AVS Forum banner

What Congress Didn't Do

809 Views 14 Replies 11 Participants Last post by  SBryan
From Broadcasting&Cable.com:

Smut, Sats, DTV Unresolved

By Bill McConnell -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/12/2004 4:49:00 PM ET


Members of Congress have fled Washington to campaign at home for the Nov. 2 elections, leaving behind three major media issues that must be wrapped up when lawmakers return, either for a lame-duck session soon after the balloting is over or in the 2005 Congress.


The House and Senate are furthest apart and are likely to face the toughest battle over plans to reclaim broadcasters' analog spectrum.


The House, led by Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, last week passed on voice vote a non-binding “sense†of the House calling on the government to reclaim all TV stations’ analog channels by the end of 2006. Barton’s committee had not voted on TV reclamation legislation previously and the language passed by the House would not have the force of law.


The measure is much tougher on the industry than a DTV conversion measure contained in the Senate anti-terrorism bill, which would reclaim only chs. 62 and higher by the end of 2007.


The Senate’s version closely resembles legislation passed by the Senate Commerce Committee and is intended to go into effect as law. Barton rallied House colleagues to pass the non-binding language in order to have the House position on paper when the two sides of Capitol Hill begin negotiating a final version of the anti-terrorism bill next month.


Barton’s hope is that the non-binding language will give House negotiators enough muscle to toughen the language in the anti-terrorism bill to make broadcasters return more of their analog channels quicker. If Congress takes no action on reclaiming analog channels, stations won’t be required to return the frequencies until 85% of TV households in their markets are equipped to receive DTV signals, a process that could add years or even decades to the transition.


New anti-indecency restrictions on broadcasters will be up for debate as well. After blocking a Senate version last week, North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan is on board with a plan to boost FCC fines to a $500,000 maximum per incident, up from $27,500 today. Multiple violations in a 24-hour period would be capped at $3 million. The increased fines would be applied to performers as well as stations.


To prevent the FCC from dawdling, the bill would require the FCC to propose a fine or clear the station within nine months of a complaint. Fines must be made final after a second nine months. The House passed indecency legislation mirroring the Senate bill, which is sponsored by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. The near agreement of the two version increases likelihood that Congress will pass indecency legislation before final adjournment late this year.


Finally, the House has passed legislation extending the satellite TV providers’ right to import broadcast network programming to households that can’t receive an acceptable analog version from their local affiliates. The right expires Dec. 31.


The House rejected DBS providers’ bid for right to import digital network programming too and added ordered DBS companies to phase out the practice of requiring some viewers to install a second dish to receive all the local channels in their market.


The Senate failed to pass a companion version. When Congress reconvenes, Senators have the option of voting on the House version, crafting their own version or simply extending the right to import analog channels for one year. Given the likelihood of a continued lobbying battle over importing digital channels, the Senate is expected to insist on a simple one-year extension.
See less See more
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by fredfa

...
New anti-indecency restrictions on broadcasters will be up for debate as well. After blocking a Senate version last week, North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan is on board with a plan to boost FCC fines to a $500,000 maximum per incident, up from $27,500 today. Multiple violations in a 24-hour period would be capped at $3 million. The increased fines would be applied to performers as well as stations.


To prevent the FCC from dawdling, the bill would require the FCC to propose a fine or clear the station within nine months of a complaint. Fines must be made final after a second nine months. The House passed indecency legislation mirroring the Senate bill, which is sponsored by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. The near agreement of the two version increases likelihood that Congress will pass indecency legislation before final adjournment late this year.

....
Thank you Janet Jackson. If this causes the Networks to mess with shows like NYPD Blue, The Shield, and some of my other favorite shows, I'm going to be seriously pissed off. That's the reason for the TV-MA rating - to indicate parents shouldn't let Jr. watch them. If this causes the networks to be afraid to be controversial (and this ends up spreading to the cable nets) TV is going to be a lot less interesting.


I realize this incident happened during a family event, but shortly after there was the "Fade-to-Black" episode of NYPD Blue. If the Networks get scared enough, they may be less likely to walk that line, even at 10PM.


Not everything can be PG.
See less See more
(Finally, the House has passed legislation extending the satellite TV providers?right to import broadcast network programming to households that can’t receive an acceptable analog version from their local affiliates. The right expires Dec. 31.)


Does this mean that it was extended to Dec. 31?

If it was extended from that date, then till when?
Quote:
Originally posted by NetworkTV
Thank you Janet Jackson. If this causes the Networks to mess with shows like NYPD Blue, The Shield, and some of my other favorite shows, I'm going to be seriously pissed off. That's the reason for the TV-MA rating - to indicate parents shouldn't let Jr. watch them. If this causes the networks to be afraid to be controversial (and this ends up spreading to the cable nets) TV is going to be a lot less interesting.


