported by the evidence, and that many who hold to that view do so because of a prior commitment to the philosphy of naturalism, not because the evidence exists for it.

If you say "there's no way it can be proven" then you're really saying, "I refuse to accept any proof."

These are not the same.

It's intellectually easy to suggest that Christians are lemmings that follow the cultural norms for their family, but that point of view neglects the evidences for the Christian faith and the contributions of intellectual giants who were Christians.

Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined evolution?

Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined Christianity?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:faith and intellect

[JamieF]

If the universe is the system you want to consider, then an infinitesmal sliver of it called the Earth can have wildly increasing order while the rest of the universe compensates for it (due to the energy of the Sun, for example). If you want to consider just the earth and the sun, the energy for life comes from the sun.

>I have history, archaeology, written records and changed lives that speak in concert with my beliefs.

Well, this comes down to a lower level than religion: epistemology. You may have seen some objects, heard some stories, read some books, and so have I. That doesn't make either of us right, or any of those ideas true.

If you start from a position of absolute faith in a particular book, then anything that disagrees is necessarily false and no amount of proof will change your mind. Picking and choosing some outputs from a different epistemology because they make your car run, or cure your diseases, just shows a weakness of faith on your part. Either you believe in the world around you, and what you can see, or you don't.

>Most people have not critically examined whether evolution is true or not - they accept it as fact in the same way that they accept that gravity works

Most adults in the US do not think evolution is correct. The majority of US adults are creationists.

Also, the majority of US adults believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. 46% don't know that it takes a year for the earth to go around the sun.

Relax, you're in the majority.

>If you say "there's no way it can be proven" then you're really saying, "I refuse to accept any proof."

Again, you're confusing faith with reason. Proof in a context of faith means that you feel something, and know it to be true based on that feeling of divine presence. Proof in a scientific context is much harder, and it's entirely possible for something to be unprovable in the scientific meaning, and yet "provable" to a person of faith. A court of law in the US has something of an intermediate test (reasonable doubt).

Carl Sagan covered this distinction very well in Contact: try proving to a third party that you loved a deceased relative. You can convince someone, or maybe a jury, but scientifically, you can't go back and re-run the experiment, so it's not provable.

Re:faith and intellect

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The universe is the system. We may have only seen a small part of it, but we've seen more than enough to observe order and disorder, and to know that all that we observe tends to go from order to disorder. Evolution claims that biology does the reverse, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

Actually not everything other than biology that we observe in the universe is heading towards disorder. We can observe the birth of stars an planets in nebulae, where coulds of innate matter coalesce to form ordered objects. We can observe predictable atmopheric storms on other planets. We can observe geological events on other planets, giving them complex, moutainous landscapes. And this is just the tiny piece of the universe that we can observe.

At any rate, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that the universe or even things in general tend to become disordered, it states that a specific closed system will become disordered if left alone and given enough time. I don't think we know enough about the universe to say that the universe itself is the kind of system described by the second law.

Yes, but what evidence do you have that Joe did it? I have history, archaeology, written records and changed lives that speak in concert with my beliefs.

None of those things actually proove your religion. We have history & written accounts from many religions, all of which are in conflict and don't actually proove anything.

Archaeology doesn't proove the correctness of any religion either. It simply prooves that some natural, physical human activity ocurred at a particular time and place. There's no arcaeological evidence that something supernatural ever happened.

Most people have not critically examined whether evolution is true or not - they accept it as fact in the same way that they accept that gravity works. The evidence for gravity is compelling. I submit to you that development of different kinds of creatures through mutation and time is not well supported by the evidence, and that many who hold to that view do so because of a prior commitment to the philosphy of naturalism, not because the evidence exists for it.

Well, you enumerated a number of ways in which evolution is not supported by the evidence back at the beginning of this thread, and I've provided counters to all of them. For some, such as the cambrian explosion, we may not have direct proof as to how they happened, but there are reasonable natural theories which make sense given the facts we know about biology. It makes more sense to me to believe in these natural theories which are derived from and fit in with observations and prooven facts than to believe in a supernatural theory which there is no currently observable evidence of.

If you say "there's no way it can be proven" then you're really saying, "I refuse to accept any proof."

Not so - religion can't be proven simply because that is the nature of religion. It can't be prooven, it requires faith. If it could be prooven it wouldn't be religion, it would be science and we wouldn't need to take it on faith.

Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined evolution?
Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined Christianity?

Yes, I believe I am right now actually.

Candle in the dark?

[anomaly]

I think that you've set a false dichotomy between faith and the exploration of science.

Does science give a better model for reality? It works - as far as it goes - but as you point out it is insufficient to describe anything more than the material world.

Our life experience is of course substantially material, but comprises a huge number of experiences that are more than material. Duty, honor, love, passion, repentance, forgiveness, joy, shame, peace - all are experiences that are immaterial.

Science is completely unable to describe those things in any terms other than merely biological expression. It can describe what, but cannot describe WHY.

I believe that an ordered universe, created by a designer provides a platform for our ability to reason and study. In my world view, science is possible because of the ordered design.

My faith is not in opposition to science. My faith bolsters exploration and confidence in reason, not the opposite.

In fact, I have to say that while some people find faith to be a mindless comfort, I find that it's far more challenging to live my life in the face of a Holy God who shows mercy, but who will judge sin than it would be to live without that accountability.

Living with no absolute truth would be easy, albeit completely without meaning.

Why do you think that your prophet Sagan lived in the fantasy of finding other intelligent life and comforted his pain in meaninglessness through drug use? He knew that his model was insufficient.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Thoughtful, ciritcal examination?

