It might unnerve a few of his fellow Republicans looking to do otherwise, but the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has said he prefers cable and satellite television and that the Internet regulate itself for “indecency” rather than having the government do the job.
“I prefer markets and competition to regulation wherever possible,” said Kevin J. Martin, who succeeded Michael Powell as FCC chairman earlier this year, at this week’s National Cable and Telecommunications Association convention. “Competition first, then regulation.”
Martin’s comment stood athwart lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) who are pushing to bring the FCC’s regulatory authority to cable and satellite television. Stevens has called for imposing indecency fines upon cable and satellite as it now does for network television and traditional radio.
Another federal lawmaker, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) has supported allowing cable and satellite subscribers to pay only for channels they want, while the cable industry has countered that existing parental controls and today’s very broad range of channel selections are more than enough for parents to keep their children from bumping into adult-oriented and other “questionable” material.
Martin himself has supported the idea of the so-called “family tier,” a cable or satellite system that would let families pick a package of child-friendly channels and avoid channels offering what they don’t want their children to see. “[Cable has] an opportunity to step up to the plate and address these issues," he said during the San Francisco conference and to Disney co-chief executive Robert Iger.
Iger, however, disagreed, saying that kind of system might drive up the price you pay for cable or satellite television, though an earlier FCC study said the additional consumer choices might offset any price hikes.
In an April 7 editorial, the Los Angeles Times dismissed Martin’s comments as “a conciliatory note” compared to his previously having “ingratiated his way into the [FCC chairman’s] job by playing to social conservatives. His job is not that of censor in chief.” And it accused Martin’s call of self-regulation of carrying an implicit “or else” to the cable, satellite, and Internet industries.
“Martin should be busy clarifying what constitutes indecency for broadcasters,” the editorial said, “and end the confusion that is causing them to unnecessarily censor themselves to the detriment of viewers.”
But the paper also called on the cable industry–and by extension satellite and Internet–to devise a program ratings system that’s consistent and coherent, as well as doing better at pushing and explaining existing technology parents can use to keep their children from what they deem questionable programming.
