Senate Votes To Turn Down Volume On TV Commercials

Hugh Pickens writes "Ever since television caught on in the 1950s, the FCC has been getting complaints about blaring commercials but concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the 'apparent loudness' of commercials. Now the AP reports that the Senate has unanimously passed a bill to require television stations and cable companies to keep commercials at the same volume as the programs they interrupt using industry guidelines on how to process, measure and transmit audio in a uniform way. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a co-sponsor, says it's time to stop the use of loud commercials to startle viewers into paying attention. 'TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial.' The House has already passed similar legislation, so before the new measure becomes law, minor differences between the two versions have to be worked out when Congress returns to Washington after the November 2 election."

Comments

This is impractical

[jra]

Cause it ties the playback loudness of the commercials to *what program material surrounds them*: the same spot could play louder during Footday Night Monball than during CSI, frex.

FCC wisely ducked this, last time.

What will the Senate do next, vote to reduce gravity, so overweight people can get around more easily?

Re:It's almost as if

[elrous0]

It's a wildly popular bill with broad bi-partisan support, a true no-brainner. With that said, don't worry, the Democrats will still find some way to fuck it up.

Re:Impracticle?

[jack2000]

Why are you even watching TV in the first place.
Go download what fancies your taste, skip the damn adds. Watch things at your convenience. DOWN WITH TELEVISION NETWORKS!

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Osgeld]

Its just darn near impossible, kind of like dying from insomnia, yea ok it could happen but the chances are next to none

sorry if you think I am an asshole, hell I will be the first to admit it, but just like there is no cure for that, there is no cure for being an over exaggerating twit

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

>>>If it's between a candidate who I agree with on 100% of the issues but can't do anything about them, and a canidate who agrees with me on 50% of the issues but is effective at getting legislation passed, then I'm probably going to have to vote for the guy I only half agree with.
>>>

So how's that working out for you?

For me, if I had voted for the major candidate, it would have sucked. (We got over-regulation from Clinton, warmonger/spyer Bush, and national socialist Obama.)