U.S. cable firms to create 'family friendly' packages

[sonicx]

Two large U.S. cable companies and several smaller ones have bowed to pressure to create "family friendly" cable packages.

Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable, two of the biggest U.S. cable companies, are among those that have pledged to offer a "family choice" tier beginning next spring.

The cable industry has been under pressure because of the amount of sex and violence on television, even in prime time when programming is supposed to be suitable for families.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Kevin Martin last week castigated cable providers for the amount of indecency on television. He urged them to give parents a choice that would not expose their children to inappropriate images.

One of Martin’s suggestions was that providers offer "a la carte" packages, in which families would be able to pick and choose the channels they want. The suggestion was controversial because the FCC itself has recommended against "a la carte" cable.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/12/12/family-friendly-051212.html

[VegasWolf]

1. I think I will keep my "adult-friendly" package! nt

[rinsd]

2. Martin may be a jerk but ala carte is a good idea....

...the reason the FCC doesn't like it is because it dillutes their power or possible power in relation to cable content.

[Todd B]

3. It's been done.

I have Charter Cable, and they've been offering the 'Family Tier' (Nick, The N, BBC America, etc) for nearly three years now.

It's a stupid notion to think that a family tier of programming (or more regulation, for that matter) will solve the supposed problem of children being allowed access to violent programming. If anything, parents will use this an an excuse or a babysitter, continue to not control what their children watch, and complain to the FCC so they tighten their stranglehold on the television industry even more.

[mcscajun]

10. Here's what Cablevision calls "Family Cable Channels"

A&E
ABC Family
AMC
Animal Planet
BET
Bravo
C-SPAN
C-SPAN2
CNBC
CNN
CNN Headline News
Cartoon Network
Comedy Central
Court TV
Discovery Channel
Disney Channel
E! Entertainment TV
ESPN
ESPN HD*
ESPN2
FOX News Channel
FSN NY
FX
Fit TV
Food Network
Fox Sports Net NY HDTV*
Fuse
Game Show Network†
HGTV
Lifetime
MSG Network
MSG Network HDTV*
MSNBC
MTV
MTV2
News 12 Traffic & Weather
Nickelodeon
Religious Programming
Sci-Fi Channel
Speed Channel
Spike TV
TBS
TNT
TV Land
The History Channel
The Learning Channel
The Weather Channel
Travel Channel
USA Network
Universal HD*
VH1
WE: Women's Entertainment
YES HD*
YES Network

(In HD*)


I can imagine there are quite a few things in here that the "Family Cable" folks would find objectionable. Some of the stuff on Bravo, CourtTV, and SpikeTV spring immediately to mind.

That said, I've been all in favor of "a la carte" cable programming, until Cablevision themselves came out in favor of it. I smell a rat. "a la carte" pricing in restaurants usually means a higher check at the end, and I'm betting that's just what Cablevision has in mind.

Also, with "a la carte" programming, it's the packagers who sell programming to the cable systems that will have to change the way they do business, and it could be that some of our favorite 'niche programming' channels may go the way of the Dodo bird. :(

[HockeyMom]

22. You got it. MORE EXPENSIVE, Plus

Where is HSN or QVC? They aren't "family" friendly????

Right now, I have my telephone, internet connection, and 300 channels for $143.00 a month. WHY would I want "a la Carte" just for FAMILY friendly?

[mcscajun]

23. HSN/QVC are in Broadcast Basic. Wouldn't want anyone NOT to be able

to Shop, after all. :sarcasm:

[HockeyMom]

27. Buy? Who buys?

Can't AFFORD to buy. But when I cannot sleep at night worrying about my utility bills, it is amusing and not aggravating like CNN or Faux News.

[Lerkfish]

4. actually, this doesn't really bother me, as long as adult choices are

still available.
If some fundie family wants to streamline their viewing, I personally don't have a problem with giving them that choice.
The danger is if this is a foot in the door to LIMIT the choices of others, which, so far, does not necessarily seem the case.

[Heddi]

5. I would LOVE a la carte cable choices

We just got digital cable (again--it was on sale). So we get 200 channels + about 20 movie channels.