I realize this incident happened during a family event, but shortly after there was the "Fade-to-Black" episode of NYPD Blue. If the Networks get scared enough, they may be less likely to walk that line, even at 10PM.


Not everything can be PG.
It won't affect shows like "The Shield", since they are on a cable channel... yet, altho some out there, would like nothing more.


All this is gonna do force these shows off the OTA networks and onto cable channels, just like the Shock Jocks(Stern ahd O&A) are heading to satellite radio.


These networks are gonna be financially affected, fines or no fines, because people aren't gonna be watching them as much.
See less See more
Quote:
Originally posted by NetworkTV
Thank you Janet Jackson. If this causes the Networks to mess with shows like NYPD Blue, The Shield, and some of my other favorite shows, I'm going to be seriously pissed off. That's the reason for the TV-MA rating - to indicate parents shouldn't let Jr. watch them. If this causes the networks to be afraid to be controversial (and this ends up spreading to the cable nets) TV is going to be a lot less interesting.


I realize this incident happened during a family event, but shortly after there was the "Fade-to-Black" episode of NYPD Blue. If the Networks get scared enough, they may be less likely to walk that line, even at 10PM.


Not everything can be PG.
Funny thing is.. Comedy Central on cable is pushing the limits. I notice late at nights they are showing uncut movies more and more. Not light movies either. I've seen Jay and Silent Bob: Strike Back, SouthPark the Movie, and a Chris Rock standup, all fully Uncut. FX is also pushing it a little bit with language and what they show on shows like The Shield, Nip/Tuck, and Rescue Me. If the networks really do tone everything down even more, hopefully cable doesn't do the same.
See less See more
If the networks start toning things down, they'll be ceding audience even more quickly to the cable channels.


Right now the majority of americans favor FCC regulation of decency standards on cable, as well as broadcast TV. For broadcast, the government had an excuse to go against the principles of the constitution and regulate speech. That excuse gets weaker over time, and at some point it won't stand scrutiny in court.


Congress knows that if they enact a tougher decency law, it risks having exactly the opposite effect. By risking a court challenge, all of the FCC's decency regulations could be thrown out on constitutional grounds.


They know they're better off to maintain the status quo with regards to FCC regulations for as long as it will hold up.


Mojo
See less See more
Okay, so I'm in the minority here, but I think most network television is trash now. Cable isn't better, it's worse.


The first time they do something, like drop a certain word, or show a certain body part, it's shocking. The second time, it's mildly concerning. Pretty soon, it becomes normal, and the programmers have to do something different to be shocking again.


But do viewers really want to be shocked and desensitized to violence and sex? Aren't we seeing that the vast majority of viewers are bored to tears with lame plots and poor acting that are covered with a veneer of excitement by flashing a little airbrushed skin?


Contrary to what most of you are claiming, what makes a show great isn't the limits of decency that can be pushed. What makes a show great is plots that capture our excitement without straining our suspension of disbelief, and acting that is a step above what you can see at any high school play. Only when a show knows they can't compete on this level do they need to sink into the depths of "shock value."


Right now, I watch exactly one scripted television show. I'll watch AI when it starts in January. The rest is sports, and I try to skip the commercials there as often as possible because the commercials are just as bad as most of the network programming.


Maybe the government shouldn't be in the role of creating and monitoring decency standards. But why are we, the American public, putting up with it by voting with our eyeballs?
See less See more
nip/tuck should be called sex and the surgeons, and rescue me should be called sex and the firemen. they do everything on those shows except say f*** and show female nipples.


but aside from that, they're both excellent shows. too bad they're not in hd.


>


Yikes, I don't think even 85% of HDTV owners can receive DTV signals yet. A lot of them still just watch SD and DVD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so I'm in the minority here, but I think most network television is trash now. Cable isn't better, it's worse.


The first time they do something, like drop a certain word, or show a certain body part, it's shocking. The second time, it's mildly concerning. Pretty soon, it becomes normal, and the programmers have to do something different to be shocking again.


But do viewers really want to be shocked and desensitized to violence and sex? Aren't we seeing that the vast majority of viewers are bored to tears with lame plots and poor acting that are covered with a veneer of excitement by flashing a little airbrushed skin?


Contrary to what most of you are claiming, what makes a show great isn't the limits of decency that can be pushed. What makes a show great is plots that capture our excitement without straining our suspension of disbelief, and acting that is a step above what you can see at any high school play. Only when a show knows they can't compete on this level do they need to sink into the depths of "shock value."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To an extent I agree, that most TV shows are trash at this point. However, the US government should not be allowed to regulate what people can and cannot see, listen too, read, say, etc. If the vast majoriity of Americans did not want these shows, they wouldn't exist. I don't need members of Congress backed by the Christian Coalition telling me what is and is not approriate, I am fully able to make that decision myself.


