What about video delivered by cell phone?

　　In last week's column, I argued the merits (or rather the lack thereof) of extending decency regulations to cable and satellite TV. This week, I'll point out just how Chinese cable much of a quagmire this would actually be and how difficult it would be to implement, regardless of the merits.Regulating cable and satellite TV would not be as clear-cut as it might seem on the surface. Remember, we are talking about the regulation of indecency which, unlike obscenity, is protected by the First Amendment.

The complexities of such an undertaking are quite formidable, to say the least. There are several key issues that would have to be dealt with and overcome. Like they say, the devil is in the details.For one thing, Congress would need to determine the scope of what is to be regulated. Would it be cable and satellite TV only or all forms of pay-TV?If Congress sets out to regulate all forms of pay-TV, the term - "pay-TV" - would have to be legally defined.

Besides satellite and cable, would it also include the new IPTV technology in which TV channels, programs, and movies are delivered to TV set-top boxes from the inteet? Would inteet video viewed on a computer also be included? Or would everything originating from the inteet be automatically exempt?Would wireless pay TV services also be included?Would videos, whether rented or purchased, also be defined as a form of pay-TV? One could make a case for them being included because videos, both VHS and DVD, are ultimately played on a TV.

What about video delivered by cell phone? Couldn't that also be considered a form of pay-TV?Now, if Congress decides that the new regulations will only apply to cable and satellite TV, there are still problems. Would all channels on every cable and satellite TV system be regulated or would the regulations just apply to the so-called "basic" channels. Would the term, "all channels", include pay-per-view and video-on-demand (VOD) programs and movies?