|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Telecommunications
Telecommunication issues are on the rise in the 110th Congress (2007-2008). With the increase in new technology, protecting First Amendment rights, and finding a balance between large corporations and consumers, I promise to work hard to ensure a healthy balance.
I believe in the preservation of localism and diversity in the media. In the 108th Congress (2003-2004) I was a cosponsor of H.R. 2052, which repealed the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) 45 percent media ownership ruling. I believe that it is also important that rural consumers continue to have access to TV programming and satellite services at a fair price.
Vulgarity on television and radio is ever growing. I am appalled by the FCC’s approval of the use of the “F” word outside of “safe harbor” hours, not to mention on television and radio in general. Obscenities and offensive materials do not belong on the public airwaves for our children to see or hear. I realize the FCC does not have profound authority to regulate the content of programming materials, however, it is their responsibility to uphold high standards and be attentive to the nations’ moral values. The agency's ruling marks the beginning of moral degradation on our airwaves.
The FCC has exceeded its share of responsibility for weakening the moral fiber of this country. Television is intrusive, and elusive parental authority in a household is not enough to block out obscenities and offensive materials. Congress, in an effort to bolster parental efforts to supervise the television viewing habits of their children, included a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requiring that new television sets with screens 13 inches or larger sold in the United States be equipped with a "V-chip" to screen out objectionable programming. As of January 1, 2000, all such TV sets must have a V-chip; however, the use of the V-chip by parents is optional. Technology manufacturers have done their share of trying to block inappropriate audio and video. The FCC must begin to act like a regulating authority and start taking responsibility for the airwaves.
Many claim that "a la carte" programming is the solution to combat offensive materials on television; however, I do not believe that is the solution. We need to take into consideration all of the aspects of the cable industry: programming content, devices to protect our children from offensive programming, and the economic stability of the cable industry.
About 85 million U.S. households currently subscribe to cable and satellite service that have the ability to choose from a variety of basic and digital tiers offering a wide range of new and well-established networks. By changing the way networks are distributed and marketed, a la carte pricing would overturn the economic foundation on which cable networks and operators have invested billions of dollars. Whereas basic cable networks today generate revenues from two sources – subscription fees and advertising fees – removing the networks from a tier that is available to several million households will require them to recoup lost advertising fees primarily by increasing their monthly subscription price.
Whether a la carte is mandated for distribution of all cable networks, or provided as an addition to the current tiering model, either result would harm consumers in several ways.
First, it would reduce choice for consumers. Many networks would not be able to attract enough subscribers to make up for the loss in advertising revenue previously available from being carried on a tier available to millions of households, those networks would go out of business and other new networks will not be created. Smaller niche networks that target small, underserved audiences would be among those most affected by a la carte.
Second, it would increase prices for consumers. Going to an a la carte system wouldn’t reduce the cost of producing programming, so in order to recoup lost advertising fees, cable networks would be forced to charge higher subscription fees to a smaller base of potential viewers. Further, an addressable set-top box would be needed for each television set in a home to receive a la carte services, adding equipment costs for millions of consumers.
Third, it would create customer service problems. In order to implement a la carte pricing, cable companies would need to revamp order taking and billing systems as well as customer service procedures. And the vast number of options provided by a la carte means that a typical call to order or change service would be much lengthier and more complicated.
|
|
| Return to Issue List |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
