Huh??

Woody

Okay, so I 'Googled' the Family Action Council of Tennessee and found the following:

Our Mission:

To promote and defend a culture that values the traditional family, for the sake of the common good.

Be a Friend of the Family

I'm sorry. I am still in the dark.
I, as I am sure, and everyone else lives in a world where if you hear something you don't like...you don't have to listen to it.
If you see something you don't like...you don't have to look at it.
And, of course, if someone else attempts to foist their beliefs upon you, you have the right to disagree.

So, again, I have to wonder, "Huh?"

Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

The story was in yesterday's paper. The Family Action Council of Tennessee filed a complaint about the Electric Power Board (a government utility) including adult programing in its new fiber optic cable TV package.

Here's a link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/yja4dab

Every body "draws the line" somewhere and most do not like where someone else draws it. Have you noticed how the same people who scream for more tolerance seem to be the least tolerant of all?

So, it seems the The Family Action Council of Tennessee major argument here is that a government owned cable service should not be providing porn.

I don't agree with that.

If it's government owned, then it should also not allow any religious broadcasts. (Separation of church and state.)

I don't agree with that, either.

Perhaps we should just let them run it as a cable company and let each customer decide which channels they will get. That seems a lot easier.

Exactly, moonpie.

The religious programming argument was the first thing I thought of, as well, when I read about the Family Action Council's objection to EPB's cable offerings. EPB should offer as much programing as they can afford to include in their service and leave a person's viewing habits up to them (as long as they include parental controls, which they do).

Frankly, I would be more upset if a government entity tried to censor what I can watch in my own house. I'm a big girl, I can decide for myself. But thanks for trying to decide for me, Family Action Council!

I'm about as confused as woody. If you're a concerned parent worried about kids viewing things that are inappropriate, than it is ultimately in the parents hands. I understand both positions and lean towards the concerns of the Family Action Council, but it shouldn't matter because the parent makes the ultimate choice. Similar channels are available on other television network providers with the option of blocking them completely.

And if you honestly don't like what they are doing, just don't buy their service.

Again, with woody... huh?

I miss the Bible Belt!

It is my understanding that EPB has to follow certain contract obligations to supply a full variety of shows to those that want them... So whether the Family Action Council wants it or not, those adult themed channels will be available to those who want them. But I am with Woody on this as well. No one is sitting you down and forcing you to watch anything. Don't subscribe to the channels. They will not be on in my house.
EPB also stated that they have very strict parental controls to help parents in this way.

Every cable TV service I have ever had charges a premium for the porn channels, i.e., Playboy, etc. That includes that hotbed of iniquity, California. You don't want to watch it or don't want your kids/wife/granny to watch it, don't buy that channel.

You worriers should also block out nine-tenths of the broadcast prime-time offerings. I am far from a prude, but IMO that stuff is absolutely filthy. The only thing they DON'T show is full frontal nudity...and that's just the news. :o] [Canada DID have topless news...maybe they still do.]

I can't wait...Comcast needs the competition.

Those people of whom you speak are called "Liberals", otmer.

[Sorry, folks. Some things ya just can't resist. :o])

I find it interesting that rolando, of all people, would be anxiously awaiting the competition of GOVERNMENT utility company will bring to a market that currently operates under a virtual monopoly in the PRIVATELY-RUN Comcast.

Now, if only he would extend that same logic to health insurance.

Are you really blind to the differences in this Ollie? EPB offering another option of cable TV in order to offer competition (and help them make more money, of coarse) is perfectly acceptable. Why? Because you will not get fined if you chose not to have any cable at all. Also, You will not have to start paying additional taxes to cover people who don't feel like purchasing their own cable services, but want a free ride from the gov. EPB is offering their services at a price to the individual buying the service. Not at a price to all in the area who may or may not want their services. To compare EPB offering a SMALL market cable service to the Fed.gov's attempt of taking over a private industry is absurd.

WOW!!! Well said WhoKnows. Some people just don't think before they speak (or type in this case).

And Rolando, I agree with you on your point of prime time TV. It is ridiculous at best.

We might turn off the screen and read to each other:

Jimmy Jet And His TV Set
by Shel Silverstein

I'll tell you the story of Jimmy Jet --
And you know what I tell you is true.
He loved to watch his TV set
Almost as much as you.

