FCC Attacks Cable/Satellite

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, they shouldn’t be spending their damn money on cable television.

I agree wholheartedly! This is another issue that I have with the mindset of America today. For example, you have families that don’t even have decent housing, but they are worrying about buying expensive cars and clothes. ARRGGGHH!!![/quote]

Oh yah,
Because you are among the working poor in this country you are entitled to noithing more than a meager existence with the least amount of enjoyment possible.
I mean, why should a guy who has to work for a living be able to come home and enjoy ESPN or anything like that. You guys crack me up. No, no cable in that house–he’s poor.
I wouldn’t put expensive clothes and cars inthe same class as cable TV. As many have stated, there is little to nothing on broadcast, so I guess if you’re working poor just be happy with the radio.

22

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, they shouldn’t be spending their damn money on cable television.

I agree wholheartedly! This is another issue that I have with the mindset of America today. For example, you have families that don’t even have decent housing, but they are worrying about buying expensive cars and clothes. ARRGGGHH!!!

Oh yah,
Because you are among the working poor in this country you are entitled to noithing more than a meager existence with the least amount of enjoyment possible.
I mean, why should a guy who has to work for a living be able to come home and enjoy ESPN or anything like that. You guys crack me up. No, no cable in that house–he’s poor.
I wouldn’t put expensive clothes and cars inthe same class as cable TV. As many have stated, there is little to nothing on broadcast, so I guess if you’re working poor just be happy with the radio.[/quote]

If you can’t afford to be a good parent because of “socio/economic factors” (as stated above), you don’t need cable TV. ESPN is not a god given right. Titty movies on Cinemax are not a god given right. If you can’t afford to parent your kid, unhook the fucking cable.

23

[quote]doogie wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, they shouldn’t be spending their damn money on cable television.

I agree wholheartedly! This is another issue that I have with the mindset of America today. For example, you have families that don’t even have decent housing, but they are worrying about buying expensive cars and clothes. ARRGGGHH!!!

Oh yah,
Because you are among the working poor in this country you are entitled to noithing more than a meager existence with the least amount of enjoyment possible.
I mean, why should a guy who has to work for a living be able to come home and enjoy ESPN or anything like that. You guys crack me up. No, no cable in that house–he’s poor.
I wouldn’t put expensive clothes and cars inthe same class as cable TV. As many have stated, there is little to nothing on broadcast, so I guess if you’re working poor just be happy with the radio.

If you can’t afford to be a good parent because of “socio/economic factors” (as stated above), you don’t need cable TV. ESPN is not a god given right. Titty movies on Cinemax are not a god given right. If you can’t afford to parent your kid, unhook the fucking cable.[/quote]

That’s bullshit. The two aren’t even correlated. Cinemax and the like are premium fool. I’m talking cable and your reaction is ridiculous.

You obviously are not a parent and don’t understand what it takes. You obviously have never worked for anything important, because you can’t even understand the concept of ‘working poor.’ Just what we need–a coddled suburbanite dictating parenting to a group you can’t even comprehend.

24

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, they shouldn’t be spending their damn money on cable television.

I agree wholheartedly! This is another issue that I have with the mindset of America today. For example, you have families that don’t even have decent housing, but they are worrying about buying expensive cars and clothes. ARRGGGHH!!!

Oh yah,
Because you are among the working poor in this country you are entitled to noithing more than a meager existence with the least amount of enjoyment possible.
I mean, why should a guy who has to work for a living be able to come home and enjoy ESPN or anything like that. You guys crack me up. No, no cable in that house–he’s poor.
I wouldn’t put expensive clothes and cars inthe same class as cable TV. As many have stated, there is little to nothing on broadcast, so I guess if you’re working poor just be happy with the radio.[/quote]

Point missed…You. If you can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, then you have bigger problems to deal with and should not be spending money on cable anyway. Cable TV is a luxury, not a right.

My example of the expensive clothes and cars was to illustrate the point on how warped our society is becoming when useless material things are the priority instead of the necessities. Cable TV is a useless material thing and not a necessity. Decent housing is a necessity.

I don’t want to take away the working poor’s right to have a few luxuries, As much as working poor gets jerked around, they need it more than the rich. I just want people to take responsibility for their actions. If you have children, its YOUR job to raise them, not the government and definitely NOT the Christian Coalition.

25

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, they shouldn’t be spending their damn money on cable television.

I agree wholheartedly! This is another issue that I have with the mindset of America today. For example, you have families that don’t even have decent housing, but they are worrying about buying expensive cars and clothes. ARRGGGHH!!!

