Nearly a month ago, FCC Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein gave a speech at a conference sponsored Children NOW, Digital TV: Sharpening the Focus on Children. You can read Commissioner Adelstein's speech here: Before the Children NOW Digital TV Conference, June 9, 2004, Washington, DC [PDF]. Below are some parts of the speech I felt telling (this isn't line-by-line, I skip much of the speech). Read on...

Think about it. Parents wouldn’t let their children wander by themselves through a neighborhood they don’t know. But many parents let their kids do just that with their minds through TV.

Perhaps this is because the FCC has given parents the impression that the FCC will take all the naughty bits off of television and make it safe for children.

Among other dangers, it turns out these neighborhoods are filled with slick storekeepers trying to lure kids in to buy candy, junk food and violent games. Not every street is Sesame Street. Clearly, some people in the neighborhood don’t have your kids’ best interests in mind.

Sounds like the internet. Oh, wait, on the internet it is the parents who are expected to protect their children, not the government.

The FCC’s job is to make sure TV has safe places for children – and that parents know how to keep their kids out of the dangerous places -- and out of candy stores.

However, heaven forbid that the FCC would help parent's have effective tools to create safe places for their children. That's the government's job. You could give tools to the parents to do the job. For example, you have filters for the internet, which fail because the material on the internet is virtually infinite, but on the much smaller realm of broadcast, you don't have similar tools. But, better that the FCC do it for you.

Parents, be warned: the cops on the beat aren’t on top of the new developments in the neighborhood.

We admit it! We can't do the job.

So let’s make sure that tomorrow’s digital television has more safe neighborhoods to wander in. Let’s insist on more informative, educational, healthy choices for our children.

You know, because the markets apparently won't supply it. For some strange unknown reason, demand for these programs is low. Must be a failure of capitalism or something.

Broadcasters are the landlords of the television landscape. But the FCC is supposed to protect the public against the natural tendencies of corporations to seek out the bottom-line above all else.

If broadcasters are landlords, it is because the FCC has made them so. Normally, we figure that the market, seeking the bottom-line, is in the public's best interest. However, if the government creates a screwed-up oligopoly structure, then the government has a reason to step in to regulate it. Bonus.

Broadcasters’ bargain with the government is that in exchange for free use of the public airwaves, they are supposed to serve the public interest....But the FCC provides very little assurance that all broadcasters will do so. It has so weakened the specific public interest obligations that broadcasters don’t have much left to prove. It’s time to restore these public interest obligations for the new era of interactive, digital TV.

How convenient that the government has structured regulations such that broadcasters must have a "public interest." After all, look at how badly cell phone spectrum is being abused without "public interest" obligations. And other than keeping naughty words off the air, what, exactly is the public interest? Who is to determine it and why? If we can figure out what the correct market for public information material is for broadcast, can we apply the same analysis to other media? Can we determine the public interest in newspapers, periodicals and books? If we determine that there not enough educational children's books being published, should the government step in and require more?

Digital TV promises to enhance the TV world for everyone, including children. Broadcasters can turn today’s single analog channel into 5 or 6 channels. This makes room for more programs to educate, inform, and inspire our nation’s children.

Heck, it makes room for more programs to educate, inform, and inspire our nation's adults. More educational programming for adults, I say! I mean, why should the children be the only ones who benefit from the "public interest" obligations? I want some more benefit too! Don't I count?

And, as Senator Brownback said this morning, datacasting can give parents real-time ratings and content information so they know what their kids are getting – and can keep them out of the candy store if they want.

But, if the parents have access to all this information, what use will the FCC have in regulating indecency? I wonder why Adelstein doesn't mention this. Or, bonus, we get better rating information and we still regulate speech! Indeed, why isn't Adelstein pushing such information right now?

Broadcasters should use this capability to expand the diversity and quality of programming. They should use this opportunity to empower parents.

Indeed they should. However, who will decide if they have or not? Adelstein, of course. Also, I thought that the FCC had the ability to regulate these things.

I firmly believe that new horizons in broadcasting should correspond to new horizons in serving the public interest. So we at the FCC must do our part. The FCC must urgently define the new rules for the digital era, and that includes children’s television.

Where was this guy when they invented the printing press? Just imagine if we set certain public interest obligations for the printing press as "new horizons" appeared. The world would be a better place, I tell you.

Six years ago, some broadcasters recognized that to the extent that multicasting expands broadcasting opportunities, the public interest obligations should also expand.

The more freedom, the more government regulation is necessary. Yes, indeedy.

Many issues involving children’s TV involve the complex relationships between electronic media and a child’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical development. Much more research needs to be done on how interactivity affects the balance.

Now the FCC will figure out the best way for us to raise our children. All praise the FCC!

It's about time we started. We can’t let our children venture into an unknown, unprotected digital media environment – all because the FCC didn’t do its job.

You know, because the internet has been such a tremendous failure for children. It has ruined them.