He watched all day, he watched all night
Till he grew pale and lean,
From "The Early Show" to "The Late Late Show"
And all the shows between.

He watched till his eyes were frozen wide,
And his bottom grew into his chair.
And his chin turned into a tuning dial,
And antennae grew out of his hair.

And his brains turned into TV tubes,
And his face to a TV screen.
And two knobs saying "VERT." and "HORIZ."
Grew where his ears had been.

And he grew a plug that looked like a tail
So we plugged in little Jim.
And now instead of him watching TV
We all sit around and watch him.

***

Even Shel's "mature content" is interesting:

Shel Silverstein's Contributions to Playboy Magazine
http://shelsilverstein.tripod.com/Playbo...

Official Shel Silverstein Site
http://www.shelsilverstein.com/indexSite...

----------

whoknows states, "Are you really blind to the differences in this Ollie? EPB offering another option of cable TV in order to offer competition (and help them make more money, of coarse) is perfectly acceptable. "

----------

The same could be said about Government health care insurance. They too, would be offering competition in a market where little currently exists. As for mandating coverage, well, much like automobile insurance (which is mandatory), that provision is intended to protect the rest of us against shouldering the burden should the uninsured person have some mishap.

Your argument that a small market cable market is different than a large market like the health care industry, is absurd. Scale is not a factor when you're arguing that a government run company has an unfair advantage over a privately-run company.

Be intellectually honest. Either you're philosophically opposed to the government competing with the private sector, or your not.

----------

Then nurseforjustice writes, "WOW!!! Well said WhoKnows. Some people just don't think before they speak"

----------

You're absolutely right about some people not thinking before they speak, but you're dead wrong about which people those are.

I’m philosophically opposed to the federal government taking over the private sector and imposing fines on those who do not want to purchase a product. I have no opposition to a local government offering a service that is also offered by the private sector. And seriously? Little competition? Do you even know how many insurance companies there are in the state of Tennessee? I don’t. But it’s in the multiple hundreds, I can tell you that. In Hamilton County, you have three options for cable. Comcast, Dish, or Direct (four is you count Hughesnet, but they just charge way too much to be considered competitive). EPB is not forcing themselves on anyone or fining anyone for not taking services. I have no problems with the government offering an insurance plan either. Let me make that clear. I do not think it should be on the federal level, as most things done on the federal level are tainted and end up messed up beyond recognition. However, if the states want to offer competitive insurance plans, that COMPETE with private insurance companies, with no penalties towards those who don’t have insurance, and no additional taxes to the general public to cover everyone else, then have at it. But let those government offered agencies be subjected to the exact same regulations and scrutiny as those offered in the private sector. However, most of the states which already do have government programs for health insurance have failed at those attempts to provide good and effective coverage. I’m all for capitalism. If the government wants to take part in it, then let them, but not at the expense of the rest of the populace. Competition vs enforced take-over. That’s what the difference boils down to between EPB Cable, and Obamacare.

OllieH, I'd have to agree that with whoknows that the comparisons trying to say that the competition that EPB brings to the market is of no comparison to a public option in the health care bill. The conditions are significantly different and the impact is extraordinarily different. It is better to compare to auto insurance, but that comparison neglects the fact that people can choose not to drive at all, thus not requiring insurance. I have a few friends who live in downtown Chicago that choose this option because to keep a car is such a pain and many can walk to where they need to go.

It's funny how many of these threads with government or political involvement end up jumping to health care.

I again agree with WhoKnows and aces25. There is no comparison. Gov. Healthcare would be tax funded not paid for by the individual. So here we are back to taking from many to give to the few, who, in a lot of cases, just plain choose not to have insurance.

I know that there are those who truly can't afford insurance but there are already programs designed for them. Trust me, my family was on them at one time. We had a child with severe medical conditions (who eventually died due to his conditions) who was the only one in our family insured. He was on Medicaid. It didn't cover much but it helped. The rest of my family went without during that time. Indigent programs would have been used should they have needed any kind of care. I paid for much out of my pocket. I am passionately opposed to a government run healthcare that is mandatory with no financial responsibility to the individual.

