I last spoke about this back in October, and I’m afraid it fell off the viewscreen for a bit, but I learned yesterday that the “CALM Act of 2009″ (view on govtrack) passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote.
Unfortunately, a voice vote means nobody can tell me how many voted for and how many voted against, so I can’t even make an educated guess regarding its eventual fate in the Senate.
If you haven’t heard of this bill, it basically says a TV commercial can’t be “louder than the program it accompanies” nor can it be “excessively noisy or strident.” It’s a very simple bill (in fact less than two pages long), as all the technical parts are taken care of in an industry-produced set of guidelines called the “Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television.” I think you’ll agree that plenty of TV signal operators ignore these recommended practices.
I’ve only come across one criticism of the bill. To paraphrase, “There are many more important things our Congress should be working on.” I agree, and I believe that they are also working on those. On the other hand, this idea is at least thirty-four years overdue, and I doubt it takes long at all for a Representative or a Senator to make up his/her mind about it. If the bill does become law, this Congress will officially be my favorite Congress ever.
Ironically, since we turned off the regular TV service and are relying on almost-completely-legal Internet sources for our shows, we haven’t had any problems with commercial volume. The future wins again.
About the Author
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Are you freaking kidding me?!?!? How sad is the state of affairs if anyone in Congress thinks about this for two seconds. Last time I checked I think they have bigger concerns to deal with.
If this isn’t about a “nanny state” I don’t know what is. If it’s too loud turn it down. Or better yet turn off the TV and don’t watch it if you don’t like it! Who was the bozo that started this law? Vote them all out in 2010 and 2012!
While loud commercials are annoying, I don’t see why Congres has to be involved. I hope they are not spending too much time on this issue. There are many more important issues they could be working on. With more people time-shifting television programs and after the invention of the mute button, I think this is a waste of time and effort. I’d be happy if audio levels were constant and I’d prefer if young people had less exposure to commercials, but I don’t see how volume is a pressing national problem.
You mention about less exposure to commercials. While I overall agree; Let’s look at it this way about ad banners (I assume the primary method you generate income) related to this site If a user installs an ad blocker on their browser how would they see your ads so you can generate income?? If you generate less income because of ad blockers, doesn’t that then generate less income for your site? What’s the net effect of this?
What the stations and advertisers are doing is using a method to grab your attention. If you don’t like it change the channel to another station that doesn’t do this. It’s a simple free market solution. Laws like this will cause ad rates to increase and TV profits to fall. How else can “free” TV remain free? Someone has to pay for it.
Ad-blocking software is like the mute button. I’m not going to stop web site visitors from blocking ads. If that means I’ll have to rethink my own revenue strategy at some point, that’s what It’ll do. I think that’s a separate discussion. Television stations don’t air loud commercials because people are fast-forwarding or muting, they’re running them because most people don’t.
Aside from there not really being “free TV” anymore, I agree with you. But I also think we’ll be seeing much more in-program product placement.
I wouldn’t say it’s pressing, but it is decades overdue.
I would advocate for the volume button or the mute button too, except that often, there is no warning that the show will be going to commercial, and the volume difference is instantaneous. It’s not just that the commercial is a little bit louder. It might as well be a fire alarm going off, the difference is so huge. By the time you get to the right button, the damage is already done.
In an ideal world, I agree that Congress shouldn’t be involved, but in this case the free market doesn’t care what the customer wants and will continue being obnoxious until they are forced to stop.
This has been a pet peeve of mine for my entire life, and I am thrilled to see something being done about it.
@Smithee: You are saying this issue is so pressing and affects the lives others so much that you want the government involved? Please spare me the drama (not what’s on TV). If it was that much of a concern, a DVR or removing the TV altogether fixes the issue (I know you’ve done this). This is at worse case an annoyance, not some life threatening issue. Think how much money our government is spending to create this law, then enforce the law (if it passes) and then the cost what TV stations and advertisers must to do ensure they are in compliance. For what? Because you don’t like how loud commercials are?
If it was so bad people will CHOOSE NOT to watch that channel, buy DVRs, or do something else. That’s the free market working! If nothing is done by consumers then that’s also the free marketing working! Based upon how long commercials have been like this the people have spoken! People are stating it’s not much of a concern. Just because it’s an annoyance by you doesn’t me everyone else cares. Free markets are determined by consumers, NOT by the producers. If the consumers don’t like what the producers are creating then they will stop using that product. Loud commercials included.
It’s a stupid law and shows how much government wants control over you.
It is not costing that much. They are up there working on something. If it’s not this they will be creating some bill, maybe a new tax. The cost of creating a new bill is not marginally noticeable. They are going to create 5000 of them every year, it’s just a matter of which ones. Perhaps there is some bill for research on mice turds that you would sooner have them working on. Cause they have plenty of those bills too you know. There can only be a handful of really huge issues. There are going to be thousands of bills about not huge issues. This is just one of them.
Enforcement isn’t expensive either. The FCC doesn’t really have to do anything. The law is there, don’t violate it. If you do, someone reports you, the FCC investigates and you get fined. Should we get rid of the decency laws? You wanna see porn on prime time. Wow, what must it be costing us to enforce that.
So yes, I would like to be spared the drama of your comment. Cause its kind of rant that doesn’t have much basis in fact. And it’s got a little yelling in it. Where is the mute button?
@Apex: So the suggestion our government is working we might as well them create laws to meet their “law quota”? What kind of argument is that?
How about fixing and discussing the real issues? Oh I donno let’s start simple – The budget deficit and how the government plans on reducing it? I never suggested we must be lawless and you are mincing my words. I never said anything about porn on prime time though an augement can be made against regulating that. Who determines what’s ‘decent’? Oh the horrors of seeing nude people on TV, many other countries do! As a parent I regulate what my children see or don’t see. Laws definitely serve a purpose, but why should they regulate what I want to do when it’s not affecting others? Don’t like it turn off the TV.
I see no point in spending our tax dollars, when it’s much cheaper for the consumer to find alternatives.
What’s the point of creating a law when:
A. Is it _really_ an issue that must be focused on? (I’ll add underlines so you think I’m not yelling)
B. In the end for something that isn’t life threatening to others or the person themselves.
C. In some ways technology is already replacing the need for this law
While enforcing may _not_ be costly, it sure can be costly to the TV stations. Who determines it’s too loud and how loud is too loud? How will it be measured? Will the FCC create some board and research how this will be done? So while you poo-poo the costs, why should there be any costs to something that doesn’t affect anyone in a real negative way? Because a commercial is too loud? You are telling me that’s statement alone is not insane?
So be happy our government approves laws like this, while the real issues are not even discussed and kicked down the road.
I guess this guy thinks the goverment should not have made a “do not call list” to combat telemarketers either. must be a repulican!
forgot the b lol
I never said we should meet a quota. I said they are going to produce lots of bills about this that seem trivial. They do every year. You want to start a political movement to stop that? Go ahead. In the meantime, this is what happens in Washington. And accepting that, this particular bill is not something to use to make the argument that they have more important things to work on. There are always important things to work on and every year, in the midst of those important things they pass lots of other not very important bills. Some not very good, some pretty good. I think this one is pretty good, you don’t. That’s fine. But the argument that there are more important things to work on is a red herring, cause as I explained in my other comment, there is plenty of time for the 535 senators and congressman to come up with lots of bills. It’s not like the health care bill is suffering because someone put this bill together.
You said: “I never suggested we must be lawless and you are mincing my words. I never said anything about porn on prime time though an augement can be made against regulating that.”
You are aware of the concept of analogy right? I never said you said we should put porn on TV (although after your faux anger you admit you pretty much are for it). The point was that most people are not for it and it’s an example of where most people think some government regulation is good even if its not the most pressing issue of the day.
You continue with the cost, which there is no noticeable cost. You ask if we should focus on it, when we focus on lots of non critical issue and people generally like that. You are concerned about the costs on the business of determining how loud the commercial is? You mention how technology is solving this problem but you don’t think technology can easily regulate the volume of a commercial to be at the same level as the TV station programming. Specific steps are taken to raise the volume, all the companies have to do is stop taking steps to raise the volume. And if it is a problem of still have a slightly louder volume technology could be quickly implemented to automatically adjust volume levels to be equal to the programming norm.
So Lets just make the lines clear. You want the government to get out of putting any restrictions on pretty much anyone as long as they don’t harm someone else. You are a true pure libertarian in that respect. That’s fine.
You are trying to make the case against this bill by arguing from a point of authority on what this bill will do and cost. But your arguments don’t make much sense. They are a bit of a knee jerk reaction based on your ideology. And you are entitled to your ideology. In certain situations I probably agree with it. But it does not help your cause to make an argument based on impact when the impact is going to be so minor. If you want to use a slippery slope argument, while I might not agree, atleast the argument would make some sense. This bill has almost no impact on any business or cost. It’s just giving you a soap box to rail against all government intervention, which I think we are already clear about your view. You are against it. Point taken.
Smithee
You are taking a lot of heat for this. I am a conservative and like the free market. But I do not understand the general devotion to purism in capitalism and the free market among some conservatives.
Does anyone really believe 100% pure unregulated, free market capitalism is the way we want things to go? I don’t want government telling businesses how to do business, what they can charge, how they can pay people, etc. But at the same point in time I think it is not only reasonable but absolutely essential that the government set some guidelines. Some rules to the game if you will, that make it a better experience for everyone and keep the human’s natural inclination towards greed and corruption in check.
