Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Edward Moon
58 Followers
Jordan Faust
189 Followers
iamthechamp
1 Followers
Cecil Helton
12880 Followers
dcjoedogv2Dec 5, 2010
For the love of God, yes PLEASE pass this s**t.
clvngodessDec 5, 2010
And then let's get them to go back to "truth in advertising."
Closed AccountDec 5, 2010
those ****s even do it on hulu. that lame crap infuriates me.
mtnxfreeriderDec 5, 2010
can it apply to "The Office" intro too please?
schlueckerDec 6, 2010
I agree, The Office intro is way too loud. I always mute the intro to Colbert Report and The Daily Show as well. The people screaming as loud as they possibly can is unnecessary to put on for a solid minute every freakin' episode. CALM act should apply to mtnxfreerider and my requests, too!
Closed AccountDec 6, 2010
It's pretty sad that it's so bipartisian in Washington that this is the biggest thing they can pass without using unethethical procedures.
tylersdurdenDec 6, 2010
Ha! So true.
africantravelerDec 6, 2010
We have an almost totally disfunctional Congress, and the only people who don't recognize this are the Congressmen themselves.
schlueckerDec 6, 2010
Well, the Congress gets tired of the loud pharmaceutical ads about ED and loose-bowels presented during their favorite pundit's show on their respective party-slanted propaganda program... I mean, news network. Come on, their GRANDCHILDREN might hear that their Grandpa probably can't get it up. What a shame! Down with LOUD COMMERCIALS!
entroperDec 6, 2010
While they're at it, can they get the on-demand channel to play at the same volume as the shows that are available? The s**t on there is even louder than regular commercials. Hopefully this is considered a commercial under the new provisions.
triple110Dec 6, 2010
It's not...And the reason why the audio is always so loud is because the shows are heavily compressed to save storage space.
entroperDec 6, 2010
I meant the on-demand content is normal volume, but the stuff that plays when you're choosing what to view is insanely loud, louder than regular TV commercials.
pafectDec 6, 2010
agreed... always some loud chick yelling about new movies that are out.
omgscienceDec 6, 2010
Yes I am so glad they passed this because there are no other issues more important in America...
gogowesDec 5, 2010
About time. They are getting out of control.
mastercosbyDec 6, 2010
Yeah seriously. I finally won't have to hear my dad yell at me to turn the volume down when a commercial comes on, then I have to turn it back up cause I can't hear the show when it comes back on...
sirsurfalotDec 5, 2010
The economies of every industrialized nation are being flushed down the toilet and THIS is what our government is doing? Cannot wait until the next election to vote these assh**es out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Dec 5, 2010
You do realize that there are multiple people in our government, yes? They can (and should be) multitasking. People want this because it impacts their lives daily...I find it annoying to watch TV and have the program's sound be really quiet, but get blasted by the goddamn ads.
hipmanDec 5, 2010
Get a volume equalizer.
triptasticDec 5, 2010
Why should we have to? Shouldn't the volume on a given station be consistent?
dusanmalDec 5, 2010
Not a matter to be regulated except if everything more important is done and Congress is sitting idle. If station wants to later their volume randomly or with any pattern - it is their station, they can do it and market will show how good such decision is. Enough of pointless regulation. Whats next? - Ban on left handed flushing? It must annoy some anal bureaucrat .Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultramagnus0001Dec 6, 2010
In most cases you will loose the digital audio and degrade the audio of the main show with an equalizer. Newer receivers were suppose to have digital audio volume normalizer, but most people have older receivers. The regular Dolby Digital audio compressor worked only if the original mix has the information to compress the audio. Many TVs have volume normalizer but that's for analog audio. So f**k them, I'm not wasting money on equipment, pass the law.
ultramagnus0001Dec 6, 2010
I agree with you even though I prefer the CALM law, so I dugg you up. The FCC regulates the airwaves so it's probably a grey area. I also think if you own a bar and want your customers to smoke, then it's your prerogative. I don't smoke, just saying. I can't stand people smoking in a public park when I take my kids.
danconiaDec 6, 2010
The owner of the station should do what they want. If you don't like their loud ads then change the station...
dusanmalDec 5, 2010
Procedures for bill to pass require finite amount of time. If those idiots really read and understand what they are signing - it takes time. That time can be used vastly better to work on crucial items they have "left behind". During whole Obama Administration there have not been proper budget... What they just did about it - passed yet another "extension" in literally last moment. If they first work on completing crucial issues and there is time left - please legislate volume of TV ads. Otherwise, do not waste my tax money on trivialities.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Dec 5, 2010
I hate loud ads.