Of those 200 non-movie channels, I have:

15 Spanish-only channels (never will watch--don't speak Spanish and don't like soap-operas 24 hours a day)
8 Religious channels (never will watch)
10 sports only or sports--related channels (never will watch)
10 or so "women's interest" channels like Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, Oprah's Channel, etc. Never watch 'em
4 Country music stations
5 home-shopping channels
25 channels aimed at children/families
7 or so channels that are local access, Univ of washington, local tech school, and c-span, gov't, etc

So out of 200 channels, aside from the 85 or so that I don't watch under any circumstances, I'm left with 115 channels or so. Still, out of those 115, I basicallly watch the same channels all the time. such as:
discovery
tlc
pbs
disc. health
msnbc
sundance
ifc
a&e

I'd be SO much more willing to pay MORE per month to get the 10 or so channels we DO watch (and I'd even take 10 that I'd never watch) rather than having to get 200 channels so that I can get the complete lineup of the 10 I do watch (sundance, ifc, disc. health only are on digital).

total fucking ripoff.

[onenote]

9. do you read every section of the newspaper?

If you go to an amusement park, do you go on every ride?

Packaging of information and entertainment is hardly unique to the cable and satellite industries. Taken to its logical conclusion, the complaint that buying a package of programming "forces" someone to buy channels they don't want would result in a completely pay per view model -- why should I pay for 24 hours of ESPN when I'm asleep 7 hours and at work for 9 more?

Why should I pay for entire newspaper when I only read certain articles?

Eventually, with the power of the Internet, we may get to a point where information is available entirely "a la carte". But I sure as hell don't want the government dictating that result.

onenote

[Heddi]

26. But isn't the government dictating by saying you CAN'T have it?

And I read more of the paper (percentage wise) than the percentage of TV I watch (based on channels I get).

And I don't see why a la carte would have to be taken to the extreme of "I watch 7 hours, so I pay for 7 hours". Again, I'd be happy to buy MANY channels that I'd never watch--but I shouldn't be 'forced' to buy 200 so I can have access to 15 that are spread throughout 5 different "tiers" of channels. In order for me to get IFC & Sundance, I have to subscribe to one tier of channels. To get Discovery Health, I have to subscribe to another tier. I suppose it would be great if I had kids and had a reason to watch 25 different versions of Nickelodeon, or if I were a religious person and enjoyed having 30 different religious channels at my fingertips.

All I'm saying is that I'd be happy to pay a premium to get channels I'd never watch if it meant that 1) I could have LESS channels to have to flip through and 2) if I could get the channels I wanted without having to subscribe to $70-a-month worth of cable services.

I really don't see why the FCC Is involved with this anyway. Let the cable companies decide what services they want to offer and how they want to offer them. Shit, it's not like I have a choice anyway--there's only one cable company in town, and I can't get satellite because I'm not allowed to mount a dish to our house (rental).

[onenote]

34. the government doesn't bar a la carte

other than requiring retransmission of all the local broadcast stations and public access stations as a prerequisite for buying anything else. And I agree, it should be up to the cable companies to decide.

onenote

PS - I see a fair number of satellite dishes installed on the ground these days. You should check and see if that's feasible where you live.

[mac56]

6. Last I heard was that the FCC was agreeable to a la carte

in concept, but that they thought the cost would be prohibitive. Or at least, no significant decrease over the cost structure already in place. Basically the local cable providers would suss out which ones are the most popular channels and boost the prices accordingly.

Not sure if this is true. But wouldn't the content providers have a word to say about this? If Viacom figured out that Comedy Central was one of the most popular choices, for example, they'd set their advertising rates appropriately. Wouldn't it be in their best interests to be sure the cost of seeing that channel (and those ads) was within most people's reach? Maybe I'm being naive.

[onenote]

11. comedy central is an interesting example

Its definitely a channel that will not be part of the "family friendly" tier. It will be interesting to see how that impacts its business plan, if at all.

onenote

[sonicx]

15. I'm wondering how they will handle Nick and Cartoon Network

Since they both have nighttime blocks for older viwers.

[azureblue]

7. TV Preacher filter?

Can a I get either TV preacher filter or block them out of the channels?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

8. excellent idea!

