Ban On Loud TV Commercials Takes Effect Today

netbuzz writes "A new law banning broadcasters from delivering TV commercials at a higher volume takes effect today at the end of a yearlong implementation period. Called the CALM Act, or Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, the law does provide for violators to be fined. TV commercials that crank up the volume have been the No. 1 complaint logged with the FCC over the last 10 years."

Comments

I said

[mozumder]

A BAN ON LOUD TV COMMERCIALS TAKES EFFECT TODAY /an all caps filter? really? people are actually bothered by that?

Re:I said

[rynadrk]

It's to wake the snoozers up so they can make use of the precious comercial time.

Re:I said

[gstoddart]

really? people are actually bothered by that?

I don't know what it sounds like through the TV speakers since I always play my TV through my amp, but when you have the volume set for a TV show and suddenly a commercial comes in which is markedly louder ... yes, it's extremely annoying.

Some commercials are played at a significantly higher volume than the rest of the stuff being aired. Presumably to make damned sure you can hear the commercial.

It can be the difference between a comfortable listening volume and "WTF just happened". It's just the advertisers being asshats, and someone has finally told them they can't do it.

Re:I said

[Attila Dimedici]

The thing about it is that my understanding is that for most "loud" commercials, they are not technically louder than the TV show. It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes. I am sure there are exceptions, but I remember seeing a study which made this claim back right around the time this law was passed.

Re:I said

[Amorymeltzer]

It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes.

That's what "louder" means. Put some averages and standard deviations in there if you like, but "peak loudness forever" is louder than "peak loudness for a brief moment." I usually drive my car around the speed limit but I went 100mph once, a car going 100mph all the time is faster than me.

Re:I said

[Joce640k]

It even has a name - "dynamic range compression".

Re:I said

[Beeftopia]

But wouldn't this indicate a monotone equivalent to the decibel peak of the show, if thinking about it as a graph of the loudness?

ISTM the average decibel level of the commercial is significantly higher than the average loudness of the television show. It's why I have to reach for the remote to turn the sound down during commercials.

Re:I said

[DarkOx]

Well fortuitously my receiver has settings to detect when the dynamic range suddenly becomes less dynamic and will kick its normalization. Anything that stays constantly loud for more than a few ms, an it kick in the normalization and compression.

I can't stand watching TV without that feature on. Even most programs are recorded such that events like explosions will rattle the pictures off your walls if the have base volume level high enough that the dialog is comfortably audible. These settings do ruin the effects of Horror movies some thrillers (have to turn off for those), but they solve the loud commercial problem and make most other programing much more enjoyable.

Luckily the amp does keep these settings tied to source, so i don't have to manually change them for tuner/mp3/cassette/wii/pc.

 

Re:I said

[ottothecow]

I am pretty sure that by all reasonable measures of loudness, that counts as technically louder. If I am quietly telling you a story and in the middle of it, I make a loud clap of my hands and then continue telling you the story quietly, you would not say I am loud. The average volume is quite low. If someone walked in after my story and yelled a whole story at the volume of my clap, you would say that they were loud. For something like that, you can't just measure the peak, you have to weight it over some duration.

Compressing the dynamic range of a commercial to make the whole thing as loud as the peak volume of the TV show counts as "technically louder" unless you are using an unreasonable measure of loudness.

I mean, it is a shame that someone has to actually push through regulations to ban this. It's probably complicated and has all sorts of long definitions about what counts as loud (what if you were just watching a particularly quiet part of a show?)...but the advertisers have brought this burden on themselves. If they hadn't been dicks, nobody would force them to monitor the volume of their commercials.

Re:I said

[medv4380]

That's actually a part of the reason the FCC has taken so long to pass the regulation in the first place. However, that argument no long applies. The technical document describing it is here. That document describes the Normalization process the commercial should be sent though to make it in compliance. Someone could probably try to subvert it, but that's what the reporting is for. If there is a complaint then the FCC will go back and look to see if it was a problem with the Algorithm or if it was someone subverting it.

Re:I said

[Seumas]

This seems like such a quaint complaint. I can't remember the last time I watched actual television (not that I don't watch television *shows*), much less was confronted with a television commercial. The better part of a decade, at least.

Re:I said

[Grand Facade]

"Some commercials are played at a significantly higher volume than the rest of the stuff being aired. Presumably to make damned sure your neighbors can hear the commercial."

There, I fixed that for you...

Re:I said

[X0563511]

There's already technical means to describe loudness. I hope they decided to use something like that instead of trying to use lawyer-speak.

Re:I said

[X0563511]

Looks like they DID in fact use something similar. Someone else pointed to this specifically. (PDF warning)

Re:I said

[Deadstick]

In other words: Hey, viewers, our commercials aren't louder than the program; remember the scene where that guy got shot?

Re:I said

[ottothecow]

Nice--at least they did something a bit right.

Of course from the other comments, it sounds like they left so many loopholes that most advertisers will never be bothered by this.

Re:I said

[Attila Dimedici]

No, louder means louder. If on the other hand the rule is that the average for the commercial cannot be louder than the average of the show, how do you adjust for shows that have large sections of quiet vs shows that have a lot of noise? Does this mean that advertisers will have to make different commercials for every show?

Re:I said

[gagol]

I actively uses a compressor when watching movies, mainly to be capable of hearing conversations without explosions blasting my ears off. I call it, the "baby is asleep" mode. I guess it would work with tv shows and ads, but I despite ads so much I dont watch tv anymore.

Re:I said

[sootman]

There's a big difference between a few seconds of gunfire or explosions in a show versus 3 solid minutes of "BUY THESE FINE PRODUCTS!!!!!11"

Re:I said

[Yakasha]

The thing about it is that my understanding is that for most "loud" commercials, they are not technically louder than the TV show. It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes. I am sure there are exceptions, but I remember seeing a study which made this claim back right around the time this law was passed.

Seems about right. They measure internet speeds the same way. My connection is advertised at 25 mpbs because from 2:01:34 A.M. to 2:01:38 A.M. I actually get 25 mbps.

Re:I said

[X0563511]

Yea, some people are that stupid. Then they are lame enough to come back and bitch about their browser crashing or some other nonsense.

I don't want to see it, and I don't want someone getting pissed at me for some insignificant reason. Seems I failed that last part.

Re:I said

[Joce640k]

I hate them. They gradually raise the volume in the gaps between sounds (background crickets or whatever get louder and louder and louder) then SLam it back down again on the first syllable of each dialog, making the first word unintelligible.

I'm sure the tech exists to embed proper compression information somewhere in the binary but nobody except me seems to think it's a good idea.

Re:I said

[ohnocitizen]

You already got modded up, but may I just say how amazing that analogy is?

Re:I said

[gagol]

You should recheck your settings or get a good one, I do not have this issue. Keep in mind I have done pro audio and video productions in the past and I am pretty anal. I even correct gamma and saturation fine tuned for each movie I watch.

Re:I said

[Solandri]

My understanding is that that is the point of this legislation. That previously, "loudness" was defined as peak amplitude, not the average.

Re:I said

[adolf]

My understanding is that that is the point of this legislation. That previously, "loudness" was defined as peak amplitude, not the average.

Not to me, nor anyone else who listens with their ears instead of watching a meter. It is a concept based on human perception.

Loudness, defined.

Re:I said

[Sentrion]

Remember Billy Mays? His commercials seemed loud, but he was loud even in person. But what made the sound of his voice intolerable was that he was able to maintain the same level of loudness with every breath, and he made sure that 98% of the commericial time was literally the loud sound of his loud voice with no pauses. Even with the volume turned down he still sounded loud because the human voice does not modulate the same with a quiet "indoor" voice as it does when we "speak up" and talk loudly. It actually took remarkable skill for him to speak that way.

So even with the volume reduced, we will still probably perceive many commercials as being loud, or at least obnoxious.

Re:I said

[lgw]

Yep, I had the same "wait, there are commercials on television?" reaction, much like the "the internet has ads?" reaction many /.ers are familir with.

Why does anyone watch TV in such a way as to get commercials? So impatient to see something at the earliest possible minute that you'll sit through that BS?

Re:I said

[Solandri]

That's what I mean. There was a disjoint between how loudness was defined by the law governing TV commercials, vs. what people interpreted "loudness" to mean.

Re:I said

[Hamsterdan]

Agreed. Night mode properly works on an old inexpensive RCA Theater-in-a-box amp, altough I don't use it that often. I like having dynamic range.

Re:I said

[adolf]

No. The law has never (before now) limited loudness on television.

There has (for eons and eons), and continues to be limits maximum modulation (which is indirectly related to amplitude), but that's not at all the same thing as loudness, and has nothing to do with human perception but instead everything to do with minimizing interference.

In other words: The only person confused about what the term "loudness" means is you. So stop doing that.

Re:I said

[Pentium100]

Even most programs are recorded such that events like explosions will rattle the pictures off your walls if the have base volume level high enough that the dialog is comfortably audible.

The same happens in a cinema. I like wide dynamic range - be it for action movies or listening to 1812 - 90WRMS speakers are nice to have.

Compressing dynamic range is easier than expanding it, so I like the fact that movies have full dynamic range and I have the option to compress it if I really want (contrary to most new music releases, where I have to use an expander).

Re:I said

[Anonymous Coward]

The only loudness laws I would like to see enacted are the ones that cut down the loudness of people who boast how superior they are at not having a TV.

Re:I said

[LukeWebber]

You might think so, but by the measures used in Australia, they get away with commercials that seem way too loud to the listener, and then they're all "Oh, it only *sounds* louder, but it's perfectly OK". And the stations get away with it. Because they set the rules.
I just hope your law doesn't permit that.

Re:I said

[Tapewolf]

I hate them. They gradually raise the volume in the gaps between sounds (background crickets or whatever get louder and louder and louder) then SLam it back down again on the first syllable of each dialog,

Can you alter the attack and release settings?

Re:I said

[Anonymous Coward]

Some commercials are played at a significantly higher volume than the rest of the stuff being aired. Presumably to make damned sure you can hear the commercial.

Remember, if you can't hear the commercial in the kitchen while getting a snack, you're stealing television.

Re:I said

[eugene ts wong]

That makes sense. My friend always advertises that he smells like a fresh spring day, because from 2:01:34 A.M to 2:01:38 A.M., he stops farting.

Re:I said

[redlemming]

Some commercials are played at a significantly higher volume than the rest of the stuff being aired. Presumably to make damned sure you can hear the commercial.

It can be the difference between a comfortable listening volume and "WTF just happened". It's just the advertisers being asshats, and someone has finally told them they can't do it.

It's worse than that, actually.

