Order Code 97-43 SPR
Updated June 8, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
V-Chip and TV Ratings: Helping Parents
Supervise Their Children’s Television Viewing
Marcia S. Smith
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
To assist parents in supervising the television viewing habits of their children,
Congress included a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104)
that new television sets with screens 13 inches or larger sold in the United States be
equipped with a “V-chip” to screen out objectionable programming. As of January 1,
2000, all such TV sets must have a V-chip. Use of the V-chip by parents is optional. In
March 1998, the Federal Communications Commission approved a ratings system that
had been developed by the television industry to rate each program’s content, which
enables the V-chip to work. Congress and the FCC have been monitoring implementation
of the V-chip. Some are concerned that it is not effective in curbing the amount of TV
violence viewed by children and want further legislation. S. 341 (Hollings)and H.R. 1005
(Shows) would require a study of the V-chip’s effectiveness, and, if it is not effective in
curbing children’s viewing of TV violence, a “safe harbor” time period when violent
programming could not be telecast would be created. This report will be updated if
warranted.
Requirement for a V-chip. Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-104, February 8, 1996) requires that all new television sets with a picture screen
13 inches or greater (measured diagonally) sold in the United States be equipped with a
device that can block certain television programming. Dubbed the “V-chip” for “violence
chip,” the intent is to give parents more control over what their children see on television.
On March 12, 1998, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set January 1, 2000
as the date by which V-chips must be installed in such TV sets. The FCC also adopted
technical standards for the V-chip and approved the industry-developed ratings system
(see below) that enables the V-chip to work Some companies plan to offer devices that
can work with existing TV sets.
The V-chip is a computer chip that reads an electronic code transmitted with the
television signal (cable or broadcast) indicating how a program is rated. Using a remote
control, parents can enter a password and then program into the television set which
ratings are acceptable and which are unacceptable. The chip automatically blocks the
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
display of any programs deemed unacceptable. The ratings data are sent on line 21 of the
Vertical Blanking Interval found in the National Television System Committee (NTSC)
signals used for U.S. television broadcasting. Use of the V-chip by parents is entirely
optional.
Establishing a Ratings System. The first step in implementing the law was
creating a ratings system for television programs, somewhat similar to how movies have
been rated since 1968 by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The law
urged the television industry to develop a voluntary ratings system acceptable to the FCC,
and the rules for transmitting the rating, within one year of enactment. Although the “V”
is for violence, the ratings system actually is intended to reflect “sexual, violent or other
indecent material about which parents should be informed before it is displayed to children,
provided that nothing in this paragraph should be construed to authorize any rating of
video programming on the basis of its political or religious content” [section 551(b)(1)].
After initial opposition, media and entertainment industry executives met with
President Clinton on February 29, 1996, and agreed to develop the ratings system because
of political pressure to do so. Many in the television industry have been opposed to the
V-chip, fearing that it will reduce viewership and hurt advertising. They also question
whether it violates the First Amendment. Industry executives said they would not
challenge the law immediately, but left the option open for the future (the law provides for
expedited judicial review).
Beginning in March 1996, a group of television industry executives1 under the
leadership of Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA (who created the movie ratings), met
to develop a TV ratings system. On December 19, 1996, the group proposed six age-
based ratings (TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 and TV-M) including text
explanations of what each represented in terms of program content. In January 1997, the
ratings began appearing in the upper left-hand corner of TV screens for 15 seconds at the
beginning of programs, and were published in some television guides. Thus, the ratings
system was used even before V-chips were installed in new TV sets. News shows and
sports are not rated (the Valenti group does not consider talk shows or programs about
show business and reports on public figures and other issues of general interest to be
news). All other programs are rated by the broadcast and cable networks and producers
of programs. Local broadcast affiliates can override the rating given a particular show.
Critics of the December 1996 proposal, including some Members of Congress and
groups such as the National Parent-Teacher Association, argued that the ratings provided
no information on why a particular program received a certain rating. Some advocated
an “S-V-L” system (sex, violence, language) to indicate with letters why a program got
a particular rating, possibly with a numeric indicator or jointly with an age-based rating.
Another alternative was the Home Box Office/Showtime system of ten ratings such as MV
(mild violence), V (violence), and GV (graphic violence). Critics also argued that having
industry rate its own programming lacked credibility. Mr. Valenti countered there is no
practical alternative to rating approximately 2,000 hours of programming per day.
1 The group included the national broadcast networks; independent, affiliated and public television
stations; cable programmers; producers and distributors of cable programming; entertainment and
movie studios; and members of the guilds representing writers, directors, producers and actors.

---

CRS-3
The Current “S-V-L-D” Ratings System. In response to the criticism, most of
the television industry agreed to a revised ratings system (see box) on July 10, 1997, that
went into effect October 1, 1997. The revised ratings system adds designators that
indicate whether a program received a particular rating because of sex (S), violence (V),
language (L), or suggestive dialogue (D). A designator for fantasy violence (FV) was
added for
U.S. TELEVISION INDUSTRY’S REVISED TV RATINGS SYSTEM
The following categories apply to programs designed solely for children:
TV-Y:
All Children. This program is designed to be appropriate for all children. Whether
animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed
for a very young audience, including children from ages 2-6. This program is not expected
to frighten younger children.
TV-Y7:
Directed to Older Children. This program is designed for children age 7 and above. It may
be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to
distinguish between make-believe and reality. Themes and elements in this program may
include mild fantasy violence or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age
of 7. Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program for their very
young children. Note: For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or
more combative than in other programs in this category, such programs will be designated
TV-Y7-FV.
The following categories apply to programs designed for the entire audience:
TV-G:
General Audience. Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages. Although
this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may
let younger children watch this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no
strong language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.
TV-PG:
Parental Guidance Suggested. This program contains material that parents may find
unsuitable for younger children. Many parents may want to watch it with their younger
children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one
or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse
language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).
TV-14:
Parents Strongly Cautioned. This program contains some material that many parents would
find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise
greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the
age of 14 watch unattended. This program contains one or more of the following: intense
violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive
dialogue (D).
TV-MA:
Mature Audience Only. This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and
therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This program contains one or more of
the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language
(L).
Source: Letter to the Federal Communications Commission submitting proposed rating system revision,
August 1, 1997. (Signed by the presidents of the Motion Picture Association of America, National Cable
Television Association, and National Association of Broadcasters).

---

CRS-4
children’s programming in the TV-Y7 category. On March 12, 1998, the FCC approved
the revised ratings system, along with V-chip technical standards, and the effective date
for installing them (discussed earlier).
In May 1999, the FCC created a V-chip Task Force, chaired by Commissioner
Tristani. Among other things, the task force was charged with ensuring that the blocking
technology is available and that ratings are being transmitted (“encoded”) with TV
programs; educating parents about V-chip; and gathering information on the availability,
usage, and effectiveness of the V-chip. The task force has issued several reports and
surveys [www.fcc.gov/vchip]. A February 2000 task force survey found that most
broadcast, cable, and premium cable networks, and syndicators, were transmitting ratings
(“encoding”) and those that were not either planned to do so in the near future or were
exempt sports or news networks. Of the major broadcast networks, according to the
survey, only NBC does not use the S-V-L-D indicators, using the original ratings system
instead. One problem impacting V-chip’s effectiveness is that not all parents are aware of
it. Commissioner Tristani noted in April 2000 that only 39% of parents have heard of V-
chip and called on the major networks to educate parents about it.
Action in the 105th and 106th Congresses. During the 105th Congress, the
Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on February 27, 1997. Three bills were
introduced. S. 363 (Hollings) and H.R. 910 (Markey), often called the “safe harbor” bills,
would have prohibited violent programming from being shown (with some exceptions)
during hours when children comprise a substantial portion of the audience unless it could
be screened out by a V-chip specifically on the basis of its violence. The Hollings bill was
reported from the Senate Commerce Committee (S.Rept. 105-89). S. 409 (Coats) would
have required broadcast television stations to use a content-based ratings system as a
condition of obtaining or renewing their licenses.
In the summer of 1997, as debate was underway about modifying the ratings system
to add the S-V-L-D designators, TV and entertainment industry representatives were
concerned that Congress would attempt to pass further legislation even if they agreed to
the modifications. The industry sought and was given assurances by many of the principal
House and Senate critics that Congress would not move on such legislation for a period
of time if the modified ratings were adopted. In a July 3, 1997, “Dear Colleague”letter,
Senators Lott, McCain, Hatch, and others said there should be “a substantial period of
governmental forebearance during which further legislation or regulation concerning
television ratings, content or schedule should be set aside.” A July 7, 1997, letter to key
industry leaders signed by Representatives Markey, Burton, Moran, and Spratt expressed
the same sentiment but more precisely set the moratorium as 3 years beginning October
1, 1997, the date that the new ratings system went into effect. The moratorium thus has
expired. Some key Senators never agreed to the moratorium, including Senator Hollings,
who has continued his attempts to win passage of a safe harbor bill.
In the 106th Congress, Senator Hollings introduced S. 876 on April 26, 1999 to make
it unlawful to distribute to the public any violent video programming during hours when
children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience, thereby
establishing a “safe harbor.” As introduced, the bill would have required the FCC to
define that time period and the term “violent video programming.” Premium and pay-per-
view cable programming would be exempted and the FCC could also exempt other
programing such as news and sports. The FCC would take into account whether a

---

CRS-5
licensee has complied with the bill when determining whether to renew the license. The bill
as introduced did not mention V-chip.
On May 13, 1999, Senator Hollings offered the text of the bill as an amendment to
the juvenile justice bill (S. 254), but it was rejected (60-39). On May 18, 1999, a hearing
was held by the Senate Commerce Committee. With the 3-year moratorium at an end and
concern about TV violence undiminished, the Senate Commerce Committee reported out
a revised version of S. 876 on October 26, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-509). There was no further
action on the bill. It has been reintroduced in the 107th Congress and is discussed below.

