- Prince Charles: Muslims are driving Christians from Mideast through persecution
- Gitmo’s first commander: Close the prison down
- Google’s newest photography find: Just wink and shoot
- Detroit’s Heidelberg art project hit by 8 fires in 8 months
- Pa. police pull people over for random DNA tests for feds
- NASA pushing hard to get back into space game
- Harvard student to face federal charges for bomb hoax
- Ronnie Biggs of ‘Great Train Robbery’ fame dies, 84
- Pope Francis wins another ‘Person of the Year’ — from gay rights magazine
- Rep. Steve Stockman: Give my campaign $10, and you’ll get an Obama barf bag
Bill seeks to give viewers an option
A group of lawmakers yesterday introduced legislation that would allow consumers to block unwanted channels and be reimbursed their cost, arguing that cable television subscribers should not be required to pay for channels they find offensive.
“In today’s culture, parents are increasingly worried that their children are exposed to obscene, indecent and violent programming,” said Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Illinois Democrat. “While there is no doubt that parents are the first line of defense in protecting their kids, clearly they need more help.”
Under the Family Choice Act of 2007 cable and satellite TV providers would have to comply with one of the following: Apply broadcast indecency standards to their daytime programming; expand current family-tier offerings to include news and sports channels; or offer an “a la carte” option that lets subscribers block objectionable channels, giving them credit on their monthly bills for the costs of providing those channels.
Mr. Lipinski and Republican co-sponsors Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska and Rep. Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama were joined yesterday by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin, a longtime proponent of a la carte cable, and members of the Parents Television Council, Consumers Union and Concerned Women for America.
“There is a right to free speech, but there is no constitutional right to be paid for speech,” he said. In addition, Mr. Martin added, a la carte would benefit all consumers through lower cable prices.
Supporters of the measure say government intervention is necessary to create a free market.
“Unlike other areas of the marketplace, Americans are not as free to choose among TV options,” Mr. Fortenberry said. “They are locked into purchasing packages that many times provide them with more than they want.”
The bill probably would increase cable subscribers, he added.
Not surprisingly, the cable industry doesn’t see it that way.
“Overwhelming evidence shows that a mandated a la carte regime would result in higher prices and less diversity in programming, overturning a video marketplace that provides U.S. consumers with the widest variety of programming found anywhere in the world,” said Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.
Several small cable networks also came out against the bill, arguing that it would give providers an incentive to eliminate less-profitable channels from their lineup.
“For those of us working to bring family-friendly content to American television, the Lipinski-Fortenberry legislation is a recipe for disaster,” said Rod Tap, spokesman for the Inspiration Networks, a 24-hour religious network. “The growth and acceptance of our networks has been possible to a large extent because we are able to place such programming on the widely distributed channel packages offered by cable systems.”
This isn’t the first time a la carte legislation has been introduced; Mr. Lipinski introduced a similar bill last year but it failed to gain any traction.
“I’m not telling you that this is moving tomorrow,” he said of the bill. However, its chances are better this year in the wake of a recent FCC report on TV violence and the court decision on the indecency policy.
Mr. Lipinski said he has “no commitments yet” but is in talks with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat, about scheduling a hearing on the bill, as well as Senate colleagues about companion legislation.
“The onus is clearly on the advocacy groups here,” said Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the Parents Television Council.
By John R. Bolton
The president fiddles at his domestic altar while the world burns
- U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson
- Top Democrats reject court ruling over NSA spying on Americans
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- PRUDEN: The scam that will not die
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
- HURT: D.C. gets the vapors, calls sequester too much
- Obama mocks Putin, picks gay athletes for Sochi delegation
- Colorado revolt: 55 of 62 sheriffs refuse to enforce new gun laws
- Senators in rush to pass budget vow to undo cut to military retirement pay
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Politics, economics, and business from a real world perspective.
Uncensored exploration of issues concerning current events, civil liberties, American political advocacy, and the political and social issues facing military veterans.
NFL junkie Eric Golub reports on his favorite obsession. There is no football offseason. Every February he pretends to care about other sports while sobbing uncontrollably each Sunday until September.
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up by Lisa King Dolloff and friends.
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow