Fair and Balanced

March 26, 2005 3:40 PM

Tired of accidentally catching a second or two of FOXNews? I personally don't have this problem but if FOXNews is driving you so nuts you just can't take it anymore, we now may have a solution for you. Not sure if (or how???) this little filter would actually work. I cannot wait for someone to do a detailed dissection online.
posted by pwb503 (38 comments total)

Is this high tech solution designed specifically for people who haven't figured out how their programmable remote controls work?
posted by jacquilynne at 3:43 PM on March 26, 2005

Designed to make a statement. And money.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:53 PM on March 26, 2005

And death threats. (Via DailyKos)
posted by Guy Smiley at 3:56 PM on March 26, 2005

How soon until I can buy PreachNix?

We seem to have AdNix figured out already.
posted by nmiell at 3:59 PM on March 26, 2005

nmiell: And Sagan never lived to see it...
posted by sexymofo at 4:16 PM on March 26, 2005

you have to supply a channel number on the order page, so it just blocks a specific channel number, regardless of what's on that channel. no fancy fox-recognition technology. it could just as easily be a PBS-blocker, and i'm sure it will be as soon as soon as some mentalfundalists track down the manufacturer.
posted by scottreynen at 4:26 PM on March 26, 2005

Oooooh, that's how it works! I'm an electrical engineer (in the TV business, actually) and was trying to figure out how this thing worked when I first heard about it a couple days ago. So, it's just a notch filter. That'll work fine (sort of) as long as your cable system carries Fox News on the analog tier (i.e. low channel numbers). If it's up in the digital tier, then at the very least the filter would knock out a whole bunch of channels at once (like 10). More likely though, they just don't offer it for digital tier channels -- which is fine because by now Fox News has probably made it down to the low-number prime real estate since all the mouth breathers have been insisting/praying on it.
posted by intermod at 4:35 PM on March 26, 2005

This is a great idea - let everybody physically filter out the opinions they don't like. Start with FoxFilter, move to PBSfilter, and soon we'll all be recieving just the DailyMe. Fantastic idea if you ask me.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:37 PM on March 26, 2005

This was alluded to in a recent Boston Legal episode.

The problem with a PBS blocker is that many cities get multiple PBS stations. I get four over the air here. The blocker blocks one channel at a time.
posted by calwatch at 4:37 PM on March 26, 2005

If you have a Tivo, VCR, DVR, and even some TVs, you can easily delete a channel. I just don't get this (other than his desire to make money off the controversy).

When I got my Tivo, all the cable news channels were the first to get blacklisted. They're all crap.
posted by e40 at 4:52 PM on March 26, 2005

The problem with a PBS blocker is that many cities get multiple PBS stations. I get four over the air here. The blocker blocks one channel at a time.

It is possible to daisy chain them. Just get one for each station you recieve.
posted by SirOmega at 4:58 PM on March 26, 2005

These notch filters are basically how they stop you from getting certain analog cable channels. The notches are just larger, though I guess that makes it more of a band reject filter. If you only receive basic cable there will be a filter outside that blocks all channels higher than the cutoff. If you have basic extended the cutoff moves up etc.

I've been too lazy to bother but I think if you had a filter that peaks in the notched area you'd probably get reception of blocked channels and you wouldn't have to go outside and monkey with cable company property.
posted by substrate at 5:05 PM on March 26, 2005

I had a thing like that installed when I got a subscription to cable modem. It came with basic cable and this so-called trap was supposed to block access to more channels. It interfered with my cable modem (rented, ironically enough, from the same cable company) so they had to come in and take it out. I don't own a TV, so it really does not matter to me, but apparently I'm getting a full cable for free.
posted by c13 at 5:22 PM on March 26, 2005

apparently I'm getting a full cable for free.

Just about everyone who has cable internet has "basic" cable for free. Most people just don't know it.

Back OT, this is really lame. Most TVs, not to mention cable or satellite boxes, allow you to edit your channel list and block channels you don't want to see, often under the guise of Parental Control. (Don't want the kids watching MTV or Cinemax.)
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:30 PM on March 26, 2005

I'd have killed for parental controls when I was a kid.