Oh yah,
Because you are among the working poor in this country you are entitled to noithing more than a meager existence with the least amount of enjoyment possible.
I mean, why should a guy who has to work for a living be able to come home and enjoy ESPN or anything like that. You guys crack me up. No, no cable in that house–he’s poor.
I wouldn’t put expensive clothes and cars inthe same class as cable TV. As many have stated, there is little to nothing on broadcast, so I guess if you’re working poor just be happy with the radio.

Point missed…You. If you can’t afford to be good parents because of “socio/economic factors”, then you have bigger problems to deal with and should not be spending money on cable anyway. Cable TV is a luxury, not a right.

My example of the expensive clothes and cars was to illustrate the point on how warped our society is becoming when useless material things are the priority instead of the necessities. Cable TV is a useless material thing and not a necessity. Decent housing is a necessity.

I don’t want to take away the working poor’s right to have a few luxuries, As much as working poor gets jerked around, they need it more than the rich. I just want people to take responsibility for their actions. If you have children, its YOUR job to raise them, not the government and definitely NOT the Christian Coalition.[/quote]

I don’t think people are choosing
quality housing or cable TV.

And I don’t think I missed your point. I’m not in favor censorship and I’m not arguing that point. Take the thought of parenting throughh censorship out of the equation.

You guys feel that if a parent can’t be their to parent 100% of the time because of work or other ills, that they should then be denied cable. Like that will then solve their problems and make themn better parents?

This is where a la carte makes sense. I only purchasr nickelodian and ESPN over and above broadcast that way I don’t even have to worry about the uncensored material available on all the other cable channels.

I agree about the warped material mentality that is pervasive in this country. Some sacrifice food for the family to get the $200 shoes and the $100 jeans. That’s goofy.

I also agree the Christian Coalition has no point in telling you, me or anyone else what is appropriate to be on the tube.

26

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
That’s bullshit. The two aren’t even correlated. Cinemax and the like are premium fool. I’m talking cable and your reaction is ridiculous.

You obviously are not a parent and don’t understand what it takes. You obviously have never worked for anything important, because you can’t even understand the concept of ‘working poor.’ Just what we need–a coddled suburbanite dictating parenting to a group you can’t even comprehend.[/quote]

I know that you directed this to doogie, but I am going on record with this. I am a parent. I have a wife and two young children and I also work. If I don’t work, then we don’t eat because we are a single income family. My wife wanted to stay home with the kids until they got older. We are fortunate that she can do that, but it is still a budget struggle every day (In other words, I’m not rich). We have cable, but my wife and I control the TV in our house. If the cable became an issue with raising my children, it would be gone in a heartbeat. I spend time with my children, many times sacrificing my training to do so, just so they know that their dad cares about them. I am fully aware of what they watch and what they aren’t going to watch.

27

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
That’s bullshit. The two aren’t even correlated. Cinemax and the like are premium fool. I’m talking cable and your reaction is ridiculous.

You obviously are not a parent and don’t understand what it takes. You obviously have never worked for anything important, because you can’t even understand the concept of ‘working poor.’ Just what we need–a coddled suburbanite dictating parenting to a group you can’t even comprehend.

I know that you directed this to doogie, but I am going on record with this. I am a parent. I have a wife and two young children and I also work. If I don’t work, then we don’t eat because we are a single income family. My wife wanted to stay home with the kids until they got older. We are fortunate that she can do that, but it is still a budget struggle every day (In other words, I’m not rich). We have cable, but my wife and I control the TV in our house. If the cable became an issue with raising my children, it would be gone in a heartbeat. I spend time with my children, many times sacrificing my training to do so, just so they know that their dad cares about them. I am fully aware of what they watch and what they aren’t going to watch. [/quote]

Al
That’s great. And I’m being sincere. But I can’t equate working poor to someone who has the ability to have a spouse stay at home.
Yes, more parents should be much more involved with their children. My wife and I both work. She teaches and wants to work. I could support both of us on my income. We chose to drop cable almost 3 years ago because it offered us so little. Between the kids activities, videos…(you’re a parent) we actually spend little time watchng actual TV. It is winter now so a little more inside time.
My point being–I guess we’re alot alike. We both are very hands on parents and have the necessary shills to be so.
I just don’t think everyon has that ability or even chance. A la carte may allow them some extra freedom to have some channels and exclude others.
I was not arguing for censorship to do that job.
But i believe the working poor in this country are shit on regular. To say they don’t deserve cable seemed harsh.

28

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I don’t think people are choosing
quality housing or cable TV.
[/quote]

You’d be surprised at some of the things I’ve seen. I have been in some really rundown, crappy homes that have 52" Flat Screen HDTV’s in them with the full Cable hook-up.

I agree. I hate censorship too. That was my original post.

