NationStates Jolt Archive

The FCC can at this time only censor FTA networks, which means free to air. I didn't know that for a while, that means they can only censor cbs,abc,nbc,fox, and the cw. These are seen as FTA channels, but I thought of something, should these even FTA for the most part anymore? I have directv and I am paying a fee to get these channels...Thats not FTA! I was even paying a fee when I had cable. Are you paying a fee to get your local channels and if you are does that mean those major networks are not FTA by definition anymore and therefore by law above FCC censors?





(FYI, I am for fair censorship. Nothing like you can't say butt, that is just silly. But fair censorship, like no nudity on childrens shows and the like)

The FCC has expanded its role and covers everything that would be in a basic cable package – the only thing they have not been able to censor so far are channels that you specifically have to subscribe to individually (and they are working to change that).

Free to Air just means that you could get the programming without paying for it simply by setting up an antenna to recieve the broadcast signals.

Almost no one still receives television signals like this, but some people do (a $20 monthly cable bill is a big deal for some people).

The FCC has expanded its role and covers everything that would be in a basic cable package – the only thing they have not been able to censor so far are channels that you specifically have to subscribe to individually (and they are working to change that).


I got an email from the FCC saying they could not censor cable.

Technically Channel 4 and ITV here in the UK are free to air, and are two of the 4 most popular channels.

Of course, the point is destroyed when you consider that you have to have a licence to own TV equipment, but they don't get any money from it so you're not paying for them. If you know what I mean.

There are still small, independent local channels that everyeone forgets about. They're still FTA, and not on cable. No one bothers to go after them, because so few people watch them. Even though they do have some interesting programming. One of the channels from my hometown that my sister interned with had a tremendously interesting cooking show, where they showed you how to cook a dish, and showed an appropriately cheesy fifties horror movie after it. It was great fun.

While the FCC has no legal recourse at the moment to impose censorship on cable channels, they have forced cable channels to abide by ‘voluntary’ restrictions (by threats of making it a major goal of the FCC to have congress expand its powers with which it will impose far harsher regulation than the ‘voluntary’ ones – given that there is already a movement for this very thing it is a credible threat). Additionally a SCOTUS decision stated that cable providers are obligated to provide local FTA stations in addition to their other content – which is a big foot in the door because even though they are on cable, were any violation to be shown on one of these stations, the cable company will be fined as well.

Much like plea-bargaining of criminals – the prosecutor tells the criminal that they can either plead guilty and get a shortened prison term so they can skip the long legal battle, or if they make the prosecutor go through that fight they will do everything they can to ensure the harshest penalties possible.

Your local channels are free, as in if you just plugged in a normal TV and didnt buy any cable at all.

The reason they cost extra money on satellite is because satellite has to get them from your local TV station specifically, and im fairly certain there isnt a general "fox" that shows the simpsons and such without giving you local news. Like here in Fresno, satellite users have to get KMPH FOX, which is the local station.

Hmm.. so that's why TBS and Spike TV can say the word "shit"?

The FCC can at this time only censor FTA networks, which means free to air. I didn't know that for a while, that means they can only censor cbs,abc,nbc,fox, and the cw. These are seen as FTA channels, but I thought of something, should these even FTA for the most part anymore? I have directv and I am paying a fee to get these channels...Thats not FTA! I was even paying a fee when I had cable. Are you paying a fee to get your local channels and if you are does that mean those major networks are not FTA by definition anymore and therefore by law above FCC censors?





(FYI, I am for fair censorship. Nothing like you can't say butt, that is just silly. But fair censorship, like no nudity on childrens shows and the like)

The government (the people) own the airwaves. On the people's behalf (in theory) the government claims the authority to control what gets put on them, including giving people the license to air on a particular frequency. As long as a TV station licenses a frequency, the government will decide what can go on it. If the station in question were able to come up with a way to put one version of its broadcast on cable TV and another on the air, well then that would be different.

Another thing worth mentioning is that 90% of all, what for want of a better word we'll call, censorship has nothing to do with the FCC. It has to do with what the companies that buy advertising during that show will pay for. There was an episode of The Daily Show where the guys from The Man Show were being interviewed, and Jon complained about how they were allowed to curse on The Man Show, but not the Daily Show. They answered with a joke, but the reason is that, at least here, the sponsers of the Man Show were lingere stores, Girls Gone Wild DVD's, and other things whose buyers wouldn't give two shits about vulgarity. TDS appeals to a wider audience, and so it get's broader, more lucrative, sponsers and is more reticent about provoking them.