With EPB, at least the individual will be responsible for paying for his own service without it affecting me. And by the way, I would not hope for big savings. They will have to charge pretty much the same as Comcast to be able to run the company. Just hopefully the customer service will be better.

And Ollie, I am not wrong about who is not thinking!!!

After years of crummy service, rotten picture quality, and on-again off-again cable TV, I told Comcast to kiss off and went to DirecTV. The only time my picture fails is during severe rainfall at 5-6" per hour and over cloudbursts. That was about four times this year for about 4-5 minutes each time, max. Comcast averaged the same number of outages each year due to downed trees...but had lots of downtime.

Comcast's Internet cable has steadily improved since AT&T and epb came on-line with their systems. That improvement would never have happened without the competition.

Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing, OllieH...even federal monopolies. The feds DO do some things right, namely those things enumerated in the Constitution. It is when it starts roaming afield that it fails miserably...and it isn't just OUR government. There is no substitute for competent business acumen and discernment -- and Congress doesn't have either one.

On the other hand, private regulated monopolies are not the money-monster people think. Not always. I give you The Bell System before the forced breakup in the 60s or whenever.

Couldn't finish. Bell used its long-distance money to subsidize its local service [like passenger-train service, a money loser and sink hole]. This kept local service costs down to rockbottom cost and included an absolutely bulletproof phone. Business complained to Congress who applied their great wisdom [yeah, right] and destroyed Bell. Now it costs me $54/mo for basic phone.

EPB is just a conduit. They also supply electricity to the Adult(?) book stores.

For those who haven't been able to switch to EPB Fiber, I was fortunate enough to get it about three or four weeks ago. Prices are less (at least in my choice of service) and customer service so far has been exceptional.
My wife called on a Friday morning after seeing their service was available in the Brainerd area, and a technician was here in 1 1/2 hours. The young man extended the fiber from the pole to the house. In about 30 minutes another technician was here installing the fiber equipment. A new power meter was installed by another contractor while the other two young men were finishing their work.
An appointment was made for the following Wed. to bring us our high def equipment. Three techs came and ran new RG-6 coax cable to each TV location and installed a Cat 5 cable for internet service. The entire job was done in less than two hours.
We found it amusing to receive three calls from Comcast over the next two days. They wanted to know why we left them and offered discounted service. My wife then explained to them about the poor customer service and most of the time poor cable reception. We haven't received any more calls from Comcast.

Ollie et al,

I think this side debate here illustrates a important facet about healthcare reform debate.

If the healthcare bill were only about creating a public option there would be less resistance to it. For example, if I had the opportunity to pay to get Medicare or Medicaid Benefits and use that as my primary insurance, I bet a lot of people would be more accepting of that.

The insurance companies still would not like that, because they would lose some paying subscribers. So there would be some push back, but we wouldn't have nearly the level of discord as we are currently seeing.

As for the EPB Service, it doesn't appear that the Family Action Council garners much support from anyone on this forum.

Rolando, I don't know if you live here in Chattanooga, but here is the link for Epb fiber. Their most expensive of the three phone packages available is $39.99. http://epbfi.com/you-pick/. Just wanted to pass this along.

I'm just glad I can't afford a TV and the cable, satellite, broadband services.

I haven't seen anything on anybody's TV for which I'd want to pay the hundreds of dollars necessary to buy, install, and get service. I saw a few episodes of "Survivor" and "The Amazing Race?" and that was enough! URP!

I might get a "Jitterbug" cell phone. I won't use the phone except to call 911. I don't think you need to pay the monthly service for doing that, but I'd better check.

Speaking of choices, I recently read an article somewhere that said that both Conservatives and Liberals were considering organizing volunteer work. I don't think the plan included free choice for what YOU wanted to do. I wish I could remember where I saw it.

I'll probably be accused of starting false rumours, but...blame it on my advanced age.

vtg1955:
I am so far out in the wilds of the county they use fiber optics to bring sunshine in. Postal delivery takes an extra day and phone service costs $1 per month for "distance charge" [seriously on those last two].

I hope to eventually get epb cable but am not holding my breath.

But thanks for the info and the system break-out.