|
|
Posted by UncleDave on 04/27/07 03:31
"Barbara Bailey" <rabrabbjb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9tp23352knish8665dfk90u1fd1vb8o81v@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:10:57 -0700, Don Del Grande
> <del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>SFTVratings wrote:
>>
>>> EvWill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The report -- commissioned by members of Congress in 2004 and based on
>>>> hundreds of comments from parents, industry officials, academic
>>>> experts and others -- concludes that Congress has the authority to
>>>> regulate "excessive violence" and to extend its reach for the first
>>>> time into basic-cable TV channels that consumers pay to receive.
>>>
>>>Woah. Wait. Hold on.
>>>
>>>By WHAT authority does Congress regulate basic cable? That's NOT over-
>>>the-air. It's NOT something you can see by accidentally turning on
>>>your television (like over-the-air broadcast). Basic cable only
>>>enters the home BY CONSENT of the home-owners. If they don't like
>>>what they see, all they need to do is unplug the cable & it's gone.
>>
>>That's kind of like saying "if they don't like what they see on
>>over-the-air, they can unplug the TV." I heard one woman say
>>something along the lines of, "I shouldn't have to risk stumbling onto
>>a sexual assault on fX just so my child can watch the Disney Channel."
>>
>>(Translation: force a la carte channel selection.
>>
>>Solution: require the ability to be put into TVs and cable boxes - you
>>pay for all of the channels in a package, and disable the ones you
>>don't want.)
>
>
> Funny. That's exactly how my satellite provider works now. I can
> lock-out any channel I want. Access is password-protected, so that I
> can watch (for example) Spike if I want to, but my hypothetical kids
> couldn't (unless they figured out the password, in which case, I can
> change it to something else.)
>
You can keep out hypothetical kids easily enough, but real ones will get
around it in no time.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|