Just take a look at South Park. All the nasty shit they've put on that show, including an episode where they said "shit" several hundred times, and what get's pulled? An episode that makes fun of Scientology. Why? because Tom Cruise threatened not to promote his movie on Comedy Central.

Free to Air just means that you could get the programming without paying for it simply by setting up an antenna to recieve the broadcast signals.

Almost no one still receives television signals like this, but some people do (a $20 monthly cable bill is a big deal for some people).
yeah, I pay $6 a month for the basic "free channels" and a few home shopping networks, just for the reception on the "free channels" mostly for PBS since even with a big ass antenna I couldn't get a clear pic.

It's not that I don't have the $ for cable, but I don't really watch that much TV and the cheapest package here is $39.99 I would rather spend my $33.99 elsewhere. ;)

The government (the people) own the airwaves. On the people's behalf (in theory) the government claims the authority to control what gets put on them, including giving people the license to air on a particular frequency. As long as a TV station licenses a frequency, the government will decide what can go on it. If the station in question were able to come up with a way to put one version of its broadcast on cable TV and another on the air, well then that would be different.

Another thing worth mentioning is that 90% of all, what for want of a better word we'll call, censorship has nothing to do with the FCC. It has to do with what the companies that buy advertising during that show will pay for. There was an episode of The Daily Show where the guys from The Man Show were being interviewed, and Jon complained about how they were allowed to curse on The Man Show, but not the Daily Show. They answered with a joke, but the reason is that, at least here, the sponsers of the Man Show were lingere stores, Girls Gone Wild DVD's, and other things whose buyers wouldn't give two shits about vulgarity. TDS appeals to a wider audience, and so it get's broader, more lucrative, sponsers and is more reticent about provoking them.

Just take a look at South Park. All the nasty shit they've put on that show, including an episode where they said "shit" several hundred times, and what get's pulled? An episode that makes fun of Scientology. Why? because Tom Cruise threatened not to promote his movie on Comedy Central.
Brillliant post!

If you're looking for censorship in the FCC-free cable zone, you need only follow the money. If you're going to air something that an prominent advertiser doesn't want on the air for whatever reason, chances are, it won't be seen.

Individual stations have veto power in that they can choose not to air a network's programming if it violates their Standards and Practices. "S&P", as it's sometimes called, is the internal network watchdog that advises those creating their programming about what will or won't fly with regard to community standards, the FCC (if applicable) and the wishes of their major advertisers. Some shows/networks can afford to lose a minor sponsor, but if Coke pulls out, changes will be made.

Free to Air just means that you could get the programming without paying for it simply by setting up an antenna to recieve the broadcast signals.

Almost no one still receives television signals like this, but some people do (a $20 monthly cable bill is a big deal for some people).


My whole life I've had free TV. :) In NYC you need not get cable unless you WANT pay-tv.

yeah, I pay $6 a month for the basic "free channels" and a few home shopping networks, just for the reception on the "free channels" mostly for PBS since even with a big ass antenna I couldn't get a clear pic.

It's not that I don't have the $ for cable, but I don't really watch that much TV and the cheapest package here is $39.99 I would rather spend my $33.99 elsewhere. ;)
Another brilliant post.

Cable companies offer huge slates of channels at higher fees rather than offering a channel-by-channel a la carte selection for reasons I'm not sure of on the technical side, but on the profit side, that blanket channel-swathing makes them more money than a piecemeal selection would.

I don't like that I MUST receive religious programming (TBS, et al.), Spanish programming (Telemundo, et al.), and shopping channels (QVC, et al.) that I never watch and would never want to watch, yet I'm still paying for them. This is why the cable/dish folks can't tell you how much it costs to bring one channel into your living room. If we knew that, we'd be able to lobby for a la carte service. Seems to me SOME company, in the name of good ol' capitalist competition, would offer this pick-your-poison approach. But wait, cable systems are basically monopolies in most areas, so nevermind -- no incentive. If I could pay less overall than my current package but more overall per channel and get what I want, I would.

My whole life I've had free TV. :) In NYC you need not get cable unless you WANT pay-tv.
And that, ladies and Generalites, is just one of many reasons why New York kicks ass.