However, I believe the federal government constitutionally has no authority over television volume.
Which they don't, but that's never stopped them before.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherDec 5, 2010
It's true they don't have explicit authority, but in general the role of government is to assist in ensuring quality of life for its citizens. Loud ads, while small, is a detractor of quality of life. If a simple regulation can fix it, then why not?
Though ideally what should happen is people should protest by not watching TV, killing ratings, and thereby forcing companies to change. Americans aren't that proactive though.
I suppose DVR has helped fight back a bit, but not everyone can afford a DVR.
kwanijmlDec 5, 2010
"Americans aren't that proactive though."
Maybe because we keep going to government to fix things that should be left in the proper arenas.
It is absolutely not even the general role of government to assist in ensuring quality of life for it's citizens. Power to do so is not given to them, or even insinuated in any passage of the constitution or it's amendments. Government is empowered to provide a legal and defense framework which is intended to allow each individual freedom enough to work out his/her own happiness and quality of life. Big difference.
I wholly reject the notion though (even with the moral hazard that so much government regulation has created) that americans aren't proactive enough to change industry. Applying that statement to this case, where consumers apparently haven't been able to change the content of advertisements, such that they aren't louder on average than the program, is like saying that consumers have failed to change things in regards to having to pay money for things they want. If you want to watch TV, then you are going to have to pay the price; which is having ads cut into the program. . .and those ads are going to try their best to get your attention.
American's change things in industry (that can be changed) all the time. . . especially in TV. Particular TV shows are boycotted and canceled all the time by the viewer base. You also have many non-advertisement-funded options for viewing, if you prefer to pay for them directly. So your statements have no merit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 5, 2010
"It is absolutely not even the general role of government to assist in ensuring quality of life for it's citizens. Power to do so is not given to them, or even insinuated in any passage of the constitution or it's amendments."
...promote the general welfare...
-Preamble to the US Constitution
kwanijmlDec 5, 2010
Wow, {make sure that television viewers experience no nuisances} . . . .yup that falls under general welfare, so I guess that's what the framers intended.
Hey, while we're promoting the general welfare here, let's make marijuana illegal. . . that's a nuisance. Oh, and how about using 4-letter words on television. . .those are nuisances too. . . so let's make sure to ban those. While we're at it, we'll just ban anything that anybody with enough money comes to D.C. with to pose as a threat to the general welfare.
Your deep understanding of the constitution astounds me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 5, 2010
A document without flexibility to allow for new situations would have quickly become obsolete. That's why it includes general terms. Or should we have a constitutional convention every time something new comes up that was not specifically mentioned in a document from the 1700s?
Your shallow understanding of the realities of the world astound me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrDec 5, 2010
File this under "insure domestic tranquility" :)
Closed AccountDec 5, 2010
If you vote for someone that can only concentrate on one issueat a time, then you are throwing your vote away. Because no one else will be stupid enough to vote for that candidate.
The way you want a country's government to run would guarantee that the country would die within 5 years.
tylersdurdenDec 6, 2010
You mean my not voting for either one?
hipmanDec 5, 2010
Oh yes, thank you for passing this all important legislation.
bossm4nDec 5, 2010
Congress also needs to pass legislation limiting the use of sarcasm on the internet.
bdog2g2Dec 5, 2010
Actually I think they just need to pass the Asshat Act. Then the sarcasm bill wouldn't be needed.
bossm4nDec 6, 2010
If they passed an Asshat Act, everyone in Congress would be out of a job. Come to think of it, that's a great idea.
enantiodromiaDec 6, 2010
hipman QQ's when things don't get passed
hipman QQ's when things do get passed
$20 says hipman will always QQ no matter what, because it's easier than thought
badqatDec 5, 2010
I thought congress was gridlock? Apparently things can get passed there.
On a side note, it will be interesting to see if a nearly 3 day old sub can now become popular on Digg if it has been chosen as a "staff pick".
agmlauncherDec 5, 2010
While most members of government are too ancient to understand what this new fangled internet is, they at least do watch TV like the rest of us scum. This is probably why they were able to agree to pass this change.
That's why I support Ron Paul's new act that requires members of congress to endure the same bulls**t that the rest of us do when traveling by air. They'll change TSA policy in a heartbeat.
wycliffeDec 5, 2010
I like the way you think! It would be nice if the representatives knew what life is like for the represented.
firefox15Dec 5, 2010
Just air travel? How about everything? Pay cuts/raises, taxes, health care, etc.
lvaneedeDec 6, 2010
I lol'd at the christmas cat
rowlodgeDec 5, 2010
too late, billy mays is already gone.
randomgorillaDec 5, 2010
BUT HIS SPIRIT LIVES ON THROUGH CAPS-LOCK!!!
rujtuDec 5, 2010
Someone send this link to Hulu.
garhentDec 5, 2010
It will have little to no effect. The Television companies will gradually ramp up the volume of the show or just greatly up the volume for one second of quiet on the show before switching to the commercial. You have to make it where it would be based on the average volume of the show or the entire networks daily programming.
I have ZERO faith our politicians can regulate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich let alone commercials.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
badqatDec 5, 2010
Politicians do not regulate. That is left up to the executive branch to carry out.
This is simply a mandate that the FCC make it so, and the FCC is not comprised of politicians, but of civil servants.
agmlauncherDec 5, 2010
I think average volume is what this CALM act is about. If I'm not mistaken, prior to this ads could be no louder than the loudest part of the show they're running in.
Now it has to be based on the average.
garhentDec 5, 2010
For a moments of quiet in the show ramp the volume up to a ridiculously high level that would throw off the average volume to increase the average volume that commercials can air is how I see the television networks getting around the law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherDec 5, 2010
As long as the commercial volume is dependent on the average volume of the show, it doesn't matter if the ENTIRE show is loud or not because the commercial won't be any louder than the average.
As long as everything is consistent, you can just set the relative volume of your TV to compensate for it all, without having to re-adjust it every time a commercial comes on.
wycliffeDec 5, 2010
Politicians are horrible at regulating. I'm about to finish law school, and it seems for the the last three years I've haven't learned "the law" so much as a thousand examples of what's wrong with the law.
Regulations are too slow, based on dubious or incorrect theories, and compromised-out to the point of flaccidity.
miklkitDec 6, 2010
"You have to make it where it would be based on the average volume of the show or the entire networks daily programming."
You didn't read the article. It says exactly that.
cunnilingusriceDec 5, 2010
HI BILLY MAYS HERE FOR THE CALM ACT
knifesideleftDec 5, 2010
Now if you could only decrease the font size on that by several times...
mbraynardDec 5, 2010
Wait, for real?
The commercials are set to play as loud as you have the volume set. They will never go louder than the loudest you will experience during a television show; the only difference is the television show has a more dynamic sound so that if they want something to be quiet for dramatic purposes, it will be.
It's absolutely asinine that congress is getting involved in this and it also appears to be a violation of the broadcaster's first amendment rights.
Of all the problems we have, this is what Congress has gotten busy with?
And you can BET that the solution will be worse than the problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rujtuDec 5, 2010
So what you're saying is, if a broadcaster wants to make commercials louder, all he has to do is lower the volume of the television show so that you have to increase the volume on your television.
Sure, it's a s**tty thing for broadcasters to do, and consumers have been asking them not to do it for years while they ignored us, but we'd better not pass this simple law, because it infringes on the rights of a corporation?
How many hours do you think congress really spent on this thing?
And why would you think the solution must be worse than the problem?
Aren't you just being negative for the sake of negativity, or do you work for an advertising company?
kwanijmlDec 5, 2010
No, what he's saying is that all broadcast audio levels are normalized (which is a type of compression that limits the maximum decibel level to a certain threshold). The thing that makes commercials 'louder' that everyone is talking about is the fact that the advertisers formulate the content of their ads to typically use the maximum, or close to maximum, decibel levels throughout the duration of the ad. Now the government wants to interfere and tell advertisers that the average audio level in their commercial cannot be louder than the average audio level in the program the viewer is watching. If you think it through, then you quickly realize that this means that if you're watching an action movie, you can probably still have a used car commercial with a screaming rodeo clown firing blanks into the air. On the other hand, if you're watching Lifetime, that same used car commercial would not be able to air, unless they changed the content of their commercial, such that the rodeo clown was singing sweet nothings with a ukulele. Not only does the law interfere where government has no place, but this actually, very possibly, could be trampling on first amendment rights. Let me put it this way. . .watching TV is not free. It is a service provided to you by a broadcaster. Like all services, there is a cost; that cost is having to have advertisements cut into the program. . . you don't even have to watch! You can mute your TV or turn it off! Guess what, consumers around the world find paying for things a nuisance (just like they find the contents of ads a nuisance), that doesn't mean that government has any right to interfere with how much we are charged for things. Wait til' you see how expensive things get, when the government makes everything 'free'. . . . or don't wait. . . look around you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rujtuDec 6, 2010
The thing is, if I'm watching a loud action movie, I know how loud to set the volume on my television, because I know the decibel level the show is being broadcast on. What bothers me is when I'm watching a quiet show, have to turn the volume up, and am then assaulted by a commercial screaming through my speakers at a volume I do not want to be exposed to.
I don't see why you think broadcasters would not be able to air the rodeo clown commercial. I believe what this law is saying is that, they can still air the commercial, but the volume of the commercial can't be at 11 when the show I was watching was coming in at 4.
No one is infringing on anyone's rights. They have the right to show me the commercial, and I don't mind watching them. If the volume of my television is set so that I can hear a show that is broadcasting on 5, I can hear an advertisement that is broadcasting on 5. The government is in no way limiting anyone's free speech here.
kwanijmlDec 6, 2010
What you are describing is not the case. The common complaint regarding the volume levels of the commercials in relation to the program being watched is in perceived loudness, not an actual change in the peak DB of sound pressure level. Compression and normalization are already used extensively in the broadcast industry. . . .if they normalize the sound levels in TV broadcasts any further, then you would all but lose any nuance in the program (for example, notice how nice the sound is from your blu-ray or even dvd player. . .a lot of that is because there is very little compression being used by the studios in producing the audio and the players themselves have a high signal to noise ratio, leaving far more dynamic range in the audio of the movie possible. You don't complain when a movie changes from a dialogue scene to explosions and your lights are shaking from the ceilings. . . that's usually a desired effect, and the peak level allowed did not change between the two scenes. . . the explosion scene just utilized the noise ceiling to it's max unlike the dialogue scene.)
Now with TV broadcasts, due to bandwidth limitations and in order to avoid large differences in volume levels between program and commercials, the broadcasters use normalizing and limiting, in order to keep the thresholds the same, and bring the low and high thresholds closer together. . . and further compressing of the audio would leave everything sounding really flat. So what's happening that causes the 'perceived loudness'? It's the fact that advertisers intentionally use the allowed dynamic range of sound to the maximum throughout the duration of their ad (i.e. by shouting at you and/or having really loud music bed. . . there's not a lot of subtlety in the use of audio in advertisements), in an effort to basically get people's attention as best as possible.
Therefore, in order for this 'perceived loudness' problem to go away, it has little to do with the broadcaster, and is effectively asking the advertiser to change their content. . . no shouting, no loud music (even though none of these ever really get louder than the loudest sounds allowed in the program you're watching), so the advertiser will be left with little choice but to make a less effective commercial that is carefully constructed so as to not exceed the average audio level of the program (as measured in DBv which is an internal voltage measurement, not the actual volume level experienced by the viewer).
This means that it is now more costly to advertise, across the board (which costs will eventually be passed along to us in one form or another. . . poorer quality programming?), and it means that the government is effectively imposing a regulation which infringes on free speech because it will exclude certain ads from being able to be aired, because of their content (i.e. whether there's enough shouting and loud music so as to exceed the average loudness of the program).
This has nothing to do with volume levels, in terms of the volume controls on your remote or even whether commercials are able to get louder than the program; broadcasters already saw to this a long time ago. This has everything to do with people thinking that they can just have government whisk away their problems by diffusing the effects and the costs of this regulation on all broadcasters and advertisers. . . people who don't realize that the government has no constitution power delegated to it to interfere in the market place in that way.
rujtuDec 6, 2010
That was a great explanation, and I appreciate it. At the end of the day, I guess I just don't care about what advertisers want. If they can't figure out how to advertise their product without screaming at people, f**k them.
I stopped watching Hulu a while back because their annoying commercials felt like I was being slapped in the face with noise. At first I would just vote that I wasn't interested in the content of those loud commercials, even if I was, in the hopes that I wouldn't be exposed to them any more. Then I had to stop watching all together. The sad thing is, I watched the commercials that weren't screaming at me, even if I wasn't interested in the product.
If this bill was passed, I'd say that should be a pretty clear wake-up call to advertisers. If they can't figure out how to adjust, tough s**t for them. 90% of the TV I watch is Netflix anyway.