Dad! I want an allowance. Mom! I want a pecan pie!
posted by substrate at 6:05 PM on March 26, 2005

See this is what I've been telling the cable company I want since day one! (Although, in my version, I'm only paying for the channels that I want...)
posted by idontlikewords at 6:07 PM on March 26, 2005

This is great. I've never been able to figure out how to stop my television from showing me things I don't want to see. It's stumped me for years. Some people say there are 'channels', but I don't know... how do those things work? It's too much for me. The answer is clearly FoxBlocker.
posted by blacklite at 6:26 PM on March 26, 2005

Wait, that means if I cancel my comcast television, and keep my comcast Internet, then I get basic cable for free?
posted by Dean Keaton at 6:33 PM on March 26, 2005

I used to be a cable installer, they're basically the same things we used for bumping people down to basic cable, just much more specific. One channel instead of channels 25-65.
posted by The Cardinal at 6:39 PM on March 26, 2005

I'm sure the freepers are going to get themselves into a goodly TV-B-Gone sized lather over this, and of course you can just program your TV/STB, but these guys really are just making a point. In fact most of their website is just laying out the reasons to hate Fox News, and maybe some good will come of the exposure that will get.

The more interesting thing that's starting to happen is mass acceptance that Fox News is an opinion platform, not a news channel, and thus some interesting developments may flow from that. For example, does Fox / NewsCorp / Murdoch get any exemptions by airing a news channel? Basically the public airways / serving the public argument, but with legal teeth. And so forth.

Anyway, wouldn't want to have the FoxBlocker guys' email inboxes for the next few days ...
posted by intermod at 6:41 PM on March 26, 2005

Dean Keaton:
No, after you cancel your cable television they will put a filter on it (or at least they're supposed to, some installers are lazy). They will probably put a basic filter on it instead of a complete block on analog channels though, which you're better off with because it's cheaper for internet + basic than just internet.
posted by The Cardinal at 6:41 PM on March 26, 2005

If you have a Tivo, VCR, DVR, and even some TVs, you can easily delete a channel. I just don't get this

my first thought when i saw this was that you could get them and put them on other people's TVs (especially public or work TVs), and when fox doesn't come in, they won't realize what's going on and just start watching something else.

Just about everyone who has cable internet has "basic" cable for free

i really hope that's true. i'm off to unplug my cable modem and find out.
posted by scottreynen at 6:43 PM on March 26, 2005

Scottreynen:
If you need to buy a splitter to run a line to your TV make sure it's rated over 800MHz on the high end or it might interfere with your modem.
posted by The Cardinal at 6:56 PM on March 26, 2005

thanks for the advice cardinal. i'll do that tomorrow. i tried it and it worked for me. i can't believe i never tried this is the past few years i've had cable modem and no cable. i just assumed they wouldn't give me cable if i wasn't paying for it. why does anyone pay for basic cable?
posted by scottreynen at 7:21 PM on March 26, 2005

i just assumed they wouldn't give me cable if i wasn't paying for it.

I am not an Electrical Engineer, but from what I understand, either they can not send you the Internet access with out the basic cable or it is too much of a hassle for them to remove it.

What it really comes down to, is that for most of the country, "Basic" cable is not advertised as an option. They start you off with the low end digital package where you have to rent the box, etc.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:14 PM on March 26, 2005

Am I the only one who actually likes to watch Fox on occasion? For the entertainment value, I mean.

that is, until it sinks in that "people actually believe this shit!" and I have to turn the TV off.
posted by salad spork at 8:55 PM on March 26, 2005

This was alluded to in a recent Boston Legal episode.

Only alluded to because ABC made them remove the explicit references to FOX. Which then prompted the writers to add a throw-away line about how some networks are censoring their script dramas.
posted by theonetruebix at 9:12 PM on March 26, 2005

Comcast told me that I have to have basic cable at a minimum with my cable internet. So I pay 45 for internet + 8 for basic cable = 55 a month (2 bucks for fees). So their technical inability (I assume) to filter out that range of channels because the internets come in on the same frequency conveniently gets passed on to me as a fee.