;)

[daleo]

12. I want to block shows where people paint walls

Honestly, it seems like at least half a dozen channels are devoted to people painting a room at any time. Does the phrase "as boring as watching paint dry" mean nothing anymore?

[mcscajun]

13. Should be simple to manufacture a chip for that...

...just set the software to recognize that when it hears the word "God" as a two-syllable utterance the software should BLOCK this program. Those TV preachers love to draw out a simple word for effect; it's so obvious.

:evilgrin:

[Judi Lynn]

14. I want those sleazy, dishonest idiots out of my cable choices, too.n/t

[LiberalFighter]

16. ABSOLUTELY... why should I help pay for their propaganda?

A major reason why the likes of Robertson, Falwell have become a major force. Without cable/satellite they would be stuck in their local market instead of having a national reach.

[mcscajun]

24. Robertson's got a contractual Lock on his cable spot.

From a post I made back in August:

Robertson started the channel that eventually became ABC Family.

Ugh.

"Although our strategy has some similarity to some of our competitors, we are content obsessive," Eisner said Monday at a press conference announcing that The Walt Disney Co. would acquire Fox Family Worldwide Inc. for $3 billion in cash and the assumption of $2.3 billion in debt.

The deal adds the Fox Family Channel cable network to Disney's portfolio, which already includes ESPN, the Disney Channel and stakes in A&E and Lifetime. Fox Family, which Disney plans to rename ABC Family, reaches about 81 million cable subscribers in the United States.

A twist in the deal is that ABC Family will continue to show the 700 Club and other shows made by Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, which originally started the channel.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/ap/jul01/ap-disney-fox...

As to what could end this arrangement, some contracts are ironclad; want to bet that multi-millionaire religious extremist maniac-moron Pat Robertson made sure this one was?

[0007]

32. I want a religious filter, a food commercial filter and an automobile

& Suv & Truck filter. And all loud electric guitar music commercials.

[VegasWolf]

17. I demand Freedom From Religion! Oops! Meant to post under the

previous thread.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Why should I pay for the Christian stations that I don't even watch!

I should get a discount for all that crap that is included in my cable package.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Why can't these families lock those channels from their tv??

I can do it with DirecTv. Unless the code is enter for restricted channels they can't be watched. Likewise, I can automatically do it based on content.

[mcscajun]

25. They can. Most cable networks have Parental Lock-Out.

Some parents are lazy...others are technologically challenged. Both groups want someone else to do the heavy lifting for them.

Of course, they also don't want to be paying to support what they won't watch. Neither do we, really.

[primavera]

29. That would actually be parenting n/t

[rpannier]

20. I like the ala carte idea

Then I can pick the channels I want and block out the garbage channels I don't -- like faux news.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Control the order of the channels!!!

I would like to have ability to rearrange the order of the channels based on my preferences. Then I wouldn't have to punch in the channel numbers to change.

202 CNN
206 ESPN
209 ESPN2
212 NFL Network
242 USA
244 SciFi
245 TNT
247 TBS
248 FX
249 Comedy Central
269 History
282 Animal Planet
307 WGN
350 CSPAN
351 CSPAN2
537-542 Showtime
549 Sundance

The channels not listed that I might still watch I would put at the end of the above

[SoCalDem]

28. So the package won;t have Fox..YaY!!

Fox has the sleaziest stuff around..and on regualr programming..not even "pay-per-view!
:rofl:
It will be the NBA package (no boobies allowed)

[VegasWolf]

30. That would be the platinum intelligentsia package.

:toast:

[TankLV]

31. fehhh...

yawn.

[pagandem4justice]

33. Fine, then, how about "equal time"?

If they "have to" raise holy hell for "family friendly" content, then how about "family un-friendly" content for those of us who don't have rugrats, who know how to parent, or who just don't give a damn to have their viewing pre-screened?

Two option tiers ... censored and uncensored. Not just the sex and violence, but more gritty, real-life situations, less propagandized news and "history" shows, etcetera.

Oh, and while we're talking about an la carte programming, I might mention my dream lineup:
Free Speech TV
World Link
Sci-Fi
USA
TNT
Food Network
Comedy Central
...and a Faux Channel just for their good dramas (Prison Break, 24), without the rest of their crap!

:-)