Can I get a package with NO religious channels and no country music channels? And no Fox News? How dare they discriminate against those of us WITHOUT families?! (or those of us whose family values could conceivably INCLUDE Jon Stewart.)

Once I called my cable company (Comcast, as a matter of fact) and offered to trade them some of the channels I didn't want for Ovation, Trio and something else. They laughed, and gave me the channels I wanted as a package for a year for free.

Wow - if the cable companies are going to offer "family friendly" cable packages, then I think they should offer a variety of custom cable packages and reduce the price accordingly. I could do without ESPN (and all the hundreds of variations of ESPN), QVC and the wacko religious channels. I have deleted these channels from my TV, but I shouldn't have to pay for them. It's only fair...

I agree with the previous posters. A "heathen package" is only fair if a family package is to be offered. A lineup without CMT, Fox News, QVC, PAX or TBN would be bliss. Hell, I would happily get rid of Disney and MTV as well. Cable providers, are you reading? Hell, I think I might actually be willing to pay more to never have to come across TBN again.

they just want other people to watch it. This will totally flop

You know, I will never understand all this hooraw over cable. It seems pretty simple: either lock out the channels you are afraid your kids will watch (Didn't Ned Flanders lock out every channel except PBS?) or, heaven forfend, keep an eye on your kids and stop them from watching the programs you don't want them to see. What's the hard part in this scenario?

There's plenty of TV I don't want my kids to watch, and I don't let them. It's, ya know, not all that hard.

I think Heinlein put it well in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:"

"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws--always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good" – not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

I've never been able to undertand why "conservative" groups--you know, the folks who supposedly want to conserve the original intent of the Constitution--continually try to abridge the First Amendment. They must be doing it "for our own good."

A "family friendly" package doesn't solve the problem of being forced to buy channels you don't want to watch, whether it's the History Channel, Lifetime, or FOX news.

Why can't cable systems offer a "build-your-own" package? What would be so hard about local stations, CSPAN, the Weather Channel, 1 or 2 other news stations, 2 or 3 movie channels, and 5 or 6 other channels (BBC America, Spice, The History Channel, Fox, Lifetime, BET, etc.) for a flat fee? Or offer a bare-bones package (local channels, the Weather Channel, and CSPAN), then let consumers add networks for $5 each?

When I lived in the boondocks, we got 2 channels without cable, unless is was raining. Satellite doesn't work unless you have a clear line of sight to the southern horizon. Nothing can be in the way, not even trees. That's not likely in the mountains or the woods.

I'd gladly pay for TV without "South Park" and "Sex and the City". That's what Netflix is for.

Didn't congress legislate the inclusion of the V-Chip in every television sold in the United States? Doesn't the V-Chip allow parents to block shows they don't want their children to see? Doesn't this settle the issue? What is the FCC's position on the V-Chip now? Whenever some group complains about the offensive content on TV can't we just respond with "V-Chip" and move on?

And it's one of the options on the table. I hate to say this but the fundies have a good idea there. What they don't realize though is that by allowing individual channels to be bought, they open the flood gates for networks to put out even more raunchier content than what's on there now. Imagine shows like The Sopranos on Spike TV unedited. It happened with the ratings system Clinton championed in '93, the new ratings allowed networks to push boundaries and gave them an excuse if any one sought damages against them. "Hey, it's rated TV MA, why's your kid watching it in the first place?" You'd see the same thing by switching over to a system which allows people to buy individual channels. "You bought our channel knowing full well what our programming was like." What you'll eventually end up with is the FCC losing alot of it's regulatory power as the market dictates what's acceptable on TV and what's not.

I'm all for it, let the conservatives shoot themselves in the foot. We get better more realistic TV, and they get to further cut themselves off from reality, it's a win win situation for both sides!

I've been watching the discussions and news articles over the past several months, but I still don't grasp a fundamental point.

The FCC has authority over the air waves because they grant licenses to public property to networks using those air waves (with requirements for public service programming, etc.)

But cable and satellite companies do not use the air waves. They offer service based on privately-financed infrastructure.

How does the FCC even figure into it?

I expect if these FCC efforts go too far, it will end up in the courts.

But if I'm wrong, I'll opt for the adult, non-fundamentalist package and use my v-chip and satellite channel blocking options and my own presence to oversee what my grand-sons watch at my house.