The fact that FCC can levy fines without the right of the stations to appeal them in court is truly frightening. What other government agency has that authority?


Also, why the heck is this attached to an anti-Terrorism bill? I'll tell you, it's to ensure passage. Anyone who votes against it will be labeled as "soft" on terror.
See less See more
Quote:
Originally posted by davdev
If the vast majoriity of Americans did not want these shows, they wouldn't exist.
The top-rated program from last week was CSI, with 28.4 million viewers. This comes nowhere near a majority of Americans. All other shows had even a smaller percentage of Americans. Since the actual number of viewers for most televised events have been in the decline for over a decade now, the argument could be made that most people don't like what's on.
True, if you want to count the numbers for one show in particular, you are not going to get a majority.


But if you were to count all people that watch at least one of the following, it would be a substantial segment of the American Population, if not a true majority:


CSI

CSI MAIMI

CSI NY

The Shield

NIP TUCK

THE OC

RESCUE ME

SEX AND THE CITY

THE SOPRANOS

LAW AND ORDER

NYPD BLUE

FEAR FACTOR

THE BACHELOR

Joey

and others I can't think of at the moment
See less See more
Quote:
Originally posted by sregener
Contrary to what most of you are claiming, what makes a show great isn't the limits of decency that can be pushed. What makes a show great is plots that capture our excitement without straining our suspension of disbelief, and acting that is a step above what you can see at any high school play. Only when a show knows they can't compete on this level do they need to sink into the depths of "shock value." ...
Amen. That's exactly what happened with Married By America, and it may explain why you hardly hear anything about NYPD Blue anymore. The latter, when taken as a whole, is a gritty but great drama; the former was just cheap crap.


Thankfully, the marketplace gave it the old heave-ho, just as it did for Are You Hot?
Quote:
Originally posted by sregener
Okay, so I'm in the minority here, but I think most network television is trash now. Cable isn't better, it's worse.


The first time they do something, like drop a certain word, or show a certain body part, it's shocking. The second time, it's mildly concerning. Pretty soon, it becomes normal, and the programmers have to do something different to be shocking again.


But do viewers really want to be shocked and desensitized to violence and sex? Aren't we seeing that the vast majority of viewers are bored to tears with lame plots and poor acting that are covered with a veneer of excitement by flashing a little airbrushed skin?


Contrary to what most of you are claiming, what makes a show great isn't the limits of decency that can be pushed. What makes a show great is plots that capture our excitement without straining our suspension of disbelief, and acting that is a step above what you can see at any high school play. Only when a show knows they can't compete on this level do they need to sink into the depths of "shock value."


Right now, I watch exactly one scripted television show. I'll watch AI when it starts in January. The rest is sports, and I try to skip the commercials there as often as possible because the commercials are just as bad as most of the network programming.


Maybe the government shouldn't be in the role of creating and monitoring decency standards. But why are we, the American public, putting up with it by voting with our eyeballs?
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you. It's just that the gritty feel in some of the shows I mention is a part that, combined with a bunch of other parts, make a great machine, not how much they push the limits. However, the fact that they push the limits weaves into the show in a way that makes sense, not just for the sake of shock value.


On the other hand, I can't stand Jerry Springer and just about every reality show. Deadwood could have been a must watch for me but the overuse of the word f*ck was annoying to me. I wasn't shocked or offended, I just found it distracted me from the plot of the show. If they had just used another curse word now and then, it probably wouldn't have been as bad. It just so over-the-top I couldn't focus on the story.
See less See more
Quote:
Originally posted by NetworkTV
.... Deadwood could have been a must watch for me but the overuse of the word f*ck was annoying to me. I wasn't shocked or offended, I just found it distracted me from the plot of the show. If they had just used another curse word now and then, it probably wouldn't have been as bad. It just so over-the-top I couldn't focus on the story.
That was my initial reaction but it gradually changed. During a brief hiatus in my formal education I spent some time working a construction labor job at a copper mine south of Tucson. Among the things I learned there was how many people spoke in "real life". It was crude and not really very expressive but use of profanity was just the way it was.


The odd thing about broadcast TV is how artificial it has been forced to be. My own position is that like literature and journalism the government have no place making these sorts of decisions and regulations. It is just plain unamerican. But it wouldn't be the most glaring contradiction. After all slavery was legal for an embarrassingly long time and we tried to make consumption of alcoholic beverages illegal.
See less See more
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top