As for the govt. interfering in the market, they do it all the time. I don't see asking advertisers to chill out as being a big deal.
rebulatorDec 5, 2010
Finally. I seriously hate that tactic.
wycliffeDec 5, 2010
Some newer TVs automatically lower the volume of loud commercials. A nice example of innovation over legislation. By the time the rusty gears of Congress start cranking, technology has already dealt with the issue and moved on to the next one.
miklkitDec 6, 2010
Some. Newer. They are all made in China now. We just bought a new tv. It lasted 2 days and BBBBZZZZZZTTT!!!
Why waste your money on Chinese junk?
wycliffeDec 6, 2010
It was Black Friday...I was weak...
roijenDec 6, 2010
Does it target just the commercial or just level all the audio? Big difference here, leveling the audio reduces some of the range and can produce distortions.
wycliffeDec 6, 2010
I believe it levels all the audio, so it could have some negative side effects. Hopefully it looks for some threshold before affecting any levels. Here's a link for the technology (though Visio had a version of it built-in):
http://www.srslabs.com/store/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=37
sirsurfalotDec 5, 2010
Nowhere in my statement did I mention the branches of federal government. I said government "in general". Of course, the heads of federal agencies are appointed by the president. What about at local and state levels of government? Does the president appoint those as well. I think not. The point I was making and you misconstrued was that the priorities of government are askew. It's the economy stupid. I suppose if one were unemployed and had nothing to do all day but watch tv the commercials would get annoying no matter what the sound level. Of course who really watches tv anyways? Most of the content is rubbish and no better than the adverts spliced in between.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
robgfaulkner87Dec 5, 2010
This has got to pass!
shwaavayDec 5, 2010
It already did, it's on Obama's desk
odkinDec 5, 2010
Massive tax increases about to kick in... check
A rapist "information terrorist" is sabotaging American diplomacy with information stolen by a gay military traitor...check
Christmas celebration almost blown up by Somali immigrant who lied to become a citizen...check
North and South Korea almost at war... check
Recently fired politicians spending last vestiges of power against voters' wishes...check
Let me think, what should Congress work on to protect and serve America's best interests? I know... loud f**king TV commercials! Think of the children! ("Children" of course, being the Democrat way of referring to helpless and powerless little people like you)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paranor01Dec 6, 2010
HERP DERP THEY STOLE JESBUS!
meedDec 5, 2010
Cue another yet to be disclosed method used by advertisers to make our own electronics annoy their owners.
I think the next one will be to use flashing color patterns that probably will set off seizures or using language on the verge of being obscene that will set off parents.
agmlauncherDec 5, 2010
The reason why TV commercials are louder than the show has some logic behind it. They don't make TV commercials louder because they think that doing so makes them more effective to people who are already listening. What they realized was that most people get up and leave the TV and the room to go do something during commercials (get a drink from the kitchen etc).
So by making commercials louder, they're still able to broadcast the message to you while you're in a different room.
I think this is fine, though it annoys people who just stay put and watch the commercials. That said, I just hope they don't start increasing the length of commercial breaks. Some TV networks are REALLY bad when it comes to that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meedDec 5, 2010
That is a poor excuse for using a louder volume for your commercials. If someone is gonna get up and do something in the other room chances are your not gonna hear it. I don't know anyone who will still pay attention to the audio from a TV when they get up and use the restroom, none the less still hear it from inside their chamber of solitude.
astromjDec 5, 2010
Yey :D
kwanijmlDec 5, 2010
Why does everyone have the knee-jerk reaction to have government try to fix everything? Don't like the louder ads? Then let the broadcasters know that, and don't patronize their services if they won't make the change.
Using the government to deal with broadcast and TV issues is not the correct forum. It's like asking the president or CEO of your company to institute a 'no talking during work' ban on all offices and cubicles in the entire company, because you are experiencing difficulty focusing on work over the banter of your two co-workers in the cubicle across from you. You wouldn't do that; you would talk to those coworkers or talk to your direct supervisor. Even if there was a widespread problem and a majority vote in the company that there should be less talking during work, it still would be counterproductive and damaging to overall productivity to put a blanket ban on it. . .there are situations and proper places where the freedom to talk would be essential.
There are always unintended consequences to regulation that violates the rights or property of others. There's no way to foresee what will happen, but in this case, it is likely that advertisers will now demand cheaper per minute advertising in order to compensate for not being able to have their ads louder than the program. That will mean poorer quality programing on television. . . .we will pay for this. Instead, we could deal with it in appropriate ways, such as buying your own limiter, or (as mentioned before) petition the particular broadcasters that you watch, to equalize the sound levels.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theswashbucklerDec 5, 2010
"There are always unintended consequences to regulation that violates the rights or property of others."
I don't recall freedom of loudness in the Constitution. Can you point me to the amendment which guarantees that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlDec 5, 2010
Really?
kwanijmlDec 5, 2010
After a brief google search; turns out that broadcasters already normalize the min/max audio levels of the program to the levels of the advertisements. The issue apparently then is that the content of an advertisement tends to have the intention of grabbing your attention. . . so max or near max audio levels are often used the entire duration of a commercial. . . which can sound in stark contrast to the soft dialogue of General Hospital. So what this bill is effectively doing is even worse than I imagined previously; it is trampling on the 1st amendment, by dictating the content of an advertisement to the extent that it's average decibel level is not higher than the program you were just watching. Not only is that ridiculous (because if you're watching an action movie, the commercial that comes on will still be SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY! It's a Monster Truck Rally!!!!!), but this is also a very dangerous thing. You people who want this passed are allowing the government to chip away at our rights.
silv23Dec 6, 2010
By that same logic, broadcast TV itself should be banned as it penetrates the walls of your home, thus violating your right to privacy (hence the need for censorship).
kwanijmlDec 6, 2010
Privacy wouldn't really be the issue, since the radio waves from broadcast towers don't cause any tangible intrusion into your private spaces (we are bombarded by all sorts of radio and other electromagnetic radiation from natural sources all the time, and only in the last century or so have we even learned of their existence), and the radio waves in no way provide an ability to eavesdrop on you. . .at least not by virtue of just passing through the walls of your house.
The issue could possibly be taken up regarding harm caused to your person because of the dissemination of radio waves from the broadcasters tower. . . and, yes, to be logical and consistent, if a person can show legitimate damage caused to their person or property by the broadcast (above and beyond the natural radiation background), then there would be cause to require a broadcaster to provide restitution, and possibly even find a way to internalize the externality of propagating radio waves everywhere. This actually does happen to some extent with micro-wave transmissions, and because of their known danger to humans in high power and close proximity, there is cause for microwave transmitters to broadcast more narrowly and more carefully.
silv23Dec 6, 2010
Sources being naturally radiated typically don't contain content you can be unwillingly exposed to. By simply turning on your TV, you can potentially be exposed to content you find objectionable. Cable or satellite on the other hand prevent you from seeing that same content unless you pay someone to actually come into your home and provide access.
kwanijmlDec 6, 2010
That's a pretty weak distinction. . . you still have to willingly purchase a TV set designed specifically for receiving the narrow band of radio waves being put out by the TV broadcasters, plug it in, scan for channels, etc.. . . It is reasonable to expect that any person knowingly and willfully accepts the content that is going to be provided. In fact you don't even need to have a cable or satellite tech to come to your house and install. . . there are many people who can descramble on their own or know how to hack the satellite box.
Besides that, the majority of TV viewers get their 'local' 'over the air' TV via their satellite or cable provider, so having different rules and regulations for broadcasters and cable/satellite providers is pretty pointless. Just because TV's are ubiquitous and the technology is easy to use and set up without having a broadcast company technician come over and hook it up, does not mean that it in any way creates an invasion of privacy. . .not any more than if I bought a HAM radio and tuned to a frequency and was annoyed or offended by the static and white noise I was getting. I still accepted the content that I was going to view/listen to, by virtue of buying the radio and turning it on. I am free to not be exposed to the content by turning it off, or getting rid of the radio or TV. There is no involuntary transaction going on here.
Final case in point. . the internet; it is almost a necessity to use it now in daily life, and certainly in business. . . and yet, even though it is all to easy to be exposed to porn or other objectionable material, even if you're not trying to find it; that doesn't warrant an invasion of privacy, and it certainly doesn't warrant government intruding on the neutrality of the interwebs. The internet as compared to TV offers far more choices, content, options, ways to surf, etc. . . this is precisely because it has, so far, been much less highly regulated than TV. As the FCC starts to weasel it's way into the internet realm (in the name of 'net neutrality') you will see the quality of content, competitiveness, and availability diminish.
enantiodromiaDec 6, 2010
"Using the government to deal with broadcast and TV issues is not the correct forum"
Not according the FCC:
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable."
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
Broadcast companies are allowed to operate at the FCC's pleasure. We the people own the airwaves, not private businesses.
That's how it should be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlDec 6, 2010
1. The FCC is exactly the type of bureaucracy that should never have been created, was not allowed for by the constitution (not even the commerce clause), and has stifled free market competition and innovation in the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. In the FCC's absence, private enterprise could manage the use of the airwaves much more efficiently. http://news.cnet.com/Why-the-FCC-should-die/2010-1028_3-5226979.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news
2. Broadcasters like any other business, are allowed to operate by virtue of the fact that they offer a product or service that other people want. . . their customer, not by virtue of we the people or the government. Your liberal imaginings that businesses are somehow a public charter is absolutely false and inconsistent with natural rights and progress.
3. Nobody owns airwaves; not you, not the people or the government, not even the broadcasters. You can no more own radio waves any more than I can own the octave of 'A 440hz to A 880hz'. Because of the limited nature of how sound propagates vs. how radio or other electromagnetic waves propagate, there is obviously more possibility with radio for cross-talk, intermodulations, and overuse that gives cause for needing cooperation and regulation in a given geographic area. . .but that regulation needs to come from competing 3rd parties within the broadcast industry.
enantiodromiaDec 9, 2010
you're on dope if you think "competing 3rd parties" will regulate themselves. it didn't work for the banks, it didn't work for the insurance industry, it didn't work for the food industry, but somehow you think this time it will.
i didn't say business was a "public charter", and i'm not sure who you are trying to sound like, but you are not doing a very good job at it.
in your fantasy anarcho-capitalist utopia, all we wind up with is a arms race to see who can build the most powerful transmitters with zero regard to how that affects other business, the ability of the government to communicate with itself, and the health of the citizens.
now go tune in rush on your fancy ham radio and pretend anyone cares about your anti-government sentiments.
kwanijmlDec 9, 2010
my ham radio told me to ask you for citations or some example of how private industry regulating itself "didn't work for the banks, it didn't work for the insurance industry, it didn't work for the food industry, but somehow you think this time it will."
it also tells me to call you out about businesses being a public charter; after all, in your previous comment, you said "Broadcast companies are allowed to operate at the FCC's pleasure. We the people own the airwaves, not private businesses." So if the public owns the airwaves, which broadcasters use as a medium for their product. . .doesn't that put the means of production in the hands of the people? Which is the same as saying that the broadcasting industry is a public charter, in your view. (I don't agree that anyone can own the radio frequencies as I explained. . but I'm going by your words, so based on that, you have described a public charter).
Your logic is also very faulty in assuming that a lack of FCC oversight would necessarily mean that nothing and nobody could or would regulate the use of the airwaves. Again, please cite some example of how it does not work. I'll give you a good reason as to why it would work. . . if you know anything about radio frequency transmissions, you would know that you can't just overpower other signals and win out. . . no "race to see who can build the most powerful transmitters" would result in a profitable or beneficial situation for a broadcaster. . . so even just under a utilitarian argument, your logic fails.
SweetAnnieRichDec 6, 2010
"we could deal with it in appropriate ways, ... petition the particular broadcasters that you watch"
The article was very brief, you couldn't take the several seconds to read the entire thing? From the article:
"Rep Eshoo noted that the FCC has received complaints about loud commercials since the 1960s, and that the issue has been the number one consumer complaint about TV in 21 of the last 25 FCC quarterly reports."
Silly libertarian can't read?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlDec 6, 2010
Yes, the silly libertarian read that part too.
First of all, just because private industry does not deal with a common consumer complaint in the way that consumers want, does not give the government cause or authority to intervene in the market. . . especially for something so trivial and stupid as the very minor annoyance of louder commercials. This power is not given to the federal government, and the FCC itself is a monstrosity of a failure that has caused far more problems than it ever solved. I could bombard you here with links to libertarian based research and commentary on why the FCC should be abolished, but I will spare you since you probably wouldn't read them. . . so here's one from a tech site, that should grab your attention: http://news.cnet.com/2010-1028-5226979.html
If you read any of my other comments on this article you will see that I have taken time to explain thoroughly what the real issue here is, and that it really boils down to something that the broadcasters can't fix, not without alienating advertisers to some extent. . . or not without making broadcast TV a less appealing medium for advertisers to use. So there is very good reason why the consumer complaints regarding the volume levels haven't 'fixed' the problem as some people see it. Ads on TV, and their perceived loudness are annoying, but guess what? Everyone that I know of finds having to pay for gas in their car a nuisance too, and no amount of petitioning seems to be changing the fact that they still charge us for gasoline. . .should we have the NTSB make gas free in this country? The ads are the price we pay for free TV. . don't like it? Don't watch it, or pay for any of the myriad of ad-free programming options that are available.
Silly statist can't reason?
enantiodromiaDec 9, 2010
kwanijml wont be happy until we have a forrest of 10million watt transmitters across the country, lol.
amazing.
kwanijmlDec 9, 2010
enantiodromia won't be happy until all logical and fact based comments on digg are drowned out by baseless and false accusations and state-biased retorts which present no fact or logical argument for consideration.
enantiodromiaDec 9, 2010
i'm sorry you hate the government so much. i'm sorry you hate regulations and rules so much.
you mention logic, yet fall back to "business will regulate itself" as the basis for your argument. that's not logic, that's wishful cliche, which has not proven to be the case for most large industries.
i believe you are the one who tried to inject a "liberal vs conservative" tone into an otherwise apolitical conversation. sounds like you cling to that sort of rhetoric, maybe it's all you understand.
please, for the sake of the argument, tell me how an unregulated use of the airwaves would _not_ lead to the richest companies drowning out everyone else with ever more powerful transmitters while at the same time not respecting the spectrum boundaries which currently prevent devices from interfering with each other.
go ahead, make your case.
houseofcardsDec 5, 2010
Now if they could just fix it so everyone could have a home with a television and job.
houseofcardsDec 5, 2010
Now if they could just fix it so everyone could have a home with a television and job.
novenatorDec 5, 2010
A step in the right direction, but it is projected that advertising will consume 50% of broadcasts by 2020 http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/12/03/one-small-step-towards-calming-corporate-brainwashing/
kwanijmlDec 6, 2010
Funny, that how poor a product gets always seems to be in correlation with how much the government is regulating it.
But I'm sure I've got it all wrong here. . .I mean, the FCC has been regulating broadcast TV for a long time, but we just need more regulation, and the right regulations to make sure that the greedy broadcasters quit making us miserable with things like louder advertisements. I'm sure that it wasn't the FCC's fault that a broadcast network oligopoly was set up when they put restrictions on station ownership. I am positive that this step in the right direction (even though it is in the same direction as all other FCC mandates from the past) and it will magically set the broadcast industry in the right direction, and things will get better.
steve8867Dec 5, 2010
Increasing the volume that "I" choose is just wrong, like going into "MY" home and changing ANYTHING!
ageofmasteryDec 5, 2010
So congress passes something that 99% of the country supports and the usual suspects are here bitching and whining about it.
Says a lot about them really....
retroscifigeekDec 6, 2010
I generally don't believe in God but I may just have to after this legislation.
chaosrenderDec 6, 2010
Finaly
feverhostDec 6, 2010
Republicans only care about extending tax cuts for the rich, screw the middle class, and want commercials more quiet. Thanks for priorities.
charrionDec 6, 2010
Please, please CRTC follow their example.
neewomDec 6, 2010
About time... I hate having my sound up because I can't hear dialogue and the I AM GETTING YELLED AT TO BUY SOAP!
ubermannDec 6, 2010
Well, I'm glad at least the important laws are getting passed.
zachapiDec 6, 2010
Am I old if I remember when you couldn't even have competing products in your commercials? It seems like commercials were less s**tty in general then.
blankmanDec 6, 2010
Wait a minute...I always thought this was already true. The current FCC rules state that an advertisement can't exceed the maximum decibel level of the show being watched.
But those assh**e advertisers cheat by equalizing the audio of their ad so that the entire ad is at the maximum decibel level allowed, instead of fluctuating like the show you're watching does.
This is the exact same law!
mrbitchnofunDec 6, 2010
They also cram all the audio into the frequencies the human ear is sensitive to, it makes it sound, to us, a whole hell of a lot louder.
BluueDec 6, 2010
Good lord, thank you.
wiggingDec 6, 2010
finally
silverbullet126Dec 6, 2010
Now if Canada could get their act together and pass this ... that be great.
roddackDec 6, 2010
It is called smartsound people
yibbutkeenDec 6, 2010
A station I used to work for had one obnoxious advertiser (Ok 2 if you count Fry's Electronics). They would send in rediculously loud commercials. We'd turn down the level about 3db (1/2 power for those not technically versed). So the next bunch of ads would come in 3bd louder than the previous weeks. This went on for several weeks until the ads came in unusable because they were so overdriven they were distorted.
Some advertisers just shouldn't be on tv.
johnferringtonDec 6, 2010
nice..
bretto2004Dec 6, 2010
Mike Judge will be right. this is the beginning of Idiocracy