# Turning down the volume on TV commercials



## Kevin_Kennedy

> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."



Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com

Unconstitutional waste of time.


----------



## Modbert

Joe Barton thinks this is a waste of time but BCS playoff system making is not.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dogbert said:


> Joe Barton thinks this is a waste of time but BCS playoff system making is not.



It shouldn't surprise us that politicians have no basic set of values.


----------



## Modbert

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It shouldn't surprise us that politicians have no basic set of values.



Doesn't surprise me one bit that these politicians have their little pet ideas that entire purpose is to gain more votes. They would stop pulling this stuff however if Americans stopped falling for the "shiny nickel" so to speak if you understand what I'm saying.


----------



## Sarah G

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...


I love the idea.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
Click to expand...


So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?


----------



## Sarah G

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
Click to expand...


Yes of course, who else could do it?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
Click to expand...


Well whether or not they're the only ones who could do it is irrelevant to whether they're authorized by the Constitution, which they're not.  The states could regulate the noise level of commercials individually, or we could realize that it's not important.  If you don't want to hear the commercials you can mute your television.  That's what I do.


----------



## Sarah G

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whether or not they're the only ones who could do it is irrelevant to whether they're authorized by the Constitution, which they're not.  The states could regulate the noise level of commercials individually, or we could realize that it's not important.  If you don't want to hear the commercials you can mute your television.  That's what I do.
Click to expand...


I do but there are noise laws in your community, why should they be allowed to blatently disturb the peace in your home?  I think it's rude and I would never buy anything from whoever uses these ugly marketing tactics.

I notice it in Ford commercials and one funeral home commercial here.  So, they got my attention but the result is negative.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well whether or not they're the only ones who could do it is irrelevant to whether they're authorized by the Constitution, which they're not.  The states could regulate the noise level of commercials individually, or we could realize that it's not important.  If you don't want to hear the commercials you can mute your television.  That's what I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do but there are noise laws in your community, why should they be allowed to blatently disturb the peace in your home?  I think it's rude and I would never buy anything from whoever uses these ugly marketing tactics.
> 
> I notice it in Ford commercials and one funeral home commercial here.  So, they got my attention but the result is negative.
Click to expand...


That's your prerogative.  However, that doesn't justify the federal government doing something it has no authority to do.


----------



## PixieStix

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
Click to expand...

 
Is your mute button broken?


----------



## William Joyce

It's like the no-hostages-on-the-tarmac rule:

people love it.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

this is not a problem for me as I don't own a TV.

But for those who do, I really don't think it is a good idea to allow the government too much control over the content.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
Click to expand...


"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and _fix the Standard of Weights and Measures_;"


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...

Fuck border security! Who cares about the economy? Who needs a budget?

What's important is that some loudmouth keeps trying to sell me a slapchop...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Polk has a case that Congress can say things should be measured using decibels- but if he thinks his post supports constitutionality of the bill, he's an idiot.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
Click to expand...

you are what's wrong with this country....


----------



## uscitizen

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
Click to expand...


The Do not call list is perhaps the best thing congress has done in 30 years.


----------



## uscitizen

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whether or not they're the only ones who could do it is irrelevant to whether they're authorized by the Constitution, which they're not.  The states could regulate the noise level of commercials individually, or we could realize that it's not important.  If you don't want to hear the commercials you can mute your television.  That's what I do.
Click to expand...


the feds regulate noise intensity already.  Sonic booms.  Anyone else here old enough to remember when they were a regular occurance?


----------



## namvet

they crank it up because they know we take off during commericals. to the kitchen or bathroom. they just wanna make sure you can still hear it. waaaay down there.


----------



## Sarah G

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1853410 said:
			
		

> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are what's wrong with this country....
Click to expand...


I am?  _That means a lot coming from you._


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and _fix the Standard of Weights and Measures_;"
Click to expand...


That would be in regard to money, not commercials.


----------



## uscitizen

Commercials are ALL about money.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and _fix the Standard of Weights and Measures_;"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be in regard to money, not commercials.
Click to expand...


It says "fix the standards of weights and measures" not "fix the standards of weights and measures for money".


