This is topic A great day in the legislative history of the USA... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=057528

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
...Senate votes to turn down volume on TV commercials

Sure, the law is obsolete almost before it's passed, what with DVRs, Hulu, and Netflix, but still.


 

---

Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
 
Wow. The Democrats really need to change their strategy. Isn't there 50 more important things that they could be working on???
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Apparently it was the first thing on the list the Republicans were willing to not filibuster.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Burn...
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Can't networks simply claim they turned the volume WAY up during that second of silence that precedes the transition to commercials thus allowing for a continuation of the status quo?
 

---

Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
I thought there already were laws requiring that the commercials could be no louder than the loudest portion of the program. The commercials are relatively deafening because a show very rarely breaks for commercial during an explosion.

Rather than a volume limit that's comparative to the program they accompany, commercials should be volume-restricted to a specific setting. A decibel level, for example.

The other commercial-targeted law I would love to see is an absolute ban on certain sounds in radio commercials. For example, sirens of any sort, car horns, and other similar road noises.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The reason most commercials sound loud isn't because their loudest sound is particularly loud, but because the distance between their loudest and softest sounds is small. A commercial's loudest sound would have to be particularly soft to prevent the effect.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
BILLY MAYS HERE
 

---

Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Apparently it was the first thing on the list the Republicans were willing to not filibuster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'

---

I assume it's where technically immigration without following the proper channels is illegal, but the realities of our execution do not sync with what we are saying.

---

thats an excellent definition as well.

its the end result of a defunct system but i think it was a lot of hand-wringing, foot dragging and shoulder shrugging that resulted in what we have now in america.
 

---

Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
I am happy about this. I hate watching Chuck and then going deaf when the show goes to commercial. Bravo to Congress for passing this. Harry Reid totally gets my vote now.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
On the subject of the law, I'm okay with it for broadcast television (though think it more than a bit silly); that space is rented.

For cable television, I think the idea is ridiculous. Just because something is annoying does not mean it makes sense (much less right) to regulate it. There isn't even the "airwave landlord" justification that avails for broadcast television. If you don't like (and avoid) loud commercials, tell the television companies and tell the advertisers.
 

---

Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
 
The government has no place regulating televison.
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Do you think that this is substantively different than, say, the government's ability to regulate my use of a bullhorn at 3am?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, and abundantly so. I cannot choose whether or not to accept the bullhorn into my house if someone blasts it, but I can choose whether or not to accept commercials into my house. Additionally, I have control over the volume of the television, including with the option of mute -- I cannot so control the volume of someone else's bullhorn. I can go on, if you like.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
In the city, loud televisions can be quite an annoyance. You don't always have the option to keep someone else's TV noise outside.
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Please.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What? Haven't you lived in an apartment building? Not the same volume as a bullhorn perhaps, but still audible and annoying.
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Oh, sorry. We cross-posted. I was asking for fugu to continue his thoughts.

EDIT - and your point was one I had intended to bring up myself.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
No I'll vouch for that one I've been kept awake some nights due to people's televisions that were on, from across the street.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Ah. Sorry.

I am more likely to be the one keeping people up as I am a nightowl and often fall asleep with the TV on. When awake I have to jump on the remote to hit mute as even at a fairly low setting, the commercials can be pretty loud.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, and that's a good reason to complain to the television company and the advertiser. If a particular person's tv noise is too loud, that's a good reason to complain to the person. The idea of government regulating television volume to protect us from those who leave the volume too high is disturbing to me.

If a television commercial was so loud as to cause a noise violation when the television was set soft enough it did not, I don't see a problem with a civil suit over the issue.

Lets see, a few other differences with a bullhorn. The television industry is already extremely sensitive to outside pressure, avoiding swearing and nudity despite effectively no legal restrictions (speaking about most cable television). There are straightforward technological adaptations: if you don't want your television putting out a sound above a certain level, there are fairly cheap devices you can obtain to ensure that (heck, some of them even do more complicated equalizing).

In other words, except that both relate to sound and volume, the bullhorn example is almost entirely unlike the television situation in ways that matter legally and socially.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
The idea of government regulating television volume to protect us from those who leave the volume too high is disturbing to me.

---

quote:

---

Overly loud commercials could actually be thought of as a safety concern for hearing damage. The government regulates tons of other things for safety (think mandatory seat belts in autos), so I'm not sure this is really much different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Apparently it was the first thing on the list the Republicans were willing to not filibuster.

---