Cable vs Broadcast TV

[Tmy]

Theres been a lot of FCC bru ha ha lately. Starting with janets boob shot.

I understand how the FCC has more control over broadcast TV. And that cable is looser because you "choose pay for it" and "know what your getting into.". But heres what bugs me, a good 85% of the people who watched Janet and network TV in general do so over cable. Almost no one uses antennas anymore. So Janets boob was literally seen over cable TV.

Do these people have a right to really bitch about decency standards if they are wathing via cable???

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yes they do, because FCC regulations force cable companies to carry local broadcast stations.

 

[Dancing David]

I assumed that most of the complainers hadn't even watched it.

 

[epepke]

I assumed that most of the complainers hadn't even watched it.

I'm not even sure how many complainers there actually are.

The FCC does seem to be making a big deal out of it, and this has led to a chilling effect.

However, in some ways, I think the FCC should grow a pair.

The original idea was that television stations were granted public property (a portion of the radio spectrum) in return for certain things. The amount of money they had to pay was kept low with the expectation that they would also provide services. While decency during certain hours is one of them, there were also many others, such as educational programming and good news reporting. The idea was that they had to give something back for the public property they were entitled to use.

A lot of that has been lost. News shows have become crappy and sensationalistic in order to sell advertising.

This was not an issue with pure cable stations, as no public property was involved (except for land for poles and buried cables, which was not discounted).

It could be argued that broadcast stations still have an obligation, based on the laws that guarantee they be given a market over cable, without which, a substantial number would be dropped.

Also, while I would consider Janet Jackson's nipple to be fairly trivial, I do have to wonder how often the BBC, say, flashes some female nipple between cricket innings.

 

[subgenius]

"57 (150) Channels, and there's nothin' on"---B. Springsteen

Only free (antenna) for me. Then its only "10 channels and there's nothin' on" but you ain't paying for that crap.

I could never figure out how people could think they could come up with 150 channels with some thing good on when they can't fill up 10.

 

[epepke]

I could never figure out how people could think they could come up with 150 channels with some thing good on when they can't fill up 10.

As a cable subscriber, I find that I mostly watch stuff that is on cable and avoid the broadcast channels. The only real exception is King of the Hill. and the occasional instance of ABC news.

I've found that cable stations, being subsidized by subscription more than advertising, are often able to take risks and offer some interesting programs, whereas broadcast stations, who have to make their money off of advertising, tend toward bland pablum for the masses.

 

[subgenius]

You're right, I'm just a cranky old cheapskate.
Boy do I miss Duckman.

 

[pgwenthold]

"57 (150) Channels, and there's nothin' on"---B. Springsteen

Only free (antenna) for me. Then its only "10 channels and there's nothin' on" but you ain't paying for that crap.

I could never figure out how people could think they could come up with 150 channels with some thing good on when they can't fill up 10.

Apparently they are restarting Family Guy. However, it is not known whether it will be picked up by Fox or will only be on the Cartoon Network.