----------



## Emma

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...


Unconstitutional?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and _fix the Standard of Weights and Measures_;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be in regard to money, not commercials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says "fix the standards of weights and measures" not "fix the standards of weights and measures for money".
Click to expand...


Maybe you should read the whole sentence.  It's clearly in regards to money alone.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Emma said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?


----------



## geauxtohell

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
Click to expand...


Me too.  I would think this was really silly if commercial volume hasn't progressively gotten louder over the years.  It's absurd.


----------



## geauxtohell

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
Click to expand...


I love it when people are deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

geauxtohell said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people are deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...


Obtuse I may be, but never deliberately.


----------



## geauxtohell

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people are deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obtuse I may be, but never deliberately.
Click to expand...


Well in that case.......

The Constitution doesn't say anything about television. 

Therefore....

TELEVISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!


----------



## Emma

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
Click to expand...


Quit deflecting. 

How is this 'unconstitutional'?


----------



## jeffrockit

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whether or not they're the only ones who could do it is irrelevant to whether they're authorized by the Constitution, which they're not.  The states could regulate the noise level of commercials individually, or we could realize that it's not important.  If you don't want to hear the commercials you can mute your television.  That's what I do.
Click to expand...


Some people want the govt to do everything for them that way they don't have to think or do for themselves. Also why so many are clamoring for "free" healthcare. What a complete waste of taxpayer dollars to spend 1 minute of time on this bill. Nanny state govt at its finest.


----------



## Care4all

how loud the commercials are NOW, is obscene.

i bought a tv that would moderate the volume just to deal with it, but the cable box....damn cable box, overrides it........

commercials can break your eardrums nowadays and NO, I SHOULD NOT have to keep remote in hand so i can raise and lower the volume every 7 minutes.

we, customers have complained...but no one is listening at Dish network or direct tv....  i pay for my service, they should not intrude on my peace while I am using something I PAID FOR....

nuff said.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

geauxtohell said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people are deliberately obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obtuse I may be, but never deliberately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in that case.......
> 
> The Constitution doesn't say anything about television.
> 
> Therefore....
> 
> TELEVISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Click to expand...


It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to get into the television industry, certainly.  But the Constitution applies to government, not people.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Emma said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit deflecting.
> 
> How is this 'unconstitutional'?
Click to expand...


The federal government is not given authority by the Constitution to regulate the level of commercials.  And what does the 10th Amendment say about powers not delegated by the Constitution?  That they're reserved to the people and the states.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> how loud the commercials are NOW, is obscene.
> 
> i bought a tv that would moderate the volume just to deal with it, but the cable box....damn cable box, overrides it........
> 
> commercials can break your eardrums nowadays and NO, I SHOULD NOT have to keep remote in hand so i can raise and lower the volume every 7 minutes.
> 
> we, customers have complained...but no one is listening at Dish network or direct tv....  i pay for my service, they should not intrude on my peace while I am using something I PAID FOR....
> 
> nuff said.



Then you have the choice of muting the television, stop using their service, or try to convince others to stop using their service.  I personally choose to mute the television when commercials come on.


----------



## Care4all

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> how loud the commercials are NOW, is obscene.
> 
> i bought a tv that would moderate the volume just to deal with it, but the cable box....damn cable box, overrides it........
> 
> commercials can break your eardrums nowadays and NO, I SHOULD NOT have to keep remote in hand so i can raise and lower the volume every 7 minutes.
> 
> we, customers have complained...but no one is listening at Dish network or direct tv....  i pay for my service, they should not intrude on my peace while I am using something I PAID FOR....
> 
> nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have the choice of muting the television, stop using their service, or try to convince others to stop using their service.  I personally choose to mute the television when commercials come on.
Click to expand...


EVERY 7 minutes, you expect me to lower the volume on my tv and then every 3 minutes after that you expect me, in my own house to then reraise the volume ?

I DON'T THINK SO.

i pay for this service.... NO WHERE did DISH say that by me buying their service gives them the right to BLAST ME OUT OF MY OWN HOME....

I should have the choice IN MY OWN HOME to set the volume on an acceptable level for ME.

i don't think congress should have to get involved.

