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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Anonymous Coward]

loose: the opposite of tight.

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

English: FUCKING LEARN IT

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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.