[anomaly]

Archaeology doesn't proove the correctness of any religion either.
We agree on this point. However, you could say that you are a poached egg, and I would know that this is not the case. How? I have some tests that I can use to verify that you are something other than a poached egg.

Not so - religion can't be proven simply because that is the nature of religion. It can't be prooven, it requires faith. If it could be prooven it wouldn't be religion, it would be science and we wouldn't need to take it on faith.
Well, it depends what you mean by proven. Science is good - as far as it goes - but it is limited to a description of the universe in purely material terms.

Science offers a model of the universe, but not the universe itself. For example, an accurate news program gives us a 2D, low resolution, visual and audio portrayal of events. This portrayal is accurate and valid, but no one would suggest that seeing something on TV is the same as being there.

Science is a similar limited representation of the human experience. There are many life experiences that move beyond materialism - passion, love, concern, duty, honor, compassion - science offers no model for these things. It can provide a model for the physiological impacts of these things, but cannot model the things themselves.

Materialism is a useful but insufficient explanation of human experience. It is unable to answer the "why" that humanity seeks.

The why question appears to be uniquely human.

Does your world view provide any model for answering questions about the humanity of human kind? We appear to be unique among the animals in our self-awareness and our emotions. It is true that other animals mate for life, and that other animals appear to experience some forms of emotions, but humanity is different in so many ways.

Why is that? Superior evolution? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Why do I mate with one woman and choose to stay with her to raise children? Why did I get out of a cold bed in the middle of the night last night to rock a sick toddler back to sleep? Is there an evolutionary explanation for that?

Why do we see an almost universal acceptance that certain things are 'right' and certain things are 'wrong.' Does any other creature experience conscience? Remorse?

All world views have to answer at least three questions:
a) where did we come from?
b) what went wrong? (if anything)
c) what can we do to fix it?

The Christian world view answers those questions in a way that is in harmony with what I observe in the world around me.

Where did we come from? A designer, creator established a phenomenally complex universe which is predictable. This predictability is the foundation for scientific experimentation.

What went wrong? God created man with the ability to choose relationship with Him or not. Man chose to rebel against God - because he wanted to be God.

How do we fix it? God loved mankind so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

If you're really thoughtfully examining Christianity, how do you explain Jesus Christ? Who was he?

Re:I hope

[FiloEleven]

I agree that there is defnintely a hypocrisy as far as racism vs. cursing is concerned. I'm not qualified to set a definition of what is acceptable for the general population - i'm only qualified to define what I find acceptable. Here are my thoughts (assuming this thread is still live enough for anyone to care):

Get rid of TV censorship alltogether. Yes, this includes censoring racist viewpoints. However, I don't think that protected free speech includes protection from backlash that you may bring upon yourself. I'd elaborate, but I hope the idea is pretty clear--if you air racist material, expect protests. Same goes for "immoral" or "unethical"--people have the right to let you know that they're offended.

It's a pretty libertarian stance, but if you look at cable TV it's been effective, as cable channels aren't regulated like broadcast stations are.

Re:I hope

[Concerned Onlooker]

It's a pretty libertarian stance, but if you look at cable TV it's been effective, as cable channels aren't regulated like broadcast stations are.

I find myself sort of agreeing with you. I agree philosophically even though I know that it means there will be little left for me to watch. I certainly don't think Sex and the City is quality and I have absolutely no desire to watch a show about a family of sociopathic criminals. But in the end it's really a moot point since I gave up TV in 1991.

I disagree because TV is over the public airwaves and I think we have some kind of obligation to children (during appropriate hours) to keep things sane. Yes, they will eventually find out that people aren't that great, but that's no way to raise a kid. It's popular around here to make fun of "But what about the children?" but I think there are plenty of times when you have to do exactly that. For a healthy society at least. With cable you have the option of not paying for it, but with regular TV it comes in free to whoever has a set. The access is way different.

The FCC is starting to get out of hand....

[wapanesechick]

Ok, so they decided that (for now, at least) they won't control what we hear on satellite radio, but that doesn't mean they haven't already stepped out of line a long time ago. First, have you ever noticed that no one that has come under fire by the FCC is Republican? Like that's a coincidence. Also, how can they decide what is and isn't "obscene"? Many of the things they define as such would be defined as "unimportant" by the average American (think the "Desperate Housewives" towel drop). With parental control systems such as the V-Chip, is censorship even necessary anymore? Think about it, are any of the "obscene" images or words going to hurt any adults? Not that I think it even hurts children, but if the parents are really worried, they can spend the 2 minutes to read the TV owners manual and activate the V-Chip. Plus, aren't most of the "offensive" things only offensive to Christians? Making laws based on this should be against the freedom of religion part of the 1st amendment. I think the FCC should only exist to control things like making sure radio stations don't overlap each other and that our cell phones aren't giving us cancer or something, and that it should be stripped of its ability to censor free speech.

Oh, not only spectrum management..

[fswsysop]

They also are there to be sock puppets for the politicians that put them there as well as whatever company pays them off. Did you know that there is not ONE technical person on the board of the FCC? Doesn't seem like a very good lot to be making decisions about our radio spectrum and electronic devices. This is why Broadband over Power Lines is going to flop horribly, as well as costing everyone millions of dollars. It may also result in the loss of many lives, since the FCC, who is just SO in tune with our spectrum, thinks they can govern physics. See, the BPL spectrum is the same as our fire, police, airline, and emergency radios. BPL will interfere because unlike the cable TV system that is closed, BPL will radiate all over the place through those power lines. Anything in its RF spectrum will be interfered with. This is why we need technical people in the FCC instead of the political sock puppets we have now. Many large companies pay off the FCC to support their ideas, so their "fair" judgement is not as fair as one may think.