BUT DISH AND DIRECT TV, have not listened to our complaints....there is no other tv service available to us to change to....

IT IS MY HOME...I CHOOSE THE VOLUME LEVEL, NOT those son of b's....I pay for this service, and THEY are disturbing the peace, in my home....

It's a real SHAME it has to come to this...I PAID EXTRA for a tv, that moderates the volume between commercials and the programs....DISH OVER RIDES IT, in my home....that's just BS kevin...

it'll take 2 seconds for congress to take care of this disturbing of the peace....it won't hurt their other concerns and duties, UNLESS ALL the people complaining about them getting involved, make it in to a long, dragged out political posturing thing....honestly!

care


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> how loud the commercials are NOW, is obscene.
> 
> i bought a tv that would moderate the volume just to deal with it, but the cable box....damn cable box, overrides it........
> 
> commercials can break your eardrums nowadays and NO, I SHOULD NOT have to keep remote in hand so i can raise and lower the volume every 7 minutes.
> 
> we, customers have complained...but no one is listening at Dish network or direct tv....  i pay for my service, they should not intrude on my peace while I am using something I PAID FOR....
> 
> nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have the choice of muting the television, stop using their service, or try to convince others to stop using their service.  I personally choose to mute the television when commercials come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVERY 7 minutes, you expect me to lower the volume on my tv and then every 3 minutes after that you expect me, in my own house to then reraise the volume ?
> 
> I DON'T THINK SO.
> 
> i pay for this service.... NO WHERE did DISH say that by me buying their service gives them the right to BLAST ME OUT OF MY OWN HOME....
> 
> I should have the choice IN MY OWN HOME to set the volume on an acceptable level for ME.
> 
> i don't think congress should have to get involved.
> 
> BUT DISH AND DIRECT TV, have not listened to our complaints....there is no other tv service available to us to change to....
> 
> IT IS MY HOME...I CHOOSE THE VOLUME LEVEL, NOT those son of b's....I pay for this service, and THEY are disturbing the peace, in my home....
> 
> It's a real SHAME it has to come to this...I PAID EXTRA for a tv, that moderates the volume between commercials and the programs....DISH OVER RIDES IT, in my home....that's just BS kevin...
> 
> it'll take 2 seconds for congress to take care of this disturbing of the peace....it won't hurt their other concerns and duties, UNLESS ALL the people complaining about them getting involved, make it in to a long, dragged out political posturing thing....honestly!
> 
> care
Click to expand...


Pressing the mute button is not as difficult as you make it out to be.  It's not lowering and then re-raising the volume.  You push the button once for silence, and then again for the volume to come back.  Now like I said, you have a few options.  If you don't like the mute option then you can cancel your service and try to convince others to do the same.  If enough people cancel service over this then the companies will be forced to do something about it.  However, you do not have the right to try and force anyone to change the volume of their commercials.  You couldn't use violence to do so by yourself, and the government is not given authority by the Constitution to do so on your behalf.


----------



## noose4

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
Click to expand...


If they had had television(or radio) when the Constitution was written it would have stated "the right to listen to broadcasts without having to turn down the volume when the commercials come on"


----------



## noose4

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> how loud the commercials are NOW, is obscene.
> 
> i bought a tv that would moderate the volume just to deal with it, but the cable box....damn cable box, overrides it........
> 
> commercials can break your eardrums nowadays and NO, I SHOULD NOT have to keep remote in hand so i can raise and lower the volume every 7 minutes.
> 
> we, customers have complained...but no one is listening at Dish network or direct tv....  i pay for my service, they should not intrude on my peace while I am using something I PAID FOR....
> 
> nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have the choice of muting the television, stop using their service, or try to convince others to stop using their service.  I personally choose to mute the television when commercials come on.
Click to expand...


But what if you are napping while watching? stupid blaring commercial comes on and wakes you up!!!!!


----------



## editec

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
Click to expand...

 
Me too.

Nothing remotely unconsitutional about it, either.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit deflecting.
> 
> How is this 'unconstitutional'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is not given authority by the Constitution to regulate the level of commercials.  And what does the 10th Amendment say about powers not delegated by the Constitution?  That they're reserved to the people and the states.
Click to expand...