Some of the hearing impaired will already be increasing the base volume to just be able to make out the words being said on their television, and in this situation the additional increase in volume due to the ads can potentially cause additional hearing damage, and can cause pain or other psychological discomfort (not much different from torture, really: remember the scene in the Empire Strikes Back where Chewbacca is tortured by the Empire playing loud audio in his cell?).

As people with hearing impairment often don't advertise their condition, many Slashdot readers are likely to be unfamiliar with what life is like for these people.

Children can lose some of their hearing from a number of illnesses, such as those that damage the portion of the nervous system connecting the ears to the brain, so this is not just a problem for the elderly.

Even with the current progress on cloning, we are very far away from being able to replace people's hearing mechanisms, so if damage occurs it will effectively be permanant and crippling.

Even should we someday get cloning for the cells in the ears, and some sort of reasonably safe surgery for replacement, those people with hearing impairment associated with damage to the nerves between the ears and the rest of the brain will be unable to benefit: fixing problems in that part of the body will likely be even more difficult than correcting problems in the ears themselves.

Just as we don't allow businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of sex or ethnicity, we shouldn't allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions such as hearing impairment.

I am so relieved

[Anonymous Coward]

This must mean that all those other more important problems have been solved...

Re:I am so relieved

[gfxguy]

+1 - I don't like loud commercials, but I question the use of resources to implement and enforce laws against things that violate no one's rights.

Re:I am so relieved

[Anonymous Coward]

This must mean that all those other more important problems have been solved...

Really? You think focusing everyone employed by the federal government on one issue at a time will solve it faster? You want the communication guys focusing on the accounting issues, and the accountants focusing on the medical issues, and the doctors focusing on the energy issues?

Re:I am so relieved

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live in an apartment (or even just share a house with other people), suddenly-fluctuating sound levels can pose quite a problem -- particularly if you like to watch TV at night. Commercials are nothing, though, compared to the foley mix on just about every DVD I've ever watched (why they can't come up with a dialogue-prominent audio track I'll never understand).

Re:I am so relieved

[cayenne8]

(why they can't come up with a dialogue-prominent audio track I'll never understand).

That would be the center channel...mostly dialog.

Re:I am so relieved

[geekoid]

The poepel don't like it. It's annoying, head ache inducing, and rude.

The government responded appropriatly.

I set the volume on the TV, no one should go around changing that.

Re:I am so relieved

[spire3661]

Quality of life is important too

Re:I am so relieved

[sarysa]

And there certainly will be no workarounds. They won't raise the volume to disproportionate levels during the commercial break cliffhangers to make louder commercials legal. Why would they do that, especially with the benefit of heightened dramatic effect that exists independent of skirting the law?

Re:I am so relieved

[X0563511]

It's not like this kind of thing isn't exactly what the FCC was put in place to do...

Re:I am so relieved

[iluvcapra]

(why they can't come up with a dialogue-prominent audio track I'll never understand).

We make these, they're what play on the Assistive Listening Devices in the theater, and on airline flights.

Re:I am so relieved

[jellomizer]

It terms of problems in the world, this is a low hanging fruit. Easy to solve, measurable benefits, not much protest against. If we just sat down and focused on the big complicated issues, they will not get done, nor will the other lesser issues.

Re:I am so relieved

[gagol]

You need a sound compressor to mitigate the issue, put enough gain to boost dialogues and agressive cut-off to reduce pretty much everything else.

Re:I am so relieved

[Bigby]

FCC was put into place to managed airwave frequencies. It morphed into the Department of Censorship.

Re:I am so relieved

[ndege]

When I first read the summary of TFA, I quietly said to myself, "Good. I am glad we have solved all the big problems on our planet."

There are two things that immediately come to mind:

1. First world "problems" aren't problems: http://youtu.be/fxyhfiCO_XQ

2. Our perspectives and focus in life are highly myopic. For our species to survive, we must think broadly and deliberately. We need to have awe at the world around us. We need to take time to be still and listen. The latest gadgets and toys are great, but what we do with the gadgets and how we use them is far more important. The short time we are given on this earth is more important than most of us can conceive.

What I am trying to say is that there is so much more to life than the volume of television commercials. During this time of year, take time to turn off the tap of the media giants and spend some time with your loved ones...the people who helped shape you, and the people you are helping to shape.

Mr Rogers says it better than I can during his lifetime achievement award acceptance speech. You need to hear it if you haven't: http://youtu.be/Upm9LnuCBUM

Here's a video to help explain this broad overview perspective that I speak of: http://vimeo.com/55073825

Now, what was that about some new FCC legislation taking effect today?

How is this loudness measured?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Just interested, do they use ITU-R BS.1770 or EBU R128?

Re:How is this loudness measured?

[iluvcapra]

ITU-R BS.1770-1 or -3 are measurement standards, they don't prescribe any limits. It gives a way of measuring the subjective "loudness" of a program based on a psychoacoustic model but it presumes total control over the speaker system (which TV doesn't provide), and it doesn't say "how loud."

EBU R128 gives a single standard, and you use it with ITU-R BS.1770. The problem is that it treats a dialogue-heavy program the same as a musical program; a musical program has a lot more signal, over a half hour average, than a dialogue one, so a musical performance will tend to sound quieter when put next to a dialogue heavy one, given they're mixed with the same level normalization scheme.

The CALM Act is actually based on Dolby Laboratories technical definitions and the dialnorm subcode metadata in an ATSC bitstream actually has to be decoded and properly enforced. It's not actually LAW but it's an adopted FCC federal regulation. Dolby's standard is to measure the average dialogue level in the program, and only the dialogue, and to use that to derive the normalization level -- EBU R128 uses the entire program mixed together, dialogue, music and sound effects. I think Dolby's approach is superior but more technically demanding, since it requires the person encoding the AC3 bitstream to have access to the dialogue mix-minus, but on professional productions this isn't an issue.

Re:How is this loudness measured?

[erikscott]

It's not actually LAW but it's an adopted FCC federal regulation.

In all seriousness, I'm curious, educate me - I (naively?) thought if something was an FCC regulation, it would end up in 47CFR (maybe months later). Is there a difference between (administrative?) law and regulation, in the FCC's case or in general, and if so what is that difference?

Re:How is this loudness measured?

[iluvcapra]

I dunno :) Congress grants the FCC the power to levy fines and penalties against people that break "the rules," and then it grants the FCC the right to define "the rules," because congressmen don't want to spend time deciding if setup level should be 0 or 7.5 IREs.

More interesting is that by accepting Dolby's standard, the FCC has in fact incorporated a proprietary, black-box technical procedure into US "law."

Mixed feelings.

[gfxguy]

I don't know if I like government to get involved in regulations like these. I can't say I don't like this particular one, of course - it pisses me off when the kids are sleeping and we need to turn up the volume to hear the show, then the commercial comes on and wakes up the whole f-ing neighborhood. But I have to wonder if this is the best use of government, and if we eliminated these positions that come up with and enforce rules against things that don't violate your rights, how much money we could save?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[avandesande]

Suppose you were a HAM operator and you randomly radio people and after they tune in blare obnoxious loud music. You could even set up a machine to do this randomly. Should you loose your license?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[fermat1313]

I don't know if I like government to get involved in regulations like these. I can't say I don't like this particular one, of course - it pisses me off when the kids are sleeping and we need to turn up the volume to hear the show, then the commercial comes on and wakes up the whole f-ing neighborhood. But I have to wonder if this is the best use of government, and if we eliminated these positions that come up with and enforce rules against things that don't violate your rights, how much money we could save?

I see where you are coming from, and we shouldn't need government interference here. But if government doesn't create laws like this, then the alternative is that big business sets defacto policies for us, because they hold all the cards. Your only choice as a consumer is to just turn off TVs.

I liken this to the CAN SPAM act. Technically it's a limitation on free speech, but if the government doesn't step up to create policies that benefit consumers, who will? Trust me here, the media companies don't have our backs here. Never will.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[interval1066]

This is EXACTLY where the government needs to step in. Stupid, annoying things like this. When I heard the ban was coming I prayed then and there on the spot and my atheist heart warmed knowing there is a God who loves and cares for us.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[MartinSchou]

The thing is, the networks are using your resources to send this to you, and in exchange for the right to do so without interference from other things, they have to live up to certain requirements.

This is just an additional requirement tacked on in response to quite honestly horrific behaviour on their part.

Think of it as being told to turn down the volume at an excessively loud party, because it's pissing off your neighbours.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your only choice as a consumer is to just turn off TVs.

Which, BTW, is an excellent choice.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Kergan]

I don't know if I like government to get involved in regulations like these. (...) how much money we could save?

Methinks it's safe to assume that one can measure -- and fine -- it automatically.

If not, end users will find all sorts of reasons to sue.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[ArchieBunker]

I look at it this way. People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in. I'm no fan of big government either.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[timeOday]

It is good for the government to step in when competition creates a situation that is counter-productive, even for the "winner" of the competition. If advertisers are allowed to turn ads up to 11, then they are effectively forced to do so (by competition) even though in the end they're right back where they started (all the same volume), but now with lower sound quality (clipping) and annoyed consumers. You could view this as a rule imposed on advertisers, or instead as a negotiated truce among them.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Anonymous Coward]

loose: the opposite of tight.

lose: something you had, you have, no more.

English: FUCKING LEARN IT

Re:Mixed feelings.

[runeghost]

I think regulations like these are why we have government. Of course it would be better if we didn't need such regulations, but as long as we're going to allow the amoral psychopaths called corporations to exist, we also need to keep them reigned in. As for the cost, I expect that the total expense of enforcing this law for the next century will be a pittance compared to wars and corporate welfare.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[TheGratefulNet]

people have not acted responsibly toward each other, and so, bigger bullies have to step in.

if people (broadcasters, etc) showed some sense of taste, style and wisdom, we would not have to be ruled with big sticks.

just that simple.

our system shows, time and time again, people can't be trusted to self-police. look at the financial industry, if you doubt me.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[geekoid]

Why do you think the governemnt has one use? IN fct, why do you think 'the government is a single separate entity from the people?
And save money compared to what?

The government agency, which is run by citizens, are responding the the people. That's their job.

Do you also think the police should handle it when your neighbor is playing music at 120 db when it's 2 in the morning?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[geekoid]

You just make any excuse to shove god into the conversation, won't you?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Mitsoid]

This is one of those things the government did NOT screw up..

Philosophically, "we the people" empower the government to enforce stability and rules. Some of these 'rules' are more annoyances -- but we're certainly glad they are there... such as public urination... or the requirement for a business that serves food and drink to allow you to use their restroom..