107th Congress Action. On February 15, 2001, Senator Hollings introduced S.
341, which is the same as S. 876, as reported, from the 106th Congress. Representative
Shows introduced a House companion, H.R. 1005. S. 341/H.R. 1005 would require the
FCC to define the terms “hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a
substantial portion of the audience” and “violent video programming.” Guidance is
provided to the FCC on the latter definition. Furthermore, the legislation would —
! Require the FCC to report to Congress on the effectiveness of the V-chip
and the ratings system in protecting children from TV violence. If the
FCC finds they are not sufficiently effective, it shall initiate a rulemaking
to prohibit the distribution of violent video programming during hours
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of
the audience.
! Make it unlawful to distribute to the public violent TV programming that
is not blockable by the V-chip specifically on the basis of its violent
content during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a
substantial portion of the audience. (This means that the programming
would have to be encoded with a “V” designator, which NBC, for
example, currently does not use.) The FCC could exempt certain
programming such as news and sports, and must exempt premium and
pay-per-view cable and satellite programming.
Separately, H.R. 1916 (Wamp) would, inter alia, require labels to be placed on visual
media products to indicate violent content. The bill calls for a voluntary system to be
developed by manufacturers and producers of interactive video game products and
services, video program products, motion picture products, and sound recording products.
If a system is not developed voluntarily, the Federal Trade Commission would be required
to establish such a labeling system. Thereafter, sale or distribution of such products
without a label would be prohibited.
Other Countries. Violence on television is not unique to the United States, and
other countries also have debated the V-chip concept. The V-chip is often said to have
been invented in Canada.2 The Action Group on Violence on Television (AGVOT) was
charged by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
with developing a nationwide ratings system. AGVOT tested one during 1996 in which
2 A history of Canada’s interest in reducing violence on television and the V-chip can be found at
the following World Wide Web site: [http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/tv1e.htm].

---

CRS-6
each program had a four-digit rating indicating a level of 0-5 for age, and for violent,
language and sexual content. For example, a program rated 3234 would indicate age level
3 (adult 16+), violence level 2 (mild), language level 3 (coarse), and sexuality level 4 (full
nudity). AGVOT withdrew this experimental system in December 1996 because of
technical problems and difficulty in deciding how to rate certain programs. Others in
Canada complained that it was too complicated, or that the Canadian system should be
compatible with the one used in the United States since so much U.S. TV programming
is seen in Canada. In April 1997, AGVOT proposed a new system that is quite similar to
the Valenti group’s original proposal except that it adds a category for exempt
programming. CRTC adopted the ratings on June 18, 1997. The Canadian TV Ratings
(CTR) are: CTR-E (exempt, including news, sports, documentaries, talk shows, other
informational programming, music videos, variety); CTR-C (for children 8 and younger);
CTR-8+ (for children over 8); CTR-FAM (family viewing); CTS-PA (parental guidance);
CTR-14+ (for those over 14); and CTR-18+ (for adults). Each is accompanied by text
explaining what the rating indicates, especially in terms of violence.
Canada’s implementation of the V-chip proceeded more slowly than anticipated. In
March 1996, CRTC had directed the broadcast industry to encode programs with ratings
beginning on September 6, 1996. By January 1997, television distributors and cable
companies were to ensure that foreign signals they broadcast also were encoded (70% of
Canada’s television programming originates in the United States). CRTC postponed these
dates in October 1996, however, with rating and encoding to be in effect for the fall 1997
season and the foreign signal requirement extended until September 1997. The ratings
system went into effect for English-language and specialty programming on September 29,
1997. French-language and premium programming will continue to use their own
established ratings systems.
Other countries also have looked at the issue. European Union culture ministers
debated the issue following a call from the European Parliament to institute a V-chip
requirement, but the EC Council decided instead to study the matter further. Australia
announced new censorship controls following the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996
where 35 people were killed. The massacre sparked a debate about violence on television
and in the entertainment industry. Among the new controls is a V-chip requirement in new
television sets.
Conclusion. The effect of television violence on society, especially children, has
been long debated (see CRS Report RL30037, Television Violence: An Overview of the
Issue and Actions Taken By Congress, the Clinton Administration, and the Television
Industry). What effect the V-chip will have is controversial. Supporters claim that since
television producers will want their shows to be viewed in as many households as possible,
they will reduce the level of violence in the programs. Critics complain that television will
become lackluster. Others assert that if one violent scene will earn a program a bad rating,
then producers will feel free to have more violence in any program since it will be blocked
anyway, hence increasing the overall violence level. Others argue that many older children
will be able to defeat the password-protected system and change what their parents have
programmed. Or they could watch a smaller than 13-inch TV set.
Virtually everyone agrees that the V-chip is no panacea. Ultimately, parents must
take responsibility for their children’s viewing habits. TV ratings and the V-chip are
merely tools to assist them.

---