If the people want it and their elected officials give it to them it most certainly is constitutional. Judging from the article and the response on this thread, the people DO want it.

And...it isn't violating anyone's civil rights.


----------



## Care4all

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have the choice of muting the television, stop using their service, or try to convince others to stop using their service.  I personally choose to mute the television when commercials come on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY 7 minutes, you expect me to lower the volume on my tv and then every 3 minutes after that you expect me, in my own house to then reraise the volume ?
> 
> I DON'T THINK SO.
> 
> i pay for this service.... NO WHERE did DISH say that by me buying their service gives them the right to BLAST ME OUT OF MY OWN HOME....
> 
> I should have the choice IN MY OWN HOME to set the volume on an acceptable level for ME.
> 
> i don't think congress should have to get involved.
> 
> BUT DISH AND DIRECT TV, have not listened to our complaints....there is no other tv service available to us to change to....
> 
> IT IS MY HOME...I CHOOSE THE VOLUME LEVEL, NOT those son of b's....I pay for this service, and THEY are disturbing the peace, in my home....
> 
> It's a real SHAME it has to come to this...I PAID EXTRA for a tv, that moderates the volume between commercials and the programs....DISH OVER RIDES IT, in my home....that's just BS kevin...
> 
> it'll take 2 seconds for congress to take care of this disturbing of the peace....it won't hurt their other concerns and duties, UNLESS ALL the people complaining about them getting involved, make it in to a long, dragged out political posturing thing....honestly!
> 
> care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressing the mute button is not as difficult as you make it out to be.  It's not lowering and then re-raising the volume.  You push the button once for silence, and then again for the volume to come back.  Now like I said, you have a few options.  If you don't like the mute option then you can cancel your service and try to convince others to do the same.  If enough people cancel service over this then the companies will be forced to do something about it.  However, you do not have the right to try and force anyone to change the volume of their commercials.  You couldn't use violence to do so by yourself, and the government is not given authority by the Constitution to do so on your behalf.
Click to expand...


PLEASE!

That is so ridiculous, that you have to pick up your remote and mute every 7 minutes then un-mute 3 minutes later!  What you are asking me to do is unacceptable and it is also ridiculous that YOU EXPECT ME to do without ANY TELEVISION AT ALL....

there is no competition, and no one to change my service to, that does not BLARE commercials.

DISH and Direct tv BOTH do such...direct tv is even worse than Dish at my parents's house in florida.

WHERE in their 2 year signing contract with them for tv service do THEY DISCLOSE that they can and will raise and lower the volume of MY TV?

They DID NOT disclose this as part of MY CONTRACT.

I'm sorry, but THEY are IN THE WRONG, Not me.

And as others have said, what if your child is napping in the room but you still want to hear the news and you are also busy doing other work around the house...?  I should NOT have to carry the remote around with me....THIS IS MY HOUSE, for goodness sakes!

Maybe you guys from mars that hold on to the remote like it is your privates, can handle this, but as a female, I do not hold on to the remote control every living second, and I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO......

It is just WRONG that the cable/satellite companies do this.....and someone needs to fix it or in the LEAST....they should LEGALLY DISCLOSE that they can and will CONTROL your tv and the *peace* in your house before you have to sign a contract with them...and they do NOT do such...

They ARE DISTURBING THE PEACE in my own home?

Care


----------



## Sarah G

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY 7 minutes, you expect me to lower the volume on my tv and then every 3 minutes after that you expect me, in my own house to then reraise the volume ?
> 
> I DON'T THINK SO.
> 
> i pay for this service.... NO WHERE did DISH say that by me buying their service gives them the right to BLAST ME OUT OF MY OWN HOME....
> 
> I should have the choice IN MY OWN HOME to set the volume on an acceptable level for ME.
> 
> i don't think congress should have to get involved.
> 
> BUT DISH AND DIRECT TV, have not listened to our complaints....there is no other tv service available to us to change to....
> 
> IT IS MY HOME...I CHOOSE THE VOLUME LEVEL, NOT those son of b's....I pay for this service, and THEY are disturbing the peace, in my home....
> 
> It's a real SHAME it has to come to this...I PAID EXTRA for a tv, that moderates the volume between commercials and the programs....DISH OVER RIDES IT, in my home....that's just BS kevin...
> 
> it'll take 2 seconds for congress to take care of this disturbing of the peace....it won't hurt their other concerns and duties, UNLESS ALL the people complaining about them getting involved, make it in to a long, dragged out political posturing thing....honestly!
> 
> care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressing the mute button is not as difficult as you make it out to be.  It's not lowering and then re-raising the volume.  You push the button once for silence, and then again for the volume to come back.  Now like I said, you have a few options.  If you don't like the mute option then you can cancel your service and try to convince others to do the same.  If enough people cancel service over this then the companies will be forced to do something about it.  However, you do not have the right to try and force anyone to change the volume of their commercials.  You couldn't use violence to do so by yourself, and the government is not given authority by the Constitution to do so on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE!
> 
> That is so ridiculous, that you have to pick up your remote and mute every 7 minutes then un-mute 3 minutes later!  What you are asking me to do is unacceptable and it is also ridiculous that YOU EXPECT ME to do without ANY TELEVISION AT ALL....
> 
> there is no competition, and no one to change my service to, that does not BLARE commercials.
> 
> DISH and Direct tv BOTH do such...direct tv is even worse than Dish at my parents's house in florida.
> 
> WHERE in their 2 year signing contract with them for tv service do THEY DISCLOSE that they can and will raise and lower the volume of MY TV?
> 
> They DID NOT disclose this as part of MY CONTRACT.
> 
> I'm sorry, but THEY are IN THE WRONG, Not me.
> 
> And as others have said, what if your child is napping in the room but you still want to hear the news and you are also busy doing other work around the house...?  I should NOT have to carry the remote around with me....THIS IS MY HOUSE, for goodness sakes!
> 
> Maybe you guys from mars that hold on to the remote like it is your privates, can handle this, but as a female, I do not hold on to the remote control every living second, and I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO......
> 
> It is just WRONG that the cable/satellite companies do this.....and someone needs to fix it or in the LEAST....they should LEGALLY DISCLOSE that they can and will CONTROL your tv and the *peace* in your house before you have to sign a contract with them...and they do NOT do such...
> 
> They ARE DISTURBING THE PEACE in my own home?
> 
> Care
Click to expand...


I agree and besides, I don't just sit on my ass watching tv, I get up and move around so by the time I hear the tv blasting, it's already annoyed other people in the house.

There has to be a standard set for how loud you can be selling your products.


----------



## Emma

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the framers of the Constitution put in the power to regulate the noise level of television commercials?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit deflecting.
> 
> How is this 'unconstitutional'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The federal government is not given authority by the Constitution to regulate the level of commercials.*
Click to expand...

LOL

It is indeed constitutional for Congress to regulate the public airways. 

_*To regulate commerce* with foreign nations, and *among the several states*, and with the Indian tribes;_

_To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, *and fix the standard of weights and measures;*_


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with _regulating interstate and international communications_ by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

Unless, of course, you know of some magic force field that prevents radio signals from crossing state lines...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Funny that Care keeps yelling in a thread about fuckers being too loud...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> _* fix the standard of weights and measures;*_


Emma, you and the other idiots need to look this up. Fixing the weights danced measures means deciding by law what measurements are to be used- such as adption of the American Retarded System versus Metric or measuring sound in decibels. It also applies to units of currency.


----------



## Care4all

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1857237 said:
			
		

> Funny that Care keeps yelling in a thread about fuckers being too loud...



More as emphasis Prole, not as really shouting....

Happy New Year!

Care


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Constitutional or not, I repeat my original objection,



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1853407 said:
			
		

> Fuck border security! Who cares about the economy? Who needs a budget?
> 
> What's important is that some loudmouth keeps trying to sell me a slapchop...




Why don't you idiot crybabies learn to deal with it so we can focus on the important things instead of catering to whiny little bitches like you while our nation goes down the fucking toilet?

Priorities, people...