Sometimes businesses need to be kept in check because they start to break this social contract of people playing nice... and individuals don't have enough power to do anything about it, and it's technically legal.. so a new law needs to be passed to keep things working

Did this take away from valuable congress debate time? Probably not.. Most of the violations were small local or small businesses, or otherwise businesses without big pockets to buy a congressman or 40...

So I'm fairly sure this one went by smoothing and quickly.... without someone reading books for 2 months to hold up congress like the Civil Rights act... Wish I was there, I love audible.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[spire3661]

Broadcast TV uses spectrum owned by the people, leased to private companies. Cable TV uses right of way purchased from the public. As such we have an inherent right as We The People to ensure that they use our resources in a manner we deem fit. There is nothing wrong with this regulation because the entire setup is regulated. Why dont you go try shaving some money off the military budget before you start fucking with quality of life issues.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[gstoddart]

People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in. I'm no fan of big government either.

And when, exactly, does the 'market' ever 'fix itself'?

This notional abstraction of the 'market' as an entity which resolves problems for the better is, well, a myth. It's missing all of the mechanisms which would cause it to self correct.

Instead the corporations typically do what they want, and the governments have given them the ability to do it.

The market solution which would correct this would take decades on its own, if at all. Because first you'd need viable competition to the cable companies so there was any consumer choice so they could choose a provider which didn't do this. And the barrier of entry to that is so enormous, that it won't happen. And then they'd need to either stick with the idea, or give up and decide there's more money to be had.

As it exists, the 'market' doesn't naturally settle on an optimal outcome except for the corporations, who basically set the rules themselves. Instead, it's more like a dog which will eat all of the food until it gets sick, and then start all over again.

This idealized entity which everyone thinks is mostly infallible is so heavily skewed and manipulated that it isn't capable of generating the outcomes ascribed to it. And, in reality, that idealized 'market' has only ever existed on paper -- there's always been corruption, collusion, cheating, bribing, self interest and other things. The consumers lack perfect information and make irrational choices. The assumptions on this perfectly even-handed entity are largely erroneous.

Every time someone talks about the 'market' finding a solution I cringe, because the only solution it will ever come to is the one which maximizes profits by any means necessary.

The market doesn't 'choose' to not sell baby formula with melamine in it -- it has to be told, and it's not like "over time people will simply choose to not buy baby formula with melamine in it" solves the issue.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[X0563511]

Yes, and you will. You're not allowed to play music. Period. You're supposed to avoid even accidentals or music from the background.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[spire3661]

THe problem is, this particular market absolutely requires government regulation, as the players in said market have proven over and over. From rigged game shows, to outright lying in news broadcasts, the TV people brought it upon themselves.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[X0563511]

Lets be fair, end users did not have a means to provide feedback to those responsible.

That is still a failing of the "market", however, so the point still stands (just not where you thought it was)

Re:Mixed feelings.

[X0563511]

The only thing the early adopters did is sound amateurish. Nobody was forced to follow along.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[mk1004]

In an ideal society, your TV would be able to adjust the volume of the commercials at will with a little fancy programming.

Actually, some TVs claim to do this, including one that I own. I don't know how well it works, as I've never done a comparison.

Of course, this legislation does nothing for the one OTA station in my area that runs a much lower overall volume than the others.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[cgt]

If we don't regulate pants, then the alternative is that big business sets de facto policies for us, because they're the ones making the pants. Your only choice as a consumer is to not wear pants.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Guru80]

Unfortunately in this type of situation it's either Government policy or Big Business setting their own standards. Neither which is good but at the same time there is no alternative. I suppose businesses could say, you know what we don't need to scream our commercial at you so we will readjust it to comfortable human listening...oh right, no they wouldn't. They need to make sure your attention is grabbed and make sure you, and everyone in the household, hear about how you can put money in their bank.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[gfxguy]

I think it's not that comparable to the CAN SPAM act, because spam uses our resources and is invasive - you pay for (in one way or another) an email account and it gets abused by a third party. On commercial television you already implicitly accept third party ads pay for the content you're watching. Yes, you may pay for cable or satellite, but then you're paying for the delivery of the content, not the content itself (unless you're paying for premium channels... which don't have commercials, per se).

Re:Mixed feelings.

[WrecklessSandwich]

It's a limitation on corporate speech. Yet another example of what happens when you apply 1st Amendment rights to corporations: they get a megaphone.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[theurge14]

The market has had over 10 years to address the customer's complaints. They didn't. Too bad for them.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[PapaSmurphy]

Your only choice as a consumer is to just turn off TVs.

Which, BTW, is an excellent choice.

Yep, it sure is! It works in all similar situations too.

Don't regulate spam. If people don't want spam, they can just turn off their internet.

Don't regulate traffic speed. If people don't want car wrecks, they can just turn not drive anywhere.

Don't regulate yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If people don't want to be stampeded to death, they can just not go out in public.

See, this works for everything doesn't it.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[hierophanta]

+1 thanks for writing that

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But by not using English correctly, you put a burden on your readers. You are saying: "I'm too lazy to learn the protocol. It's your responsibility to do all the error detection/correction." -- It's just rude.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[gfxguy]

There's a difference though - note I didn't complain about the agency itself, but about these kinds of regulations. Annoying TV commercials are not comparable to perpetrating fraud (although many commercials are fraudulent, if you ask me). I'm not saying we should do away with the FCC.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[gfxguy]

That makes no sense, though - I cannot control my neighbors, I can control my TV. By keeping people up at night (the reason there are noise ordinances), they are affecting the lives and health of those people. Watching TV is entirely optional.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Don't regulate yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If people don't want to be stampeded to death, they can just not go out in public.

*sigh*

For the last time "yelling fire" is about PROPERTY rights NOT free speech.

If the theater really is on fire communicating that fact to others IS fine.
The problem is when it ISN'T. You are causing panic which may cause bodily and/or property harm.

This myth needs to die.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[sjames]

Pay for it out of television license fees (and that may very well be the case already). The broadcasters have LICENSED use of a PUBLIC resource for their private commercial gain. The public offered to allow that with a few conditions including serving the public interest. I don't think refraining from blowing people through the back of their couch is too much to ask in return. It is a shame that we had to pass a law to get them to act as if they appreciate their longstanding profitable use of a limited public space, but it's better than just leaving things where they were.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Mindcontrolled]

An additional problem is that TV is pretty much an essential service these days. Turn off all channels for a week and watch the riots

The viewer, however, is not the customer. This is not a simplified market. The viewer may pay some cash to a cable subscription to notionally make him a participant in the market, the deciding force is the main customer, though - and that is the advertiser.

This necessarily distorts the market towards the advertiser-channel relationship to the detriment of the viewer.

Since, as demonstrated, the viewer is not protected by market forces, it is necessary to regulate this via the government to restore a balanced situation.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[sjames]

The problem, and the elephant in the room people refuse to look at is that all of that market theory that showed it acting as a correcting and optimizing force were predicated on a great many players in the market with buyer and seller on roughly equal terms. If there were hundreds or even tens of cable operators competing for each customer, it might begin to work, except that there isn't room in the spectrum or on the poles for that many in one place.

None of the market theorists ever considered the case of 3 or 4 billionaire multi-nationals replacing dozens or hundreds of individuals selling in the market. It just doesn't work if the seller doesn't need the buyer as much as the buyer needs the seller.

The market theorists also presumed near perfect information. That is, the buyer could easily know enough about the product to make a good estimate of the value being offered. That went out the window some time ago, and buyers were forced to resort to reputation rather than an examination of the goods. With 'value engineering', market segmentation and rampant re-badging, that has gone out the window as well. The result is that the consumer is left with nothing but price as a criterion for buying and the race to the bottom is on.

You allude to the latter part with the melamine example. The consumer can't see or taste the melamine in the product. The consumer has never heard of melamine until babies start dieing.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[sjames]

They all sound amateurish, with some notably worse than others, but apparently most people don't notice the difference.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[jdavidb]

But if government doesn't create laws like this, then the alternative is that big business sets defacto policies for us, because they hold all the cards

The problem is the government monopolized all the cards (spectrum) in the first place, then gave out the cards to its cronies (the businesses).

Re:Mixed feelings.

[avandesande]

The market fixes itself all the time. If I sold a popular soft drink and it was changed to taste terrible people would stop buying it. However, if my electric company overcharges me and the power is going out all the time, I don't have an option to go elsewhere. That's why utilities are regulated.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[RobertLTux]

given the number of federal laws this would break and the overlap of GUN owners and HAM operators you would be lucky to not lose your LIFE

Re:Mixed feelings.

[sjames]

In an ideal society, your TV would be able to adjust the volume of the commercials at will with a little fancy programming.

MANY TVs have such features and at one time they even worked. I bought one of those around the time the feature was becoming mainstream and I could plainly hear that it was working. Then over time, I could tell it was no longer working very well. I could also hear that the advertisers were applying weird filters to their audio that would tend to confuse a simple device like the one in my TV. The next TV I got also had such a feature and it worked a little better for a while, but then it stopped working.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[metlin]

People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in.

That, indeed, is the idea behind Keynesianism. It assumes that while free market is great, like any system it has its shortcomings, and it is the job of the government to step in and fix any systemic issues (including regulations, helping fix broken institutions such as banks and industries etc).

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the useless analogy that has no real bearing on the conversation. Your input is valued.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's part of god's plan for him to shove god into any conversation, who are you to disagree?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Sentrion]

I think Magnavox had the patent for that, but who has a Magnavox TV these days?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Solandri]

And when, exactly, does the 'market' ever 'fix itself'?

This notional abstraction of the 'market' as an entity which resolves problems for the better is, well, a myth. It's missing all of the mechanisms which would cause it to self correct.

This is control systems engineering 101. Anything with a negative feedback loop fixes itself. If a store owner sets its prices too high, people stop buying there, he loses money (negative feedback), and is forced to lower his prices. There - the market just fixed itself. There isn't an "unseen hand of the market" which dictates this behavior. It's entirely caused by whether the defining coefficients of the system make it fall on the positive or negative side of the Laplace domain.

There are certainly situations which cause positive feedback loops (fall on the positive side of the Laplace domain. e.g. monopolies, where increasing control of the market results in increased control over prices, resulting in even more control of the market). Unfortunately, it's become fashionable to look only at these situations and pretend they encompass the entirety of market activity. The market doesn't favor* one side or the other. You can create systems which fall anywhere within the spectrum. Pretending systems on the negative side don't exist merely because it makes it easier to justify your political beliefs is intellectually dishonest. They do exist. All our analog technology (except for explosives) is based on them existing.