Actually, this is where I think you did miss the point. If you are a parent, you are a parent 100% of the time. There are no breaks, that’s just how it is. Now you may not be around 100% of the time, but you still have to set the systems up in your home so your presence is felt 100% of the time. It is not the government’s job or cable TV’s job to help you raise your kids. I don’t believe you should be denied cable simply because you aren’t around 100% of the time. If that was the case, none of us would have cable.

That was never the point. You should be denied cable if you are not doing your job of raising your kids and allowing cable TV to raise them for you. The cable is interferring with your relationship with your kids. Taking cable away won’t make them better parents, but it removes one barrier that is preventing them from doing so.

[quote]
This is where a la carte makes sense. I only purchasr nickelodian and ESPN over and above broadcast that way I don’t even have to worry about the uncensored material available on all the other cable channels.

I agree about the warped material mentality that is pervasive in this country. Some sacrifice food for the family to get the $200 shoes and the $100 jeans. That’s goofy.

I also agree the Christian Coalition has no point in telling you, me or anyone else what is appropriate to be on the tube. [/quote]

I agree with these things as well. I just feel that the a la carte option will be used by the cable tv companies to charge more for services.

29

If you care about the ability of the poor to afford cable then you should oppose a la carte pricing. It WILL lead to higher cable prices. The cable companies aren’t going to willingly forgo huge amounts of revenues by letting everyone pick and choose the channels they like without paying for the rest of the channels that fill out a package. The channel tiers are structured with the expectation that people will be willing to should 10-20 dollar price increases to get at two or three more channels they will actually watch in each tier. The industry is not going to let $50 a month customers drop all but the six or seven channels they actually watch so they can pay $10 a month. Instead you will see per channel prices through the roof. The company will get that $50 a month out of the consumer one way or another.

30

Well I certainly agree the cable company is not going to ‘lose’ any money over this.

Just unplug people.

31

Ironically, we are all better off the fewer people (Especially younger kids) watch TV. There are only a few channels worth watching- maybe the history channel and a couple others. I think everyone could live without VH1’s “Hottest Hollywood Breakups”.

But I also think the price would skyrocket. And that either way, I should have the decision to watch mind numbing sheeple TV or not to.

32

If I’m paying $50 a month for cable, what difference does it make to me if I only get the 5 channels I want or those same 5 channels with 30 I don’t?

And in all honesty–All I want is ESPN and Nick for the kids.

I really want my ESPN back. I love college bball. Big Monday. Super Tuesday…oh the insanity. I need the rock.

33

this isn’t about tv and it isn’t about parenting. and the cc could give a shit about what children see on tv. it’s about censorship. it’s about turning a political foothold into a figure 4 leglock. it’s stupid and the christian coalition knows it, in fact it may be so stupid it will help them further their agenda . regular people think it’s so stupid it can’t be real or worth their time. so they froth up about it for a minute and then forget it instead of taking that time to write their reps. 2 months ago i actually learned who my state senator and reps are. they will be hearing from me.

34

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
If I’m paying $50 a month for cable, what difference does it make to me if I only get the 5 channels I want or those same 5 channels with 30 I don’t?

And in all honesty–All I want is ESPN and Nick for the kids.

I really want my ESPN back. I love college bball. Big Monday. Super Tuesday…oh the insanity. I need the rock.[/quote]

Lol

35

Here’s another idea:
Set TV to only go through the channels you want (delete the channels so they get skipped when surfing up or down) and rig the remote so it can’t select a particular channel (remove the metal connection that occurs when you hit the rubber button) or just buy a universal remote and break every button except channel up and down and lock up the original remote.

That way you (or anyone else) can only scroll up and down the channels that you set your TV to go through.

I’m not talking about breaking or ruining anything, just diss-assembling them and locking up the pieces so the channels can’t be added with out them.

It realy wouldn’t be that difficult, and it can be effective, and reversable (unless you use the universal remote and intensionally break it, but that’s only like a $5 investment).

This might sound crazy or to some, like too much work, but I’m serious.

Sure beats forcing the cable companies to comply with more rules and regulations and allows the parents to raise their kids how they want to.

Sounds practical enough for me.

36

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Here’s another idea:
Set TV to only go through the channels you want (delete the channels so they get skipped when surfing up or down) and rig the remote so it can’t select a particular channel (remove the metal connection that occurs when you hit the rubber button) or just buy a universal remote and break every button except channel up and down and lock up the original remote.

That way you (or anyone else) can only scroll up and down the channels that you set your TV to go through.

I’m not talking about breaking or ruining anything, just diss-assembling them and locking up the pieces so the channels can’t be added with out them.

