haas (09/22/82)
In the last few months several cities in Utah have decided that they want to censor the programming on cable TV networks. It seems that the city fathers are concerned that the cable TV companies might show R (yes R, not X) rated movies, which might not be suitable for small children. Since these concerned citizens think that certain individuals might buy the cable and then not stop their children from watching these hypothetical movies, laws have been enacted to protect the children by banning from the cable any programming which the city council considers "indecent". Of course the cable TV companies are claiming the protection of the First Amendment, as I think they rightfully should. After all you don't get cable TV in your home unless you order and pay for it. Now a new wrinkle has appeared. The city of Bluffdale, Utah has decided that the cable TV companies will probably win their constitutional case (and I expect that they are correct) so Bluffdale has decided to ban the cable entirely, on the grounds that the city won't be able to control the programming! This is an interesting turn on the traditional issue of technology and society. The nearest thing I can think of that is already in effect is the Soviet practice of controlling all the printing and reproducing equipment in the USSR on the grounds that you might want to xerox something blasphemous to Marxism. So the question is now, does the US Constitution protect your right to the @i[technology] that makes freedom of speech possible? Or can a local government preempt access to that technology? -- Walt Haas ARPAnet: HAAS@UTAH-20 uucp: harpo!utah-cs!haas
ech (09/27/82)
#R:utah-cs:-100000:whuxlb:7400005:000:80 whuxlb!ech Sep 27 13:15:00 1982 Please, Walt, don't be afraid to sign your name. You, Marsh Gosnell, and others
haas (09/28/82)
It's true that cable TV seems to be treated as a natural monopoly in most markets, although I'm not sure that it should be. However, so what? The Post Office is about as natural a monopoly, but nevertheless each individual is able to control what the Post Office brings into his/her home. If I want to read Playboy and my neighbor doesn't or vice versa, each of us can have what s/he wants. One reason I raised this issue here is because it seems to me it would be possible to build the same privacy protections into the technology. For example, by choosing to subscribe to a certain established magazine or not I can pretty well predict what range of things I'm going to get - eg. I can subscribe to Scientific American with little fear that the next issue will contain a centerfold of a naked female, and I can subscribe to Playboy with little fear that it *WON'T*. So, why not build the cable TV technology with different enciphered channels with cipher assigned according to content - cipher A for G movies, cipher B for PG movies,...,cipher D for X movies. Then you would have your house drop wired by the cable company to bring in only those ratings that you want, just as you subscribe to magazines that contain only that type of material you want. It seems to me that this would answer any legitimate complaints about what the children would see. Incidentally, the Salt Lake valley is already served by a "cableless" TV network called Channel One, which broadcasts a microwave signal to the whole valley (yea, even unto Bluffdale, heaven forfend!). You are supposed to rent a microwave receiver/converter to pick up the signal - however some of the more enterprising and/or dishonest folks around have, of course, flanged up the appropriate hardware and are now watching for free. Channel One isn't enciphered yet, but supposedly it will be in the near future (or they'll lose their market!) -- Walt Haas