* While mathematically it doesn't favor either side, over time systems on the negative side of the Laplace domain will dominate because they survive longer. Those on the positive side tend to blow themselves up. This is the entire basis of evolution. It's not that viable life forms are favored. Its that unvialble life forms kill themselves off quicker. That's why the market appears to work. Places where bribery and corruption allows companies to thwart market forces don't advance and develop as quickly. They fall behind competitively, and are eventually overwhelmed by the economies of the places with less corruption.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[lgw]

Communication between humans need not be protocol bound for meaningful information exchange to occur.

True, but when I come here I hope for better, Here we should have pleasant and intelligent information exchange. That means aiming for a quality of writing somewhere above Twilight fan-fic.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[interval1066]

Well, you're wrong. Without gommint over site on this these fuckers have no incentive to change it. Perhaps I found the volume increase more annoying than you did. Thankfully the gommint agreed w/me.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[interval1066]

I hope you assholes are kidding. I am an atheist as should be plain from the context of my post.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[gstoddart]

This is control systems engineering 101.

Ah, Engineers ... home of the perfectly spherical cow to make calculations easier.

Anything with a negative feedback loop fixes itself. If a store owner sets its prices too high, people stop buying there

Assuming people have alternatives or multiple actors aren't getting together to game the system (any form of price fixing cartel).

You can create systems which fall anywhere within the spectrum. Pretending systems on the negative side don't exist merely because it makes it easier to justify your political beliefs is intellectually dishonest.

You're talking about abstract mathematical concepts, which may or may not apply in real world situations. I'm not saying that you couldn't create such a system (though I'm skeptical), I'm saying there's so many other factors that tend to skew this.

Places where bribery and corruption allows companies to thwart market forces don't advance and develop as quickly. They fall behind competitively, and are eventually overwhelmed by the economies of the places with less corruption.

Unless they win out due to some other actor skewing things in their favor. Again, you're talking about idealized outcomes and assuming no other factors.

Lobbying of lawmakers by corporations with money to spend allows people to thwart market forces. Countries like China which skew the rules in their favor thwarts market forces. American policies which in the past set the pump price of gas to be independent of market values skewed market forces. Giving mortgages to people with no jobs skews the market (look up NINJA mortgage). Taking junk debt and turning them into AAA-rated credit vehicles skews the market.

There isn't a market which isn't skewed, broken, or otherwise manipulated so it's not acting as if it was a perfectly spherical cow where all of our assumptions hold true.

It's not a closed system, and it's not running over indefinite periods of time in isolation. Sure, in the abstract we can construct lovely elegant mathematical models in which everything works out as "it should".

And then there's reality. And in reality, companies will do whatever it takes, governments will fiddle with things for their own ends, and consumers will make stupid decisions with imperfect information based on irrational reasons.

Sorry, but your mathematical elegance doesn't give you a complete picture. Not even close.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[SeaFox]

lose: something you had, you have, no more.

Commas, muthafucka!
Can you use them?!

Re:Mixed feelings.

[kimvette]

Why are you reading Twilight fan-fic?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Kymermosst]

"It's a limitation on corporate speech."

Yeah! Because, you know, individuals can't buy television ads.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[wiredlogic]

For profit television is a perfectly working self-correcting free market so long as you recognize that the market revolves around the sale of attention from viewers. Getting consumers to pay for the privilege is just icing on the cake.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[sjames]

If it worked perfectly, it would accommodate the sincere desire of nearly 100% of the viewers that commercials not blast them out of the room without the need for a law.

Didn't happen.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Areyoukiddingme]

Of course that didn't happen, because commercial television isn't selling viewers. The viewers are the PRODUCT. The eyeballs are being sold, not doing the buying.

The market worked absolutely perfectly. The people doing the buying are buying commercials. Implicit in that transaction is the sale of attention. Therefore, in order to acquire additional attention, the broadcasters jacked up the sound for the commercials, thereby making their customers, the buyers of commercials, happy, therefore selling more commercials.

The fact that they're asshats to the viewer in no way bothered them. Their customer was happy.

So say hello to government regulation. It's a democratic government, so it represents the will of the people (albeit at several removes). The will of the people was to not be blasted by commercials, but there was no market mechanism whatsoever where they could express their will, therefore government is the sole remaining option, and it is the legitimate option because of the nature of that government.

See how easy this is? Fucking Republicans prey on people's complete and total lack of civics education.

(Some of the above response was directed at the g-g-grandparent post, not just you.)

Re:Mixed feelings.

[sjames]

I think we may be about 5 degrees off relative. I agree that government was the right response here and that it's just fine if that's what needed to happen. I just define it as market failing as compared to the 'free market fixes all' contingent we have here. It's fine that the market can't fix all as long as we recognize that fact.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[WrecklessSandwich]

Can? Yes, theoretically. Realistically, probably (ballpark) less than 5% of television ads are bought by individuals. I can't think of a single example.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[smellotron]

You're not allowed to play music. Period. You're supposed to avoid even accidentals

Wow, the FCC is really strict about their key signature!. Seriously, that's how I parsed the sentence on first read; I had to do a double-take.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[DarwinSurvivor]

Nah, the RIAA would have him imprisoned for inability to pay their ransom before the HAM guys could even triangulate his position!

Re:Mixed feelings.

[purpledinoz]

Didn't Tivo solve this commercial problem? But weren't they forced to cripple some features?

Re:Mixed feelings.

[ai4px]

Just look how well the "Do Not Track" browser preference is working. Umm yeah, the market will fix itself.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[tepples]

IN fct, why do you think 'the government is a single separate entity from the people?

Because of the way elections are rigged. Any candidate for federal office who refuses to do what the corporate masters say won't even win the primary. Consider, for example, how the movie industry and political news are joined at the hip.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Kymermosst]

I can. Several members of my family are sole proprietors of small businesses. They buy television ads.

Really, local ads are not that expensive.

10 Years

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I guess thats about the right amount of time it takes for the Govenment to move on a #1 compaint...

Re:10 Years

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing the free market fixed it long before!

Re:10 Years

[PRMan]

They've actually been working with the advertisers and TV networks for years on this problem, with endless promises and no delivery of results...

Now decrease the amount of ads

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you be paying $100/mo on cable and still have 4 ad breaks during a 20 min long tv show?

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads

[Overzeetop]

Because if you have any more, they wouldn't have time to tell their story and if you had any less they wouldn't make as much money?

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads

[iluvcapra]

I had a directing teacher in college who used to direct the old Bosom Buddies TV show -- he went on to do this silly movie about a woman and her big fat Greek wedding. Strange guy. ANYHOO, he brought in a bunch of episodes that he'd done to show us, and the went on forever, and there were like two commercial breaks, each having maybe two commercial, tops. It was amazing how much time you had in a half-hour block back in 1980.

It was cool, but I grant that show felt flabby and slow, I'm sure it didn't at the time, but nowadays people don't necessarily expect less TV show, but they do expect the show to get to the point faster. And the style of shooting and editing lets that happen in a way an audience in the 70s might not have accepted. I'll bet if you showed "Big Bang Theory" or "Modern Family" to an audience of "Alice" or "It's a Living" it'd seem strange and avant-garde, setting aside the content issues.

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads

[jxander]

You forgot to mention the watermarks and banner ads that pop up all over the screen while the program is actually playing.

TV is nigh unwatchable these days, and that's without considering the content, which is barely drivel anyway.

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads

[X0563511]

So instead, they make no money, because I walked.

Yep, good business plan.

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads

[Areyoukiddingme]

I'll bet if you showed "Big Bang Theory" or "Modern Family" to an audience of "Alice" or "It's a Living" it'd seem strange and avant-garde, setting aside the content issues.

It's true. I've seen it in action.

My parents don't own a television, so they watch little or no TV whatsoever. My mother likes to watch old movies on a hand-held DVD player sometimes, but that's the extent of their motion picture exposure. So on the rare (very rare) occasions when the family is watching a modern movie, it's necessary to explain what's happening. They have to ask.

Modern motion picture making has developed such an abstract language that if you don't practice at watching it, you can't understand it. There are built in mutual assumptions involved nowadays. The director sketches in an outline and the viewer is supposed to jump to the appropriate conclusion, because the director doesn't want to spend the time to detail the situation. The director assumes his viewers can reach the appropriate conclusion and the viewer assumes they know what the director means. For people who watch a lot of modern TV, or modern movies, these assumptions match up correctly. For people who haven't been watching modern TV, they don't even make the assumption, let alone the correct one, and so have no idea what's going on after a while.

As an aside, even for someone who watches a lot of modern television, if you watch television made for another culture, you'll sometimes find yourself in this situation. If you're an American watching modern anime, it's not hard to find yourself wondering if you're making the right assumption, where a Japanese viewer would know for certain. Not only is there an abstract language, but that language is culture-specific and varies noticeably across cultures. The variance is getting more pronounced as time goes by. It used to be, film makers across the world spoke "Hollywood", because that was the origin of the idioms everyone was using. Nowadays, as markets and artists mature, the language of the moving picture is diverging from that Hollywood language and starting to match the native culture better.

Myth TV plugin?

[Hatta]

It seems that the FCC is relying on citizen complaints for enforcement. I think a great opportunity is to be had by a Myth TV plugin that automatically checks the RMS amplitude of the commercials and forwards a complaint if it's outside of spec. Clearly we can't rely on the FCC to actually monitor the airwaves for enforcement, but we could do so ourselves pretty easily.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Nimey]

RMS amplitude

That's GNU/amplitude, please.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a great plug in for myth but the bigger issue is this probably breaks commercial skip. It keys off the volume change.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[ArchieBunker]

All I know is VLC added a real compressor plugin and its made my movie watching so much better. I actually looked into finding an HDMI audio decoder chip to run the analog audio through a hardware compressor and then re-encode it.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[nimbius]

It seems that the FCC is relying on citizen complaints for enforcement.

and what would lead you to this conclusion? that after ten years the denizens of the airwaves have had a paper tiger unleashed upon them in response to the number one complaint of the people a regulatory body is sworn to protect? the FCC is no more charged to protect content consumers than is the FDA or USDA, they are all charged to protect and promote the consumer capitalism that drives the american economy. in this case it appears the FCC have finally been forced to act in the interest of consumers if only to avoid the infallible appearance as a corporate lapdog.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[TheGratefulNet]

uhuh. clip RMS and he'll certainly go non-linear on you.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[ottothecow]

I don't know why you would want to do this full time. The director chose to have some things louder and some things quieter and it is a part of the movie. Explosions should be big and rumbly, quiet conversations should be soft and draw in your focus.

Obviously there are times when you might want compression--you might want to bring the high volume sections down late at night, or bring the low volume sections up if you are watching it while doing something noisy (sanding a woodworking project, running on a treadmill, etc) but doing it all of the time kind of ruins the idea of dynamic range. It's like listening to pop music on FM radio. Great for a car when you can't hear the soft spots, but not really the ideal listening scenario.

My last two receivers had something called "Midnight Mode" which was essentially a compressor. I don't know how well it works since I never really touch it, but this might be an option if you aren't watching something through a computer where you can use the VLC plugin.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Nimey]

Sometimes the sound engineer will do a bad job. I've watched a few movies at home wherein the characters will be talking too quietly to hear easily, so I'll turn up the volume, then the next scene will have something really loud like an explosion or an ambulance going by, and I have to lower the volume quickly, and then they start talking quietly again.

Dynamic range is good, but only up to a point.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[ArchieBunker]

Because the dynamic range is too great. When the dialog is at an acceptable level the other noises (gunshots or explosions) cause physical discomfort to my ears. Movies on VHS were never like this, as soon as DVDs came out this nonsense started. Look I know car crashes and explosions are loud but come on I'm watching 2D images while sitting on my couch here. You are right about music having no more dynamic range. I do take issue with that. I just like the idea of a hard limit. The volume is set to a level and nothing should be able to go over that level.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[iluvcapra]

A "compressor" just takes the signal, attenuates it if it exceeds a fixed amplitude. It then cranks everything up.

It doesn't actually make things louder, it's just that many films and TV shows are mixed so that dialogue hits speakers in the middle range of the loudness, so the LOUD parts of the movie can actually be louder than the dialogue. Since laptop speakers are tiny, and only just audible at their maximum level, the compressor cranks up all the middle-loudness dialogue stuff, but when you get to a LOUD part, it's only as loud as the talking before it.

The trend of everybody watching everything on shitty computer speakers has started a new loudness war on Youtube videos and the "home theater" mixes of trailers, which don't have to abide by industry loudness standards. We end up cranking everything up and flattening the dynamic range so you can hear the words. I recently mixed a short that played on vimeo, the mix for vimeo have to get a full 10 dB of gain before it was comfortable to watch on a laptop, and this had the effect of making the loud scenes, which are exciting on the big screen, boring and flat. It sounds like the airline mix of a movie.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[X0563511]

What parameters do you tend to use?

Even in my DAW I often have a hard time deciding on a knee, etc.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Maximum Prophet]

Real gunshots will cause more than discomfort. I knew a guy that was deaf in one year because a "friend" of his fired a shotgun alongside him, "Just to scare him".

These days, the director of a war movie isn't happy unless 10% of the audience leaves with PTSD.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Tastecicles]

How about, instead of something which monitors the audio track (surely a bit heavy for an embedded device which is already busy decompressing MPEG-4 video information), something which detects a commercial break information frame (the little box that appears in the top right hand corner ten seconds before the break cuts in) and triggers a mute or a fadeout until the second CBI frame appears at the end of the break, which reverses the switch. Something like this? It can be completely passive, since the CBI is an extra bit of signal.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Tastecicles]

that said, my old satellite receiver had this weird habit of cutting the signal completely when the ads came on, coming back on when the ads ended. Didn't work *every* time, but I hardly ever saw a commercial. It could be the received signal strength (my dish was about as useful as a bit of wet string and a cup), though I've heard of people with TiVo and 90+% signal strength having the same "problem"...

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[iluvcapra]

Movies on VHS were never like this, as soon as DVDs came out this nonsense started.

HiFi VHSs only have maybe 50 dB of S/N ratio, tops. DVDs have 70dB and then 20dB of headroom.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Mindcontrolled]

Go out. Now. ;)

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[sjames]

Part of the problem is that different situations call for a different control of dynamic range. When people go to the theater, many want to be blown out of their seats by the explosion sounds. That's nearly as true for people in the 'home theater' setup. Those who watch a movie in the living room tend to want a bit less dynamic range than that, and parents watching a movie after the kids go to bed most certainly want less dynamic range.

From a technical standpoint, you can't actually re-expand compressed volume, so the right thing is for media to be engineered for the home theater and for the equipment to offer compression for the living room or late evening viewers. A higher end option would be for the media to offer a second soundtrack re-engineered for the living room.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[adolf]

If you want less dynamic range from a DVD, just crack open the manual for your player and learn how to adjust it. This is a function that is part of Dolby Digital and it is adjustable on every player I've ever had my hands on.

Some of us like loud car crashes and explosions while watching 2D images and sitting on the couch.

We can have it both ways.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Kymermosst]

Why bother with that when MythTV is already quite capable of skipping the commercials entirely?

If you never see the commercials, there's quite literally nothing to see (or hear) here and it's very easy to move along.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[SeaFox]

Because the dynamic range is too great. When the dialog is at an acceptable level the other noises (gunshots or explosions) cause physical discomfort to my ears. Movies on VHS were never like this, as soon as DVDs came out this nonsense started.

You might check the audio track options on the movie. The great difference in sounds seems to be more prevalent in multi-channel (5.1) surround-sound audio tracks, but if the DVD also offers a regular 2.0 stereo track, you'll find the dialog audio has more "push" behind it and comes through louder, and loud explosions, etc are a little toned down compared to their 5.1 counterparts.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[ArchieBunker]

My old Apex player had a setting for dynamic range but it never seemed to do much. These days anything not on live tv is played by my computer.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[ArchieBunker]

I don't have any type of surround setup. IMHO it doesn't add much to my movie experience and seems like a toy for the sound editors.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[ArchieBunker]

This is a good starting point http://lifehacker.com/5920290/how-to-fix-movies-that-are-really-quiet-then-really-loud

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[adolf]

My point remains: Every DVD player I've had my hands on has had this function, including licensed software players.

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[X0563511]

Hmm. I think I'd rather use something else I have that would do the job nicely. Shame VLC can't load VST (or can it?)

Re:Myth TV plugin?

[Nimey]

Hmpf. One of the reasons I don't go to the theater anymore is that the ones around here have their volume set so high that I have to wear earplugs as a matter of course.

Fast forward.

[csumpi]

Loud or less loud, commercials get the skip button treatments.

Re:Fast forward.

[jbmartin6]

What? I was told by another poster that big corporations would hold all the cards if government didn't step in.

Re:Fast forward.

[houghi]

Torrents: no need to use a skip button.

And Internet Streaming?

[FurtiveGlancer]

Does the law encompass Hulu and other internet streaming services? Loud and repetitious ads are worse than merely repetitious ads.

Re:And Internet Streaming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the law encompass Hulu and other internet streaming services?

No

Re:And Internet Streaming?

[jbmartin6]

What pisses me off with streams are the loud commercials where they have disabled the volume and mute controls. I don't know if it is possible, but I would love a FF plugin that provided these controls regardless.

Re:And Internet Streaming?

[X0563511]

Is this ad relevant to you? NO!

(ad shows 500 more times) Seriously Geico and Microsoft... Fuck the fuck off. I am not interested.

Re:And Internet Streaming?

[Maximum Prophet]

I've wondered about that. My wife wants me to click no to the political ads and others she doesn't want to see.

The way I figure it, if you click yes, it means you are already a customer, so they don't need to spend money advertising to you. If you click no, you need to be convinced.

Hat to US politicians for their acronyms

[Kergan]

Whether the law itself works or not, one has to hand this much to US politicians: over the years, they've turned finding acronyms into an art form. Few -- if any -- other countries have politicians who can boast the same.

Re:Hat to US politicians for their acronyms

[Mindcontrolled]

Ah, man. I take our German way to name acts over backronyms like CALM or PATRIOT...

Look at the glory of the LMBestrV - the "Lebensmittelbestrahlungsverordnung", a law regulating food treatment with electron-, gamma-, X-, neutron- or UV-rays.

Or look at the PatAnwAPO, the "Patentanwaltsausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung", the act regulating training and examination of patent attorneys.

Only in such nomenclature can you really appreciate the majesty of the law... ;)

Re:Hat to US politicians for their acronyms

[Kergan]

Ah, yes... that admittedly is the beauty of law, which holds the only existing single-word oxymoron -- the (legal) short. :-)

Re:Hat to US politicians for their acronyms

[Tablizer]

I wonder if there are consulting groups who specialize in finding catchy acronyms for proposed legislation? After all, something named CALM is easier to get support for than something called POSTGRE ;-)

PBS

[Sponge Bath]

PBS in Austin is terrible with the volume of "commercials", which are usually segments promoting PBS. After the PBS News Hour you have to be quick on the remote or get blasted with twice the volume. I expect this from a commercial channel, but even the public channels are pulling this stupidity.

Re:PBS

[TheSync]

PBS member stations (and other non-commercial TV stations) are exempt from the CALM Act because the act only applies to commercial advertisements.

Almost a little too late

[Timmy D Programmer]

It's about time, almost a bit too late to matter. This is because dish box, cable box, and tv manufacturers have reached the point that they are phasing in volume spike control options on their devices on their own.

Re:Almost a little too late

[KiloByte]

I'd say, it's more because TV itself is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Re:Almost a little too late

[interval1066]

If we relied on providers to solve the problem (and it is a problem) it would take another 10 years. I understand they are doing this, and I do see a difference, but not much and all it will do is give them a reason to add a dollar or more as soon as they make it a "service". This way, they don't need to do it, and it gets regulated across the board. This is a good thing.

Re:Almost a little too late

[cayenne8]

I'd say, it's more because TV itself is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Seriously?

I mean...for Joe and Susie Sixpack, you think the television is irrelevant?

Hmm..if that were the case, they way are all those big screen LCD/Plasma tvs still flying off the racks at XYZ stores all over the US?

Re:Almost a little too late

[geekoid]

And they started doing that right after the law was passed. It's a response to the coming date, not in spite of it.

Great Taxpayer Spending

[Jetra]

It's great to know our money is going to a good cause such as making TV commercials quieter and erections last twenty hours....I honestly want to punch someone. What the hell!? How about using that money to fix our roads or our education!?

Re:Great Taxpayer Spending

[geekoid]

Yes, stupid government responding to an outcry from the people~

You want roads and better education? Tell the republicans to reinstate the proper taxes to support those expenses.

Re:Great Taxpayer Spending

[dywolf]

Yes. The republicans killed the gas taxes than supply the federal highway fund and all local taxes that fund the local school districts.

It was all the republicans fault. No one else's.
Except it's not.

And the gas tax hasnt been touched.
And neither have the local property taxes that fund the schools.

Seriously, how retarded are you? At least get a little bit informed about what pays for what.

Re:Great Taxpayer Spending

[RocketRabbit]

Proper taxes would be no personal income tax, taxes only on corporations with NO WRITE-OFFS and NO HOLLYWEIRD ACCOUNTING, and extreme import tariffs.

What you want is to keep your sicko commie wealth-redistribution scheme, have the gubberment supporting every kind of program they can dream up in arts and education, etc, and in addition to this also tax the shit out of anybody who isn't on welfare so we can have roads paved with gold.

You weird sicko.

Does this include online content?

[mjoseff]

I wonder if Hulu, YouTube, and other content providers will be included under this; if not, will they follow suit?

Re:Does this include online content?

[FathomIT]

Good question. mod up

Loudest commercials? No problem!

[poofmeisterp]

Watch.

This will definitely create a new market for TV commercials. See example:

Weekly commercial run off prime-time: $750
Weekly commercial run during prime-time: $1500
Daily commercial run off prime-time: $5500
Daily commercial run off prime-time: $10,000
Additional fee for "enhanced attention grabbing services": *$?

* Since we can't find finite penalty amounts in the Act, you agree to pay whatever they happen to be, plus legal fees, plus an additional $1000 "Service Fee".

We should all thank God

[Lucas123]

Billy Mays isn't around to see this sad day. RIP.

Re:We should all thank God

[Quiet_Desperation]

Shut your mouth, fool! The Billy Mays didn't need any artificial means to boost his sales skillz into the minds of men! His marketing kung fu transcended mere volume!

Re:We should all thank God

[TheSpoom]

BILLY MAYS HERE WITH MY LOUD-ASS VOICE! Are you bothered by new regulations limiting the volume of commercials? FEAR NOT, MARKETERS! With just ONE EASY COMMERCIAL STARRING ME, I can overcome ANY regulation limiting decibels simply by YELLING AT YOUR CUSTOMERS! I yell so loud, I can SHATTER THEIR MUTE BUTTON INTO A THOUSAND PIECES!

Re:We should all thank God

[CanHasDIY]

Shut your mouth, fool! The Billy Mays didn't need any artificial means to boost his sales skillz into the minds of men! His marketing kung fu transcended mere volume!

Seconded.

Mays had the unique ability to sound like he was yelling, even if he wasn't. Volume regulations would do nothing to protect you from Billy's voodoo voice.

Re:We should all thank God

[caknuckle]

Oh Billy, I somehow knew you were on that secret Island with Elvis, Tupac, Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe and Whitney.

Re:We should all thank God

[Nimey]

I think snorting cocaine counts as "artificial means".

Re:We should all thank God

[TheSpoom]

Man, I want to visit that island. I bet they have good parties.

(Visit, not move there.)

Whoa, slow down there.

[BrookHarty]

Took the FCC 10 years to fix this? Whats the rush!?

Re:Whoa, slow down there.

[Nimey]

Republican obstructionism. Big business wanted loud commercials and the rest followed naturally.

Re:Whoa, slow down there.

[MiniMike]

It took them that long to generate an acceptable acronym.

leave politics out of this!

[onyxruby]

Politics should be left out of this. Like telemarketing some things should be banned because they are annoying as hell.

I wouldn't notice...

[stevegee58]

...since I always mute commercials on the rare occasions I'm watching commercial television.

Who actually complains to the FCC?

[Gothmolly]

And about commercials? If you don't like your TV, turn it off. When commercials come on and they're audio-compressed, hit the mute button, or PVR past them.

All of this is fixable without government intervention.

Re:Who actually complains to the FCC?

[Deadstick]

Who modded this down? It's a bloody good comeback to the free-market-obsessed.

Re:Who actually complains to the FCC?

[spire3661]

You do realize that in the arena of broadcasting, the government has a DUTY to make sure the players are playing fairly. There is no broadcast TV without government intervention.

Re:Who actually complains to the FCC?

[geekoid]

There are more people in the US then just you and your friends.
Yes, let out corporate overlords do what ever they want cause you can just do more work to get around it.
You are a selfish, myopic, and ignorant.

Did you overlook the part where a lot of people wanted the government to do this?

sometime it's just stupidity

[Thud457]

One of our local stations seems incompetently unable to match the line level when they insert their local commercials into the national feed. This also happens on certain cable channels, so maybe it's the cable operator at fault.

I've seen this kind of idiocy many places on many different cable and OTA systems.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[cayenne8]

So, will this address the commercials compressing their sound so that it SEEMS to sound louder...?

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[geekoid]

They want people who went to the kitchen to hear the commercial.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[X0563511]

Seems they need something like ReplayGain for broadcast...

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[AlphaWolf_HK]

They do it deliberately to catch your attention. I imagine that surveys say it works, otherwise they probably wouldn't.

This legislation is about 10 years too late though, I stopped watching commercials a very long time ago.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[nabsltd]

From what I understand, the regulation uses something like replay gain to calculate the average volume. I don't know the exact formula being used, but it is designed to avoid the situation you refer to where both the quietest part and loudest part of the commercial is just as loud as the average volume of the show.

I don't know how they are going to enforce it, though, even with a lot of complaints, since you'd need a recording of the entire show plus commercials to know if it was a violation.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[GeoBain]

I would think older people wouldn't mind the increased volume as much as people with younger, better ears.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[oh_my_080980980]

And anonymous ass-holes have the time to complain about other people complaining....

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[Sentrion]

You're just another reason why Boomers don't trust anyone over 90.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[Mister Whirly]

I was under the impression this is what they were all already doing - playing with the dynamic range in order for it to sound louder, but not be any higher in decibels. I guess it all boils down to the standard used for determining "loudness". If it is only measuring decibels, nothing will change.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[Githaron]

What's a commercial?

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[AlphaWolf_HK]

These annoying things that they had back when I was a teenager. Go watch shows on hulu, they still have them there, and unlike a DVR you can't skip them. And even if you pay them money, you still have to watch them and can't see less of them.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[ScienceofSpock]

I'm too busy flushing the toilet to hear the commercials.

You have a toilet in the kitchen?

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[k_187]

Like you've never needed to heat up a bagel on the toilet.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[ndege]

Well played.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[mcgrew]

You're just another reason why Boomers don't trust anyone over 90

We also don't trust anybody under 91.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[sycodon]

The fun thing about stupid fucks like this guy...one day, he will be part of the "old people".

A cruel irony, but well deserved.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[sycodon]

Now, if they would only apply it to Internet videos.

Who hasn't opened a web page only to have their work space flooded with some idiot shilling for some product at the max volume level of your video player?

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[wiredlogic]

Compresion alone is less of a sin than deliberately clipping the audio so the speaker drivers overshoot for extra volume. That's why the annoyingly loud commercials all sound like they have shitty sound quality.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[Walter White]

I don't know how they are going to enforce it, though, even with a lot of complaints, since you'd need a recording of the entire show plus commercials to know if it was a violation.

I have a copy of tonight's Colbert Report on my DVR with an obnoxiously loud Belvidere Vodka commercial. Who do I submit it to?

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to see the doctor. You shouldn't have to go to the toilet every 8 minutes.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[tzot]

Or something like that. It's not only about average loudness; it's also about dynamic range.

Re:sometime it's just stupidity

[lsatenstein]

So, will this address the commercials compressing their sound so that it SEEMS to sound louder...?

===
Because of reduced loudness over 4 minutes, the 4 minute commercial will be extended to 5 minutes at current loudness.

Audio Compressor

[Colourspace]

It got such a problem for us I just bought a cheapish Behringer audio compressor (volume compression, not data!), strapped it across the TV audio output and in to my amplifier. Set the controls and forgot about it. Works incredibly well.

Re:Audio Compressor

[TheGratefulNet]

any pro audio store can help with a box like this.

there used to be a cheap small box called RNC (really nice compressor). analog in and out and not hard to use.

dbx makes them, lots of companies make them.

the thing is, people run digital audio these days. and the hdmi TRAP that people fell into means their audio is drm's too, along that path. I prefer to avoid hdmi AUDIO and go with spdif and simple 2ch audio, at that. movies get mixed down to 2ch so that I can send spdif in to most any system I want.

then, you have a hope of doing compression in digital domain. behringer does actually make spdif-in boxes in their 1u rackmount form factor. you can take spdif in, compress, eq, even do delays and stay all digital.

Re:Audio Compressor

[Colourspace]

You are correct, I should have pointed out this is of course no good for a digital signal. I should also have pointed out other makes of audio compressor are available and probably of a much higher quality, but Behringer stuff is nice and cheap. It does the job.

Re:Audio Compressor

[TheSync]

Except unfiltered audio power levels do not agree well with perceived loudness.

The ITU BS.1770 standard uses a spectral filter that a lot of research went into so that it agrees well with actual human perceived loudness.

Ad creators have known for a long time how to game simple compressors by putting more energy into higher frequencies where humans are more sensitive in terms of loudness.

Not necessary

[kaybee]

I don't think this is the government's place... nonetheless, people can just fast-forward through commercials on their PVRs or download the content via bittorrent instead. Seems like the problem would quickly work itself out.

Re:Not necessary

[spire3661]

How is it not the governments place? The ENTIRE broadcast industry is under FCC purview because of the nature of it. WE THE PEOPLE OWN those airwaves that we LEASE to companies, we can tell them whatever the hell we want, WE OWN IT.

Loud DVD/BR trailers

[wwalker]

I wonder if this also applies to the trailers on DVDs/BRs? Whenever I put a new disk into the player, I have to reduce volume quite a bit for the trailers, until the movie starts, which is mighty annoying.

And while at it, dear FCC, make them stop putting a buzillion of unskippable FBI/etc. warnings on every disk! It only makes me want to switch to PirateBay exclusively.

BTW, WTF is a "digital theft" they keep mentioning in those warnings lately?! Specifically, which digits are more valuable, so that I keep mine locked up. Is it 13? 42? 3.1415926?

Re:Loud DVD/BR trailers

[Legion303]

"Specifically, which digits are more valuable, so that I keep mine locked up. Is it 13? 42? 3.1415926?"

Good news, citizen! Your benevolent and loving overseers have decided to let you have, free of charge, the digits 2-9 to do with as you please, reserving only the 0 and 1 for their own use. Theft of 0 or 1 will result in mandatory re-education.

Best solution, stop watching TV

[Ravaldy]

TV is a complete waste of time. There is very little programming that is worth watching. If it wasn't for having a wife that loves her shows, the only thing connected to my television would be a PBox, and an XBox 360.

Re:Best solution, stop watching TV

[geekoid]

Nice that you called your wife's opinion on shows worthless, and telling her she doesn't know how to mange her time 'properly'.

And there is a lot worth watching..just not for you.
I could make a list of really well made and written shows, but you're a dipshit hipster who derives self worth from being 'opposite' of the people around you.
I'm sure that if the vast majority of people stopped watching TV, a day later you would be posting about who people are an idiot for not watching the great shows on TV.

Re:Best solution, stop watching TV

[Ravaldy]

My wife knows my opinion about her TV watching habbits.

Based on you comments I assume you probably spend a minimum of 2 hours a day in front of a TV. Instead of wasting time in front of a television I'll do something constructive like play board games with my kids, play hockey, read on something about my field or work or one of my many hobbies. The TV makes everybody a zombie.Don't take me wrong, I have watched TV and still do at times but I find that whatever content I want to watch is available in a better format online.

I picture TV as the Matrix. If you spend more than 2 hours a day watching TV, your stuck in the Matrix and aren't living in the real world.

What about...

[commodore73]

What about audio advertisements on the Internets, such as on Hulu (which specifically seems to lengthen its ad breaks every few months)? Why not a ban on the sound of alarm clocks in all ads, which is clearly a tactic to wake people who fell asleep before turning off the media? What about a ban on mandatory warnings and previews on digital media disks for which we pay? What about annoying HTML and Flash flyover ads on web pages?

Re:What about...

[xQuarkDS9x]

What about audio advertisements on the Internets, such as on Hulu (which specifically seems to lengthen its ad breaks every few months)?

If the ads work like they do on youtube then a really good ad blocker like Adblock Plus with firefox would effectivly kill all of the ads.

What about a ban on mandatory warnings and previews on digital media disks for which we pay?

Easy solution to that is to rip the DVD with software like AnyDVD or similiar that removes all that garbage too so you aren't forced to watch 20 minutes of annoyingly loud trailers that likely you have no interest in.

What about annoying HTML and Flash flyover ads on web pages?

Again Adblock Plus with firefox and if you don't want those companies tracking you as well Noscript along with Ghostery (or Do Not Track Plus) works great too. There's even Adblock plus now for Android phones which does help a lot to kill web ads too and help conserve battery life.

Re:What about...

[xQuarkDS9x]

I forgot to ad in my previous post too bad no one has come up with a way yet to have an adblock plus for TV signals to effectivly remove the video and audio of commercials. :P

Very surprising, if true

[Beeftopia]

Congress has become government of the highest bidder, by the highest bidder, for the highest bidder. I assume the advertising industry donates quite a bit to Congress. I'd be quite surprised if they did anything to annoy a big donor, or do any harm to that business model. The example of the financial sector is illustrative. Trillions of dollars of FederalReserve and government spending (which the taxpayers will ultimately pay) have been funneled directly to the financial sector, and yet there's been no serious reform in that industry to avoid a crash in the future.

So - we'll see how this goes.

Re:Loudest commercials? No problem!

[denmarkw00t]

This is essentially what already happens on TV and radio networks that break the FCC rules on indecent language. I worked at a college radio station, and the going was "try not to let any swear words slip on the air - either from your mouth or from a CD. If you do and the FCC is listening, we can be fined $[insane amount]." Larger networks or shows can predict what that will cost and go ahead and pay the fines to the broadcaster in order to have "unedited" content hit the airwaves, although I think there are certain words that are absolutely a no-go.

A good thing to have in this Act, and I'm only assuming it's not in there because tl;dr, is to have penalties for repeat offenders so that a system of pay-to-play-(very-loudly) won't crop up - of course, that means limiting the amount of fines coming in to the FCC and thus will likely not happen.

Re:Loudest commercials? No problem!

[poofmeisterp]

A good thing to have in this Act, and I'm only assuming it's not in there because tl;dr, is to have penalties for repeat offenders so that a system of pay-to-play-(very-loudly) won't crop up - of course, that means limiting the amount of fines coming in to the FCC and thus will likely not happen.

That is very insightful. I didn't think of that, but it really is a deterrent.

I guess the first large company to test it will show the numbers. *coughwalmartcough*

About Gov't Regulation

[denmarkw00t]

A number of posters here are concerned that this is an overreach of Government, but I'd have to say that this is just what the companies had coming. In the long run, the "advantage" of blasting a commercial is probably NOT benefiting the advertisers - all it does is annoy consumers and leads to one of several outcomes:

  - The consumer gets frustrated and complains to the FCC
  - The consumer gets frustrated and drops TV for a streaming alternative (avoiding many of the Cable commercials)
  - The consumer gets frustrated and DVRs everything (skipping commercials completely)
  - The consumer gets frustrated and mutes during commercials (again, the advertiser loses here)
  - The consumer deals with it but still has disdain for the commercial's content (advertiser loses a potential customer because who people don't like being yelled at)

All in all, this does advertisers a favor. If they weren't caught up trying to be the loudest out there, they would probably have more success getting people to watch the damn ads. Whenever a loud one comes on when I'm hanging out with people it's a serious of "Ah!!"s "WTF!?"s and groans that culminate in a muting or pausing to do something else and skip the ads later.

Re:About Gov't Regulation

[nitehawk214]

And if advertisers, networks and corporations were rational actors with the ability to look into the future and consider the consequences of their actions, they would probably realize that annoying their customers is detrimental to their survival. However it seems they are blinded by an intentional shortsightedness caused by a lust for short-term profit. So they try every trick possible in the hopes that they will receive a few more dollars this quarter, even if it guts all possibility of future success.

10 years?

[ilsaloving]

It took them 10 years to easily solve a problem that has bothered millions of people?

If they're so incompetent that it's that hard to solve a problem like this, there should be no wonder the US gov't can't balance their budget.

Re:10 years?

[Nimey]

As I posted elsethread: Republican obstructionism. Big business wanted loud commercials and the rest followed naturally.

Turning around and complaining that government can't do anything right plays right into their hands, because then Republicans who believe it get elected and proceed to make it true.

Re:10 years?

[Grand Facade]

You assume it is solved, that remains to be seen.

I'm sure some wormy lawyer or darkside technician will find a way around it.

Total sound level or per channel?

[cellocgw]

Maybe it's subjective, but there have been times when (with a 5.1 sound system) the show had a certain volume in the center channel and properly quieter background effects in the others, but the ad volume appeared to be at the same (higher) volume in every channel. So - does this new reg. limit total dB for N-channel systems?

Re:Total sound level or per channel?

[Tastecicles]

it'll probably just be for the front pair, since that's what the average viewer uses. Have to be some sort of geek to use more than that.

DISCLAIMER: I am an audio geek. I have more speakers connected to my laptop than I have fingers.

Re:Total sound level or per channel?

[TheSync]

So - does this new reg. limit total dB for N-channel systems?

Yes, BS.1770 does measure (spectrally filtered) power found in all channels (except LFE), with slightly higher weighting for left and right surround channels.

Re:Total sound level or per channel?

[TheSync]

it'll probably just be for the front pair, since that's what the average viewer uses.

Proper loudness for 5.1 channels source material typically yields proper loudness in the stereo downmix when using AC-3 audio coding.

There are some possible corner cases though, and some broadcasters measure both 5.1 and the stereo downmix for loudness.

Re:Another law so full of loopholes that it's usel

[crazyjj]

No it doesn't. The FCC does not, and cannot, regulate cable. This law only applies to over-the-air channels, NOT cable channels. That's what all that "pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934" crap is about.

Re:Another law so full of loopholes that it's usel

[geekoid]

Incorrect.
"Only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, no cable channels"
Broadcast television stations and pay TV providers were given until this date to be in full compliance.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials

"Allows for a one year exemption for anyone requesting."
If they can show that it is a financial hardship to do it now.

"Does not apply to any commercials put in by your cable or satellite provider"

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
" Specifically, the CALM Act directs the Commission to establish rules that require TV stations, cable operators, satellite TV providers or other multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice ("ATSC A/85 RP") to commercial advertisements they transmit to viewers."

You are just another asshole who looks to complain and thinks an opinion based on ignorance is just as justified as actual facts.

R.I.P. "WOW!!! THAT'S A LOW PRICE"

[Hsien-Ko]

I know Staples hasn't run that for years... but that one wouldn't go with this new ban. It's the loudest commercial I can remember from recent memory.

GET involved?!

[Sloppy]

What do you mean by "get involved?" You're talking about an area that is already highly regulated, and even has government granted and enforced spectrum monopolies. Saying they shouldn't get involved in this, is like saying they shouldn't "get involved" in the traffic signals on public roads. Whether your argument is good or bad, it's based on a premise that is totally inapplicable to the current situation; you needed to bring up your argument sometime around ~1920, when the "get involved" decision got made.

You can possibly make a case for getting government out of it, and you might even be talking good sense, but then the specific issue at hand (ad loudness) will become about .01% of the discussion.

Re:GET involved?!

[gfxguy]

Get involved in regulations like these, you know, the ones where no rights are being violated? This has nothing to do with preventing rights from being violated, nothing to do with preserving the public safety... it all boils down to people doing something as useless as watching TV, and then complaining they're annoyed at something.

Re:GET involved?!

[Sloppy]

I think you just described nearly every radio-related regulation, except maybe high-powered ones that potentially
involve cooking flesh or starting fires. ;-)

My point is that unless you're an ancient warlock who signs his letters with "Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin," then you have never known a day in your life where government wasn't already neck-deep involved in regulating a vast host of radio-related details which don't involve protecting rights or improving public safety.

The lady and her thousandth customer are haggling over the price and you're saying she shouldn't get involved in prostitution. Right or wrong, your timing is off.

Re:GET involved?!

[redlemming]

Get involved in regulations like these, you know, the ones where no rights are being violated?

You are completely wrong about no rights being violated.

In industrial societies (according to the professor of my class in human sensory systems: I don't remember which study he was citing) the average 18 year old already has suffered measureable and permanant hearing damage, relative to people of the same age in non-industrial societies.

Some people will have even more hearing loss by age 18, as a result of damage to the ears from many potential sources, for example, genetic issues, viral or bacterial meningitis, really loud music (such as is often found at concerts, nightclubs, cinemas, or restaurants), gunshots, explosions, some industrial equipment, and other sources of extreme hearing damage.

This hearing loss will increase over time.

By middle age, this hearing loss can be (and usually is) significant, even for those people lucky enough not to be exposed to problem noise sources.

As a result of this hearing damage, it becomes impossible for many people to watch television or movies that have mixed voice and non-voice sounds. Their hearing is no longer sufficiently good to pick out the words with the other audio (music and effects audio) mixed in using the typical stereo settings. These people generally will turn up the audio, and possibly adjust the frequency content, in an attempt to have some chance of making out the words. It's not much fun to watch a movie if you can't tell what they're saying: the music is optional but the words are not!

Sudden increases in the sound level -- when the volume has already been adjusted up to make it possible to hear the words -- can cause pain and further loss of hearing. This is especially a problem when switching between mostly-voice and mixed voice / music / effects, as the non-voice audio tends to be pretty loud relative to voice.

Having loud commercials is thus essentially just another form of assault, like punching somebody in the face. Actually, it's better to be punched in the face: that at least will heal, whereas hearing damage is both permanent and crippling.

