IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, December 16, 2005

Family-Friendly Tiering as Censorship
(previous | next)

In a previous column about "A La Carte as Censorship," I noted how some regulatory activists were using a la carte regulation as a Trojan Horse to impose content controls on cable TV. In the last couple of days, "family-friendly" tiers have been "voluntarily" offered by the cable industry as a way to head off a la carte mandates and cable censorship in general. But it's already clear that this won't change things much since activist groups and lawmakers are jawboning for specific channels and content to be included or excluded from these tiers.

For example, within hours of the cable industry's announcement of its "voluntary" concession to offer family-friendly tiers, lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Stevens and Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps were already asking for details about what sort of content would be included in those tiers. "We've got to define what a family tier is. We've got to figure [out] how much it's going to cost," argued Copps. And at the Senate hearing during which the cable industry announced its plan to offer these new tiers, Sen. Stevens told cable representatives that they should not delay implementation of the family tier and should be very careful about the prices they charge for the new tier. "I think time is a consideration, and costs will be a consideration," he said. Apparently, therefore, cable rate regulation appears to be a possibility again.

Similarly, the day after the cable industry's announced its plan to offer family-friendly tiers, Dan Isett, director of government affairs for the Parents Television Council, was already telling the press which channels should not be included those tiers. Isett said that ABC Family should not be included in any family-friendly tier simply because it occasionally shows PG-13 rated movies a night. Isett also said the Cartoon Network was not appropriate for their new tiers because some late-night cartoons were geared toward adults. A few days later, after Time Warner announced the channel lineup for its family-friendly tier, PTC President Brent Bozell labeled it "a very bad joke" because it did not include channels he though should have been included, such as: ESPN, Turner Classic Movies, and Fox News Channel. It is unclear why PTC thinks those sports, movie and news channels are better suited for children than ABC Family and Cartoon Network but, regardless, ongoing pressure of this sort can be expected.

Enough complaints from such activist groups and even average viewers about what is included in "family-friendly" will likely produce increased calls for government assistance in defining this term of art. Hence, a censorship regime is born. A regime based not necessarily on direct regulation of certain channels, programs or content, (although that might be the end result), but instead an indirect censorship regime based on "regulation by raised eyebrow," in which policymakers provide informal feedback to cable or satellite operators regarding what they'd like to see included in any "family-friendly" tier.

posted by Adam Thierer @ 10:40 AM | Cable , Free Speech , Mass Media

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation