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

It's almost as if

[tekrat]

Congress was working for the people... Is this some kind of sick joke meant to lull us into thinking that every congressman isn't in the pockets of big business? Hrrrmm. It's getting near election time, that must be it...

Re:It's almost as if

[davegravy]

If the government and powerful corporate higher-ups weren't impacted by the volume issue the same as the rest of us, we wouldn't be seeing this bill. I'm surprised they didn't conceive some way to fix the problem only for themselves.

Re:It's almost as if

[parkrrrr]

You mean "Also, the Republicans will...." Fish gotta swim, Republicans gotta screw us, Democrats gotta screw up.

Re:It's almost as if

[hedwards]

Indeed, kind of interesting how the don't call list was engineered to mysteriously not apply to them, same goes for the ban on robocalls. Oddly enough, politicians were among the worst offenders during election season.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "Also, the Republicans will...." Fish gotta swim, Republicans gotta screw us, Democrats gotta screw up.

"Everyone in Congress is on the same side, and it's not the one you're on"

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

>>>the #STRING will still find some way to fuck it up.

where #STRING alternates between "Democrats" and "Republicans". Stop wasting your vote on the same D or R screwage. Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."

Re:It's almost as if

[Palshife]

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

There. FTFY.

Re:It's almost as if

[elrous0]

There was an episode of "The Simpsons" (from back when that show did real satire) that summed it up nicely. We see a Republican convention, and the conventioneers are holding up signs that read "We're evil" and "We only care about the rich!" Then it cuts to the Democratic convention and they're holding up signs that read "We can't govern!" and "Incompetence Now!"

Re:It's almost as if

[mcvos]

I keep hearing this more and more lately. Democrats are terrible at implementing their good ideas, Republicans are good at implementing their terrible ideas. You're screwed either way.

Bit Mental

[Mike Mentalist]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.

Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.

Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

I was going to try to write this preemptively, but slashdot idiocy prevails...

A) This is a problem, and potentially a safety issue as well. As more and more people use (ear|head)(buds|phones), the insane relative loudness will certainly contribute to very premature hearing loss. (Ever watch 24, the commercials were easily 20+ dBa louder than the program; if 75 dBa is comfortable, abruptly switching to 95 dBa is startling at least, and likely damaging, even for the brief period prior to hitting mute or fast-forward).

B) The industry has had decades to regulate itself; the government has so far exercised uncharacteristic restraint (something slashdotters are quick to bemoan) in legislating a fix.

Re:This is impractical

[blueg3]

If only there was some way of taking a single piece of source material and adjusting its loudness at the time of transmission so that different volumes could be selected for different situations.

Alas, apparently the technology to dynamically alter sound data in such a way does not exist.

Smart Sound

[snspdaarf]

I have an old Magnavox TV with smart sound. Loud commercials are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

I torrent everything I watch. Commercials are not a problem for me.

Billy Mays here for another exciting product....

[DirtyCanuck]

Hi Billy Mays here for the Commercial Kill.
Sick of commercials blaring and waking up your hooker in the middle of the night?
Using the power of the internet we can eliminate loud obnoxious commercials for your viewing pleasure.

Note: Commercials only removed from pirated material. Non Pirated material will be subject to EVEN LOUDER commercials that conveniently have the volume control disabled during duration.

Congress has it's priorities

[hsmith]

They can't pass a fucking budget, the ONE THING we need them to do, but they can legislate tv volume. Awesome.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[nedlohs]

Surprise surprise, things that don't really matter are easier to come to agreement on than things that are considered important and on which very different opinions are held.

Amazing!

Uncharacteristic:

[boneclinkz]

Normally I'm pretty apathetic about political nonsense, but something about this story enrages me. This is just so unbelievably frivolous, but it sure will play well to the average voter who probably watches 40 hours of television a week and strongly agrees with the statement that "TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial."

It's not that I'm especially fond of advertisers, it's just that I have trouble acknowledging a world where ANYBODY GIVES A FUCK about this "issue".

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[spiffmastercow]

Obviously you don't have children. When you spend 2 hours trying to get your kid to sleep, and then turn on your favorite show while you finally have some down time, the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up before you can mute the TV.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[elrous0]

This has always been a problem, but lately it seems to have gotten completely out of hand. To get decent mid-range sound on my HDTV channels (which have a broad dynamic range), I have to turn them up pretty high. When the commercials come on, they're so much louder than the shows that they come damn close to damaging my speakers. Even though I have a DVR and try to avoid them altogether, I still have to put up with these commercials on occasion, and I'm tired of jumping for the mute button before some McDonald's ad blows out my goddamned speakers.

While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[tomhudson]

Ban the use of sirens in radio commercials to get attention. I don't know how many times I heard one in a commercial and the natural reaction is to start looking for the ambulance or fire truck or police car.

No, it is practical

[drumcat]

Umm... how about Root Mean Square calculation? I use it all the time. I have to master audio and the funny thing is unlike Creed & Nickelback, I care about not just peaks, but overall sound. It can be done.

Re:No, it is practical

[commodore64_love]

>>>I have to master audio

Please tell your colleagues that the best music uses all or most of a CD's 80 dB volume range, not just the top 5 dB (i.e. avoids volume compression). If your bosses are wondering why CD sales are dropping, it's because there's little point buying a CD that sounds like it was mastered from a 128k MP3 file. Make the CD sound better than an MP3, and we'll buy it. IMHO. A Fan.

Re:This is impractical

[wjousts]

The point is that now it will be the same volume measured by *average level*. So one big explosion in CSI doesn't give the advertisers card blanche to blast their ads at you.

Re:This is impractical

[somersault]

Duh. The commercials must obviously be operating at near to peak levels with little dynamic range, whereas the TV shows are save a little range for swelling dramatic music, explosions etc.

I have the same problem with BBC Radio 1, the presenters are far too loud in comparison with the music. If I ever listen to the radio these days I tend to be fiddle with the volume a lot.

Thank God, but it is too late

[gblackwo]

I already dropped cable for dsl, netflix, hulu and hd over the air. I am 22, not only does my generation not need landlines, but we don't need cable either.

All these little laws

[LiquidLink57]

From the general feel of the comments so far, it looks like my opinion will be pretty unpopular, which makes me a bit scared to post this, but I really don't like this law.

Things can sound like a good idea on paper, and often have positive intentions, but when you make a law out of every good idea it can create problems. Every law we make takes away just a little of our freedom (in many cases, a lot). Make murder against the law, I lose the freedom to murder you, and vice versa. That's well worth the cost. But all the little laws like this stack up.

I mean in this case, sure, having a commercial that's loud could inconvenience people, maybe annoy people. And I'm sure it'll make a lot of people happy to not have to deal with it. But as Americans, we don't have a right to not be inconvenienced, to not be annoyed. Of course quieter commercials isn't a really a big deal to us. Maybe it will be more "pleasant." But having a loud commercial be a crime? Really?

Usually when someone says, "You know, there oughta be a law," there shouldn't be.

Re:All these little laws

[mcgrew]

From the general feel of the comments so far, it looks like my opinion will be pretty unpopular

If by "unpopular" you mean "illogical", then you're right. Your argument makes no sense at all.

when you make a law out of every good idea it can create problems

Only if the law is badly written or unevenly enforced, or the idea merely seems to be a good one as many bad ideas often are.

Every law we make takes away just a little of our freedom. Make murder against the law, I lose the freedom to murder you

No, it only tales away anarchy. You do NOT have the freedom to murder. Your freedoms end where mine begin, and that's how it should be. You should NOT be "free" to break into my house and deprive me of my freedom of privacy. You should not be free to take my belongings and deprive me of my property rights. My privacy and property are my freedoms. You and nobody else have the right to deprive me of my rights.

But as Americans, we don't have a right to not be inconvenienced, to not be annoyed.

We do to a point. My freedom of speech does not tale away your freedom to ignore me (and BTW, the first amendment IS a law, and it does NOT take away anyone's freedom or rights). I do not have the right and should not have the freeedom to come into your home and wake up your sleeping children. If I wake up your children I'm doing you harm. It's just plain WRONG to do that, and you have no right to do me wrong.

Now, if you want to smoke a joint in your own living room, go for it. You're not harming anyone. There are good laws and bad laws, this is a GOOD law, pot laws are BAD laws. You're getting "bad laws" confused with "all laws".

Re:This is impractical

[cyber-vandal]

The presenters are too loud on Radio 1 because you can hear them.

Re:This is impractical

[zero_out]

It can definitely be done. In fact, about 6 years ago I was tasked with designing and coding an automatic volume control based on ambient room noise. It was not easy, believe me, but using Root Mean Square, I was able to get it to work. This ensured that the device would either be louder than the ambient sound if you wanted to use it as a public announcement system, such as in a school, or provide background music that didn't drown out conversation. The hardest part was determining the sample buffer. Do you adjust the volume based on the last second of ambient sound? The last 10 seconds? The last minute? It took some tweaking, but an optimal sample buffer was found.

Now, for a TV show, that is a bit easier. Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it, as well as the peak volume, do the same for each commercial, and adjust the commercial volume accordingly. It's not a difficult problem at all. In fact, I could probably write an application to do it all automatically within a week or two, but no more than a month. It would take sound stream input, sample the entire stream from beginning to end, then determine a relative volume for each one.

The problem hasn't been a technical one for over a decade. It's been a political one.