Forum: Story Ideas

Advertisers are what prevents that.

Yes and no. NYPD Blue pushed the edges of the envelope and advertisers didn't balk. Some stations refused to carry it, but they were in the minority.

The bigger problem is lobby groups like Parents Television Council (formed around 1995) and American Family Association (formed around 1977) who are self-appointed censors and lobbied Congress and the FCC, as well as advertisers.

For many producers and network execs, it was easier to comply and put the risqué content on the fast-growing cable channels (or OTA scrambled services like OnTV).

But why do those Lobby groups matter? Because they affect advertising revenue.

I believe the actual negative impact of such boycotts (or threats of boycotts) is infinitesimal and offer the example I gave of NYPD Blue which pushed the edge of the envelope and despite the caterwauling, was shown in the vast majority of stations. In fact, of the ones that didn't show it, only one refused to show it once, wait for it, the ratings were so good they could no longer ignore it.

You can argue that was driven by economic concerns, but it shows that NOT doing it was economically disadvantageous, the opposite of what you appear to be arguing.

Edited to fix formatting/spelling.

When it came to a respected show like NYPD Blue, it was mostly accepted.

It was mostly accepted BEFORE the show was respected. The explicit (for the time for OTA) content was there from the first show.

The vast majority of stations didn't even blink.

And you are not responding to the topic I was addressing. Given you are talking past every point I've made, I'll drop this now.

These groups would get thousands of people to mail and phone their local representatives, TV stations, and FCC to complain about "vulgar content". They weren't threatening advertising, they were trying to get TV stations and production companies shut down entirely.

Exactly. Fines and/or shutdown. Which was my point about the 'advertising' claim. I even referenced the lobbying groups engaged in that behavior.

And after 10 pm, broadcast channels can legally show anything that can be shown in an R-rated film.

That's now, not then.

In the 70s, definitely NOT. In the mid-80s, you could have satellite channels with some adult oriented content. Some cable providers had it as well, but those were also limited to their specific markets.

I am not talking about X-rated stuff, just R-rated stuff.

And again, no, you couldn't. MAYBE in some of the bigger cities, if they actually continued to broadcast at that point, for their LOCAL broadcast audience only - not for network broadcasting. But stations back then actually used to sign off the air, at least on weeknights. We'd stay up late on Saturday nights to watch Sammy Terry's Nightmare Theater on the independent station out of Indianapolis, and then even THEY'D sign off about 2 in the morning.

prior to Pacifica

Incorrect - It wasn't they were allowed to do it, it was they COULD do it, but would be subject to fine / penalty if they DID do it. (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 438 US 726).

Note that when you say the 70s, you're not making the delineation that while 18 U. S. C. §1464 existed since 1948, the actual FCC regulation allowing the 10 pm to 6 am broadcast time regarding indecency did not exist until 1976. That may seem pedantic to you, but you should clarify it was the late 70s, not the entire decade. AND it was primarily RADIO stations that were doing these broadcasts - NOT television stations.

However, from the earliest days of cable TV in the US, there were dedicated porn channels available as premium channels (not part of the basic subscription). So it could be done in that medium.

Not really, that also depends on the legality in the location such was shown in. For example, there are porn stations on satellite, but you can only pick up those stations if your "home location" is where that is legal.

In other words, if you are in California you can get anything. But in North Carolina or Alabama, just the softcore channels.

And even on cable, the operator of the local station has to
follow all local regulations, where city councils themselves can get involved and pass local ordinances banning such from being shown. And this was especially true in the 1970s, where cable was very rare. In 1979, only around 20% of the country was within range of a cable provider.

I lived in Idaho at that time, and it was not available in Boise until 1980. In many parts of LA it was not available in a lot of areas until 1983 (which is why there were two competing over the air pay services On and Select).

I can see a huge backlash in a great part of the country to something like this. LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and the like will be fine. But I bet most cable providers in smaller communities would refuse to carry it for fear of public backlash.

Hell, we have had "Naked News" for over 2 decades, and most still have no idea it even exists.

Let's get some answers to where and how he transfers money from the future back into your timeline of the 70's?

He simply made one very large bet that the Miami Dolphins would go undefeated in 1972. Basically, Biff Tanner from 'Back to the Future'.

He simply made one very large bet that the Miami Dolphins would go undefeated in 1972. Basically, Biff Tanner from 'Back to the Future'.

You could also go with a bet on the Miracle Mets (1969) or the Big Red Machine to sweep the Phillies and Yankees in the post season (1976).

I'd say the Miracle Mets would pay off the most if you could find someone to take decent action in 1969. Their best previous finish had been 9th (out of 10 teams in the NL), and they had lost at least 100 games in five of their seven seasons. Heck, they had never finished over .500 before winning 100 games in 1969.

While 1 and 3 wouldn't change history,

I'm not so sure about that. A huge payout by a sports book would certainly attract attention and might well cause knock-on effects. Not to mention all the individuals who would see out the big winner. You might avoid that by spreading the bets around, but that, too might draw attention.

Ditto with stock betting — all kinds of potential knock-on effects. E.g. buys a TV he didn't have the first time around, it needs a repairman (we're talking 60s/70s here!) and that interaction leads to events which never occurred in the main timeline.

I don't think it's possible to go back in time and have it not change history, unless, of course, you subscribe to some kind of multiverse theory, which would put you in a different branch of the timeline.

I believe the question was how does he TRANFER money from the future not how to use info from it.

If one can transfer hard goods, the easiest way I can think of is by moving technology.

As an example, it is not hard to get things like old CD-ROM drives, floppy drives, MODEMs, sound cards, and the like dirt cheap. When I had my store I sold them out of a box for $5 each. However, go to around 1992 and they could easily be worth $100-200 each. Another is computer memory.

In 1983, computer memory was going for over $2,000 a megabyte. And even in 1990 it was going for $100 a megabyte. Compared to today, where it is $0.002 per megabyte.

Or if nothing physical, there is always IP. Imagine patenting velcro shoes in the 1960s, or the Computer Spreadsheet. That is what VisiCalc did in 1979, and 5 years later it was worth $50 million.

I would argue that knowing about future IP would be a much better way than betting. Especially as one can feed off of another, and are not likely to attract the wrong sort of attention from the government or criminal organizations.