(Incidentally, that the people coming up with the standards for DVDs and other digital audio have allowed the mixing of voice and non-voice audio into a single stream that cannot readily be separated back out again, is a colossal blunder and a terrible shame: this is yet another example of how engineers tend to develop technologies without having a clue how those technologies will have a negative impact on people in the real world!)

Hah

[ThatsNotPudding]

I'll believe it when I don't hear them - especially in the podunk rural TV markets such as where I live.

About Fricking time

[sackofdonuts]

Can't wait for this. Great idea, and good use of our government. I imagine for the first few months the fines will be a tidy income for the government. Now if we can get them to regulate the brightness of commercials, especially at night.

two words, and fellow Englishmen will know this...

[Tastecicles]

BARRY SCOTT!

Yep, it's the Cillit Bang guy who has two modes: yell until lungs bleed, and sleep.

Is there such a thing as an audio leveler?

[avandesande]

I have this problems with movies- dialog is two faint and hard to follow but sounds effects and music can be too loud. Is there a technical solution for this?

Re:Another law so full of loopholes that it's usel

[Dean358]

Which is why this was created as an act of congress, not by the FCC. The FCC was then asked to administer it. It most certainly does apply to broadcast, cable and satellite television distribution networks. One open area -- which I think has been resolved -- is whether this applied to network promos for their own shows, e.g., when you see an ad on the Superbowl for the David Letterman show. Several networks applied for this exemption but the folks that drafted the law said it was always their intent to include network promos, see: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/489143-Eshoo_CALM_Act_Meant_to_Apply_to_Promos.php

Dialog Normalization (dialnorm)

[AcidPenguin9873]

I've found that the loud commercials are just artifacts of my TV not properly implementing dialnorm. The commercial comes through with an accurate dialnorm setting indicating REALLY LOUD content, which should tell my TV to decrease the volume. But if my TV doesn't see the dialnorm metadata or fails to process it correctly, the commercial comes through with its loud content and no volume adjustment.

As soon as I switched to playing all TV audio through my receiver and speaker setup instead of the built-in TV speakers, I don't have the loud commercial problem anymore. The receiver processes the dialnorm metadata correctly and adjusts the loudness. I know this because my receiver displays a "DIALNORM +3" or "DIANORM -1" whenever the dialnorm metadata changes, and I see it change on exactly these types of commercials.

Does this really matter?

[edrawr]

I DVR virtually everything I want to watch, or at least pause the show for 5 minutes at the beginning and fast forward through live shows. I don't know the last time I actually watched a commercial.

Re:Does this really matter?

[speedlaw]

Really. I was at someone elses' place, watching a movie and was amazed that I couldn't skip....gaaah !

Re:Mixed feelings. UNIONS

[Viewsonic]

And when, exactly, does the 'market' ever 'fix itself'?

Unions are the best example I can come up with. When companies run workers into the ground, and the government wont step in, and other better companies don't appear to replace the bad ones, it's up to the workers. Unions are the defacto example of a free market regulating itself.

Cable VOD channels are bad also

[Comen]

Man I hope this covers the local cable VOD channels also, when I change the channel to the ON DEMAND movie channel the people that are talking about the new movies that are on are not only so LOUD, but also so happy and irritating about everything it is disturbing.

HEADON!

[ab0mb88]

HEADON! If you advertise like a dick the FCC will take you HEADON!

Meh.

[PPH]

The hearing aid outfits have been turning the volume on their commercials down for years already.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What about pitch?

[argStyopa]

I noticed that some commercials may not actually be louder, but are skewed up toward the treble end so they SOUND much louder, particularly in noisy environments.

I stopped watching adverts about 20 years ago

[necronom426]

The volume was so annoying that every time the adverts came on I was having to press the volume down button for a while, then put it back up again when the programme came back on. I got sick of that quite quickly, so I started muting it, and/or turning over to another channel or going on the internet to read a forum or a site like this. I think I've only seen one full advert break in the last few years when I was watching someone else's TV and didn't have a choice.

It's too late now, as I'll never watch adverts because of that (and equally because of the annoyance/stupidity of them), so if they did this in the UK I'm beyond caring any more.

Re:I stopped watching adverts about 20 years ago

[cifey]

How much would it cost to have addless tv? I would pay to eliminate the ED adds for sure.

BILLIE MAYS

[dbet]

Rolling in his grave, I imagine.

Why not add DSP to TV?

[jsepeta]

It wouldn't take a great deal of time or effort or expense to implement DSP-based loudness controls on our tv sets; all it needs to do is run an adaptive limiter (hard-knee) and we could normalize the volume so shows aren't too soft and commercials aren't too loud. I'd rather my tv be smarter than relying on my local tv station to get it right.

Re:Why not add DSP to TV?

[mug funky]

legacy support - i'm not buying a new goddamn TV.

also, ATSC allows for exactly what you say, as do DVDs (and anything that carries ac-3 audio). the problem is it's either ignored or actively gamed to make the output EVEN FUCKING LOUDER.

wow, this one actually targets the right people!

[mug funky]

there have been commercial loudness rules before - Australia has one called "OP48" (i think it's been amended and has a different number now, but i haven't mastered a TVC for ages so who cares?).

the problem in the past has been that a "commercial" can be in full compliance when it's sent to the TV station, but they could still crank the shit out of it on broadcast with impunity. any complaints were met with "but the ad is OP48 compliant! you're imagining things! it would have been rejected by the broadcaster if it didn't comply!"

the CALM act appears to apply to broadcasters themselves, and requires the loudness of the TVCs to be coupled to the average loudness of the program they're in.

now... i wonder how long till broadcasters start fucking with the programs themselves to keep the average high, but lower the loudness in the minutes before a commercial break?

Re:Mixed feelings. UNIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions are the defacto example of a free market regulating itself.

Not in the USA, and not most other western countries, because government has made special regulations to help unions out. This might or might not have been a good idea back in the early days when unions were just getting started, but it is a damn bad idea now.

In over half the states in the USA, if there is a job you want, and at that place there is a union, you must join the union and pay whatever dues it demands or you can't take the job.

The unions, in turn, take all this guaranteed money and do things like donate heavily to politicians they like, run TV commercials for politicians they like, etc. These are invariably Democrats. So, if you are a Republican and you are in this situation, you are required by law to give lots of money to an organization that is dedicated to defeating your preferred candidates and the laws they champion. You might be a law-and-order conservative who loves hunting, and your money is going to a candidate who has promised to cut prison terms and ban all guns. That blows. I would be equally upset if a compassionate liberal who wants to ban all guns was required to give money to support the next George Bush; but that never actually happens so I needn't worry about it.

When there is a free market in labor, the free market mostly works to keep jobs from being horrifically dangerous. This is doubly true given how generous the unemployment benefits are in the USA. So, it is no longer true that workers need unions to keep their factories from becoming deadly; if the job is really dangerous, either you will leave, or you will demand something (lots of money perhaps) to stay, and you don't need the union.

Unions could have a useful role; I know I suck at negotiating, so I would like to have someone negotiate for me in important negotiations. But I suspect the utility of the union is less when the union knows it is legally propped up, and I have to pay my dues or else lose my job.

In recent news, Michigan just got rid of its laws requiring workers to join a union. The jargon is that Michigan is now a "right to work" state; workers can just work, they don't have to pay a union to work. Angry union guys protesting say that this is a "right to freeload", i.e. the union negotiates a good deal for the workers, and some workers didn't pay their dues and get a good deal for free. However, this is a lie (or at least a misunderstanding). The union is legally permitted to negotiate only on behalf of its members. Then it becomes, pay up and get the union on your side, or keep your money and go on your own. This seems like the fairest deal to me.

Then there is the bad side of unions. Hostess had money troubles, went into bankruptcy; then investors bailed them out, but they had more money troubles; then another round of investors bailed them out again, and they were hanging on by their fingernails. The plan called for workers to take a pay cut, to help the company become profitable again; one of the unions involved went on strike, and the final result was 18,500 workers all lost their jobs (because of a few thousand in one union). The thing that gets me is that the Teamsters Union told the other union "hey, we have looked at their books, and they aren't lying. They don't have the money to give in to your demands, and they aren't bluffing. If you keep striking everyone gets fired." Everyone got fired. (Twinkies will come back; there will be a bankruptcy, and someone will buy the recipes and trademarks and stuff, and Twinkies will be made again. But probably in Mexico. If in the USA, you damn well sure know it will be a "right to work" state.) The Teamsters Union is not exactly known for sucking up to management, yet the other union didn't listen to them. They were warned and they sunk Hostess anyway. They had the power to make Hostess lose money, but the didn't have the power to make Hostess lose money forever.

Hostess had agreements with the unions: they wou

Now it's time to end the Music Loudness War

[ShoulderOfOrion]

...and stop compressing every performance into the top 6dB of dynamic range.

Hardly makes any sense

[aaaaaaargh!]

As a friend of mine who is a sound engineer explained to me many times, loudness is purely subjective. It's a well-studied phenomenon in psychoacoustics. Sound Engineers use a combination of good recording techniques, compression and limiting to achieve it - maximizing loudness is still somewhat of a black art, particularly if you want your recording to sound good even *after* radio stations and TV channels have run it through their own after-effects chain in order to further increase loudness. (They're doing that because people tend to switch to the loudest channels.) Amplitudes play only a minor role in all of this, they are just the starting point. You can easily see the effects of compression/limiters in the spectrogramms (is that the right term? nevermind), they look like one fat almost completely filled bar with no real dynamics.

Anyway, I wonder how FCC deals with that. Probably not.

Re:Hardly makes any sense

[Legion303]

"Anyway, I wonder how FCC deals with that"

TFA addresses this pretty clearly. You should have read it.

Re:Hardly makes any sense

[redlemming]

loudness is purely subjective

This is wrong. Loudness is NOT purely subjective: if it was, we wouldn't get real and permanant hearing damage from exposure to loud noises.

Psychoacoustics alone is not sufficient to understand the issues here: we must consider physiology and medical science, something your sound engineer friends may not be very familiar with (judging from the excessive sound effect and music volumes so commonly found in today's movies).

See my previous post for why this is an issue with respect to audio in commercials.

In a movie theater

[tepples]

Movies on VHS were never like this, as soon as DVDs came out this nonsense started.

Were movies like this when viewed in a movie theater in the early to mid 1990s, just before DVD?

All the way back to the Discman

[tepples]

The trend of everybody watching everything on shitty computer speakers has started a new loudness war

In other words, it's much the same as the old loudness war, which began with cheap op-amps on Sony Discman CD players feeding cheap headphones.

To Late

[krischik]

I already have a reflex to mute the TV as soon as the commercials start.