I love the free market.
posted by MillMan at 10:33 PM on March 26, 2005

I don't think there's a real inability to filter out basic cable access - mostly just a real laziness, so that they either just let you have it for free or just charge everyone for it.

And while this guy may have a laudable goal there is no way the components of this thing cost 2 bucks, never mind 9.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:49 PM on March 26, 2005

More interesting would be something that screws up the signal in that frequency for you and all your neighbors. Not that you'd get away with this for very long, but still.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:58 PM on March 26, 2005

Formerly a registered Republican, even a precinct captain, [FOXblocker inventor] Kimery became an independent in the 1990s when he said the state party stopped taking input from its everyday members.

Kimery now contends Fox News' top-level management dictates a conservative journalistic bias, that inaccuracies are never retracted, and what winds up on the air is more opinion than news. "I might as well be reading tabloids out of the grocery store," he says. "Anything to get a rise out of the viewer and to reinforce certain retrograde notions."

[...]

Kimery's motives go deeper than preventing people from watching the channel, which he acknowledges can be done without the Blocker. But he likens his device to burning a draft card, a tangible example of disagreement.

And he's taking this message to the network's advertisers. After buying the $8.95 device online, would-be blockers are shown a letter that they can send to advertisers via the Fox Blocker site.

"The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery, who works in the tech industry.
posted by vhsiv at 5:27 AM on March 27, 2005

Too bad that CNN and MSNBC are moving to the right to capture to Fox News audience, soon all the sensitive types will have to block them, too.

And of course CNBC and Bloomberg TV have to be blocked (nasty capitalists!).

And Animal Planet (survival of the fittest undermines the self-esteem of the dumb and unathletic kids)

And BET and MTV and ESPN (all of those African Americans getting rich from their native talent and hard work undermines affirmative action.)

And HGTV and Lifetime and O! (all of those happy housewives -- don't they know they can only be fulfilled if their kids are stacked up to the rafters in day care?)

And CourtTV (so much sympathy for the victims -- where's the pity for the sad, deprived criminals?)
posted by MattD at 7:08 AM on March 27, 2005

Bah, you right-wingers should love how this guy is making money on the free market by catering to a demand.

Maybe if he incorporates...
posted by Saydur at 8:08 AM on March 27, 2005

Steve_at_Linnwood:
They just use a different filter for blocking out all the television channels (I believe it blocked everything up to 4-500mhz), or at least they're supposed to. 1/2 the time I was installing internet without tv we didn't have those filters in stock so we would just use the basic filter instead (or sometimes no filter if we were completely out).

MillMan:
The Comcast charges in Santa Fe/Albuquerque are around $10 for basic service, but subscribing to basic service gives you a $15 discount on internet so it's $5 less to get TV service with internet.
posted by The Cardinal at 11:25 PM on March 27, 2005

Didn't this make the rounds like a year ago? Anyway I do like to watch fox to see how twisted their logic is.
posted by jeblis at 12:35 AM on March 28, 2005

So... no Simpsons? Or football (in season)? Hmm...
posted by klangklangston at 6:18 AM on March 28, 2005

Strangely enough, despite my loathing for FoxNews national organization on the satellite, the local FoxNews is a pretty decent community news station. Their consumer reporter has helped us personally a couple of times (and so quickly that it didn't even rate a news story- now when I have a consumer problem, I just cite the reporter's name and it usually gets fixed!)
posted by Doohickie at 6:33 AM on March 28, 2005

.. nasty capitalists! .. survival of the fittest undermines the self-esteem of the dumb and unathletic kids .. all of those African Americans getting rich from their native talent and hard work undermines affirmative action .. all of those happy housewives -- don't they know they can only be fulfilled if their kids are stacked up to the rafters in day care? .. so much sympathy for the victims -- where's the pity for the sad, deprived criminals?

The petulant conservative whining never gets old, does it?
I can't imagine why anyone would want to tune out MattD's ilk for good.
posted by fleacircus at 12:54 PM on April 19, 2005