Sen. Rockefeller Wants Satellite, Cable Regulation

[Greg Strangis]

This (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/16/100145.shtml?s=ic) is pretty scary:


Sen. Jay Rockefeller is set to introduce a bill that will give the Federal Communications Commission the power to regulate violence on cable and satellite stations as well as on broadcast TV.

The bill also will most likely ask the FCC to come up with a definition of indecent violent content.

The West Virginia Democrat "has been working for months on a bill that would pass constitutional challenge given that granting the FCC power to regulate violence – and to regulate content on cable and satellite – is new territory,” Broadcasting & Cable magazine reports.

Rockefeller’s press secretary Steven Broderick said: "We fully understand that the bill has a long way to go. If it gets through the Congress and is signed by the President, we fully expect court challenges.

"Given the nature of this type of legislation, our job is to create a proposal we believe that, thanks to FCC guidelines, will survive.”

Rockefeller introduced a TV violence bill in 2005, but it went nowhere. This time, Rockefeller is more confident. "Times have changed,” said Broderick, "and programming on TV has changed.”

[Peter Loge]

Senator Rockefeller has been making this argument for a while, and there has been no meaningful action yet. That is unlikely to change.

A couple of clear obstacles stand between Sen. Rockefeller's bill and law:
The FCC punted the task of defining "violent content" back to Congress. If 5 people who all work on the same issue area all the time and whose jobs are not dependant on voters can't agree on what counts as violence the odds of 435 members of the US House, 100 Senators and one president finding agreement are pretty slight.

Second, it is hard to imagine the courts upholding either a definition of violence or regulation of cable or DBS.

That said, the issue and complaints aren't going away. This attention provides an opportunity for advocates who have other ways of improving the quality of television to step up and offer solutions that do not restrict content.

For example, in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on violence on television, Senator Rockefeller said that the television industry seemed to do a good job of regulating itself until about 1992 when things seemed to go down the tube (I'm paraphrasing here). 1992 is also about the same time that fin/syn changed and the rush to complete vertical integration began. One could make the argument that the lack of independant creators competing on the basis of quality programming, rather than fully integrated networks competing solely on cost, helped create the situation that Sen. Rockefeller's and others are upset about. While creating a carve out for independents may not provide the complete solution Sen. Rockefeller is looking for, it is also easier to get through Congress more likley to survive court review.

[Greg Strangis]

That said, the issue and complaints aren't going away. This attention provides an opportunity for advocates who have other ways of improving the quality of television to step up and offer solutions that do not restrict content.

For example, in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on violence on television, Senator Rockefeller said that the television industry seemed to do a good job of regulating itself until about 1992 when things seemed to go down the tube (I'm paraphrasing here). 1992 is also about the same time that fin/syn changed and the rush to complete vertical integration began. One could make the argument that the lack of independant creators competing on the basis of quality programming, rather than fully integrated networks competing solely on cost, helped create the situation that Sen. Rockefeller's and others are upset about. While creating a carve out for independents may not provide the complete solution Sen. Rockefeller is looking for, it is also easier to get through Congress more likley to survive court review.An opportunity for the Caucus and its members, perhaps?

Thanks for the analysis, Peter.