It realy wouldn’t be that difficult, and it can be effective, and reversable (unless you use the universal remote and intensionally break it, but that’s only like a $5 investment).

This might sound crazy or to some, like too much work, but I’m serious.

Sure beats forcing the cable companies to comply with more rules and regulations and allows the parents to raise their kids how they want to.

Sounds practical enough for me.[/quote]

Remember when you were going through that stage when you found out Mom had all the presents in the house before X-mas? I’ll bet you figured out where they were no matter how well they were hid.

37

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

That’s bullshit. The two aren’t even correlated. Cinemax and the like are premium fool. I’m talking cable and your reaction is ridiculous.[/quote]

Anything above broadcast is premium, fool. If you can’t afford to be a good parent (keeping them away from filth), you don’t need to be paying for TV.

[quote]
You obviously are not a parent and don’t understand what it takes. [/quote]

My 11 year old and my 6 year old would seem to think I’m a parent. See, I know that doesn’t mean sitting them in front of the TV 8 hours a day. I know that if I can’t be there to watch them, they shouldn’t have access to filth.

[quote]
You obviously have never worked for anything important, because you can’t even understand the concept of ‘working poor.’ Just what we need–a coddled suburbanite dictating parenting to a group you can’t even comprehend.[/quote]

I teach at a school that is composed of 99% migrant farm workers. These are kids who’ve been in the fields picking onions with their families. Kids who live in one room with 8 family members as they slowly build their house in the colonia. Kids I have to drive home at night after tutorials because their families don’t have a car. I get the concept of working poor. These parents care enough about their kids to put their priorities somewhere else besides ESPN. If you can’t keep your kid from watching filth (because you are “working poor”), don’t bring the filth in your home.

38

I do think that sometimes over-regulation is used as a band-aid for poor-parenting.

However, I do think there is a serious case to answer for the ads shown during breaks.

If I’m watching a soccer or rugby match, with my children, I DO NOT want penis-enlargement ads during the half time break.

If a channel is showing child-safe material, then the ads shown should also be equally child-safe.

I also have a problem with the really insidious advertising on childrens channels. Buy this, get that - you’ll be so cool. Not healthy. Not a problem in our household, but I can definately see how this might be a problem for some.

39

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Al
That’s great. And I’m being sincere. But I can’t equate working poor to someone who has the ability to have a spouse stay at home.
Yes, more parents should be much more involved with their children. My wife and I both work. She teaches and wants to work. I could support both of us on my income. We chose to drop cable almost 3 years ago because it offered us so little. Between the kids activities, videos…(you’re a parent) we actually spend little time watchng actual TV. It is winter now so a little more inside time.
My point being–I guess we’re alot alike. We both are very hands on parents and have the necessary shills to be so.
I just don’t think everyon has that ability or even chance. A la carte may allow them some extra freedom to have some channels and exclude others.
I was not arguing for censorship to do that job.
But i believe the working poor in this country are shit on regular. To say they don’t deserve cable seemed harsh.[/quote]

I think that we are on the same page for the most part on this issue. Just for the record, I never said or agreed with taking away cable from the working poor. They get jerked around so much that need it more than most people. What I was saying is that if your social/economic status does not allow you to be a good parent, you shouldn’t be worrying about having cable tv.

There are many, many working poor parents that are better parents than the ones that are higher on the social/economic scale and they deserve what few luxuries they can get. In fact, some of the parents that have money need to have cable tv denied to them because some of them truly suck at parenting.

Also, I wasn’t trying to equate myself with the working poor. I know that I am more fortunate than many people in that we can work a situation to have one spouse at home with the kids. My point in telling you that was to say that I am not some codddled suburbanite that doesn’t understand what a hard day’s work amounts to.

Much like you, I had to work for everything that I have. I supported myself from the time I was 17 years old (through High School, College and Grad School), so believe me, I may not be one now, but I understand what it is like being poor.

40

[quote]isr wrote:
I do think that sometimes over-regulation is used as a band-aid for poor-parenting.

However, I do think there is a serious case to answer for the ads shown during breaks.

If I’m watching a soccer or rugby match, with my children, I DO NOT want penis-enlargement ads during the half time break.

If a channel is showing child-safe material, then the ads shown should also be equally child-safe.

I also have a problem with the really insidious advertising on childrens channels. Buy this, get that - you’ll be so cool. Not healthy. Not a problem in our household, but I can definately see how this might be a problem for some.[/quote]

I agree with this. I have a younger brother, and it does irritate me when shows that are meant for “families” have Viagra commercials, or like you said, penis enlargement (I fucking hate those).

He also is very influenced by commericals and advertisements. I find now he wants things yet at the same time is barely aware of what they do- its all the advertisements.