We have rules against false advertising. Pure capitalism without the government getting involved should take care of that though right. The companies that lie will soon lose all their customers and the market will self correct, right?
We used to have rules about banking reserve requirements, loan qualifications requirements, ability to repay requirements. We relaxed those drastically. But free market capitalism took care of that right? It weeded out the bad banks that made risky loans and just left the good ones having and actually making the economy stronger not weaker right? Only not so much.
Do we suppose that Congress only works on the really big issues? Do we suppose that our senators and representatives are working 100% of the time day and night on health care, climate change, war on terror and jobs? Heck no. 10 committee brokers get in a room and try to hash out a deal while 524 other members go do who knows what. There are more than enough staff and brain trusts to be working on lots of issues. This issue really doesn’t take that much time. It’s a 2 page bill for crying out loud. Heck they turn out a 1000 page health care bill in a few weeks and then they come up with 500 page amendments in a weekend and in a few more weeks its 2000 pages. Perhaps they could take a lesson on brevity from this bill and try to trim down the health care bill a bit so that the people working on the important stuff can fully comprehend what the important stuff is actually going to do.
So is it minor, yeah its minor. So what, its sensible. I like sensible. And its not nanny state. Is it really so unreasonable to ask that when someone advertises they not stick a megaphone in your ear and yell at you to get your attention. Develop a good product and a clever ad campaign. If you have to resort to tricks and yelling to sell your product, I am not interested in “protecting” your lack of free market ingenuity from a little sensible government regulation.
I am a conservative and I like sensible regulation. FDA, USDA, FAA, I happen to think these are good things. Far from perfect but a lot better than free market free-for-all.
Since when did the Senate spend valuable time on annoying little conveniences? Does this really impact anyone’s life significantly?
I’m hoping this got a voice vote because of how relatively minor it is and that any deliberation took less time than it took to read Smithee’s article. Assuming all that is true, then it should also address any questions of “doesn’t Congress have more pressing things to worry about?” with the answer being, “Yes, that’s why we quickly passed this one. Next.”
I’m don’t know the full details of this bill such as exactly what media is affected and when enforcement goes into effect so I’d like to quickly point out that CONSUMERISM COMMENTARY PODCASTS CAN BE HEARD HERE BY CLICKING ON THE RED “PODCAST” LINK AT THE VERY TOP OF THE PAGE.
I agree with Apex. I’m conservative but you need the government there to keep the companies in line. I don’t know whether the whole varying commercial audio levels are intentional or simply carelessness on one (or more) party’s end but, yeah, I think it needed to be addressed.
Thanks for the update! I’m looking forward to not having to sit on the remote in order to turn it down every 5-10 minutes (fingers crossed)!
hmmm….wonder if our representatives felt ridiculous about having to address this issue. I hope so!
I find loud commercials just as annoying as the next person, does anybody remember seeing something on ABC news last week that plugs in between your cable box and TV called SRS MyVolume that regulates TV volume at the source and eliminates the violent volume fluctuations on TV? This CALM Act is a nice idea, but it won’t fix the problem. Its the way that commercials are compressed that makes them seem so loud, even if broadcasters regulated “perceived volume” the volume would still fluctuate drastically between channels (still very annoying). A device like SRS MyVolume would be the end-all solution, not regulation.
Woo Hooo! I hope this becomes law soon! For decades now, the tv broadcasters either denied it, or said there was nothing they could do. Well, denial was foolish as anyone who is not deaf (yet) could hear THAT lie. And in the world of audio electronics, there is a simple device called a compressor. A compressor / limiter squashes down any sound signal above a set level. You can probably get one for $20 these days. So, again, the broadcasters have been LYING to us. A quality of life issue that can be so easily addressed is definitely the right place for Our Government Of By and For the People to regulate.
I agree with Apexs comments above.
This bill is 50 years over due.
wow, some of you people are clueless. The loud commercial problem isn’t channel specific. You will find these loud and annoying commercials on almost ALL channels. In regards to buying a compressor – you can not buy a compressor for $20. That piece of equipment is more readily used in a recording studio. Not your average home audio set-up. So you’re telling the American public to go buy a compressor. We shouldn’t have to buy anything additional in order to avoid these overly loud obnoxious commercials.
DX: You are correct, I looked and cannot get a compressor for $20. (I did say PROBABLY for $20 though). I found a good used one on Amazon for $62. Also the SRS MyVolume one mentioned above is going for $99, it looks nice too. STUDIO quality compressors are indeed much more, and would be exactly what the broadcasters could ‘plug into’ their output to solve the problem. But they won’t. Unless the law makes them. Getting back to your home, many folks spend thousands on their home entertainment systems. I don’t think spending $60 to $300 or so to solve a frustrating annoyance would be out of the question. But I do agree with you, we shouldn’t HAVE to, the Law should Force THEM to do it.