Just a thought. I am assuming most of you have cable or satellite television. Let's say you have a typical package and have somewhere around 100 channels to choose from.

What if your cable or satellite company told you that in order to provide you this television programming, 12 of the channels would have to be pornography channels? So you'll have the Playboy Channel, the Penthouse Channel, the Hustler Channel... and NINE MORE sex channels, twelve in all.

No they can't scramble them or filter them out or turn them off for you. That would infringe free speech. No you can't opt for a different channel selection. It's all or nothing. Take it or leave it.

Would you allow this in your home? Are the benefits of cable television really worth that?

Well, you may have figured it out all ready, but this is EXACTLY what internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast are doing to you. Twelve percent of all websites are pornographic in nature. There are approximately 420 million pornographic web pages on the internet. So if you want Gmail and Wikipedia, you've got to have Playboy and Hustler too. Take it or leave it.

Well, but you say that its a matter of choice. One doesn't HAVE to go to those sites. Yes, you are right. But the same would be true of television. Just because it is being piped into one's television doesn't mean one has to turn to those channels.

Give me a break. The point is: I DON'T WANT IT PIPED INTO MY HOME!

Why won't Verizon or Comcast provide filtered service to those of us who want it?? Call them and ask them about it. They won't provide it. They're not even considering providing it. WHY?? Why do they force these porn channels into our homes? Why do they eschew the profits they could make from filtered services that THEY COULD CHARGE MORE FOR?

Call them and ask them. The number is on your bill.


Terry said...

yeeeeeeeeeaaaah... i am gonna go ahead and disagree w/you on this one. it is no one's responsibility but yours to filter what you watch and do. i understand that you have a family that you need to look out for as well, but you have multiple options on how to deal w/this situation besides demanding the cable company do something to institute your moral restrictions on people. what about the good old internet filter software, or christian filtering companies? what is so bad about those two options? they will cost about the same as a steep hike in prices that making the cable companies filter the internet would cost.

what i am more appalled by is that you are willing to allow SOME sexually charged material into your home, but not TOO MUCH. isn't it all bad in your opinion? it is all over cable. so why do you have cable at all if you demand from your entertainment and media sources (ie cable, internet, etc) that NO sexual material gets into your home? why not get rid of cable all together?

Ken said...

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in my post. I am not advocating that everyone be forced to have filtered service. I do not support censorship, and I support the right of pornographers to do their thing.

I am just wondering why the big companies don't offer the filtering as an option for those who want it. Like I said, they could charge more for it. Seems like a way to make more money for them. I would pay more to have it. And it would be much more effective than client side filtering that can so easily be defeated (especially by teenagers!).

Many of us would not accept cable TV if we had to have that many porn channels connected to it. Why do we have to accept the internet that way? Can't we have a choice other than "try to filter it yourself"? Because that is the only current option, there is now a small industry of filtering and accountability solutions to try to help people sub-optimally deal with the problem. But it could be completely solved if the big providers would just do it on their end.

As far as cable, we have the ultra-basic package (less than $10 per month). There are only about 50 channels, mostly shopping, local channels, and CSPAN. To the best of my knowledge there is no nudity available at this level of programming. That seems to be a clear line that I am comfortable with. If there were nudity allowed, I would go back to the rabbit ears.

Ken said...

Take this for example. What if the big internet providers were to offer a "crime free" internet service that filtered all the illegal websites, like child porn? They could market it as a "legal alternative". Think about that admission. They may be aiding in criminal activity by participating in it's distribution if they indeed have the ability to NOT distribute it. Are they afraid to do filtering because they know it opens a can of worms for them? I don't know. But it sure seems like common sense for them to enter the filtering market and offer filtered service at a higher cost to those who want it. Lots of third parties are doing it. Why won't they?

Ken said...

I edited my post to make my position clearer. It now reads "Why won't Verizon or Comcast provide filtered service to those of us who want it??"

Terry said...

yeah i agree w/you on the filtering service... they could make some $$$ doing it.

great analogy too about the "crime free" alternative.