----------



## Care4all

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1857266 said:
			
		

> Constitutional or not, I repeat my original objection,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1853407 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck border security! Who cares about the economy? Who needs a budget?
> 
> What's important is that some loudmouth keeps trying to sell me a slapchop...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you idiot crybabies learn to deal with it so we can focus on the important things instead of catering to whiny little bitches like you while our nation goes down the fucking toilet?
> 
> Priorities, people...
Click to expand...


2 shakes of a dead lamb's tail and this could be done by congress...to complain and cause this to become some political issue is what is taking the time away from Congress....surely YOU can see this....  They can multi task....


----------



## manifold

I've started more than a couple threads bitching about the volume on commercials.

It's about damn time!


----------



## manifold

KKen is really cracking me up with all this pseudo-intellectual unconstitutional schtick. 

Perhaps he didn't do his homework so he doesn't know that the government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.

Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.


----------



## Dante

manifold said:


> KKen is really cracking me up with all this pseudo-intellectual unconstitutional schtick.
> 
> Perhaps he didn't do his homework so he doesn't know that the government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.



But, butm but KK doen't recognize that treasonous document known as the US Constitution.

Don't you know the Articles of Confederation were usurped by those treasonous bastards like Washington, Hamilton, and Madison?


----------



## manifold

DevNell said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KKen is really cracking me up with all this pseudo-intellectual unconstitutional schtick.
> 
> Perhaps he didn't do his homework so he doesn't know that the government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, butm but KK doen't recognize that treasonous document known as the US Constitution.
> 
> Don't you know the Articles of Confederation were usurped by those treasonous bastards like Washington, Hamilton, and Madison?
Click to expand...




But I thought it's only treason if you lose?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

noose4 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had had television(or radio) when the Constitution was written it would have stated "the right to listen to broadcasts without having to turn down the volume when the commercials come on"
Click to expand...


I doubt it seriously.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit deflecting.
> 
> How is this 'unconstitutional'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is not given authority by the Constitution to regulate the level of commercials.  And what does the 10th Amendment say about powers not delegated by the Constitution?  That they're reserved to the people and the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the people want it and their elected officials give it to them it most certainly is constitutional. Judging from the article and the response on this thread, the people DO want it.
> 
> And...it isn't violating anyone's civil rights.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that the federal government can do whatever it wants so long as the people want it?  Then what's the purpose of the Constitution?  The truth is that the Constitution doesn't change just because the people want it to, the Constitution only changes through the amendment process.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is not given authority by the Constitution to regulate the level of commercials.  And what does the 10th Amendment say about powers not delegated by the Constitution?  That they're reserved to the people and the states.
> 
> 
> 
> If the people want it and their elected officials give it to them it most certainly is constitutional. Judging from the article and the response on this thread, the people DO want it.
> 
> And...it isn't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the federal government can do whatever it wants so long as the people want it?  Then what's the purpose of the Constitution?  The truth is that the Constitution doesn't change just because the people want it to, the Constitution only changes through the amendment process.
Click to expand...

No, they cannot violate someone's civil rights. In this instance, no one's civil rights are being violated.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY 7 minutes, you expect me to lower the volume on my tv and then every 3 minutes after that you expect me, in my own house to then reraise the volume ?
> 
> I DON'T THINK SO.
> 
> i pay for this service.... NO WHERE did DISH say that by me buying their service gives them the right to BLAST ME OUT OF MY OWN HOME....
> 
> I should have the choice IN MY OWN HOME to set the volume on an acceptable level for ME.
> 
> i don't think congress should have to get involved.
> 
> BUT DISH AND DIRECT TV, have not listened to our complaints....there is no other tv service available to us to change to....
> 
> IT IS MY HOME...I CHOOSE THE VOLUME LEVEL, NOT those son of b's....I pay for this service, and THEY are disturbing the peace, in my home....
> 
> It's a real SHAME it has to come to this...I PAID EXTRA for a tv, that moderates the volume between commercials and the programs....DISH OVER RIDES IT, in my home....that's just BS kevin...
> 
> it'll take 2 seconds for congress to take care of this disturbing of the peace....it won't hurt their other concerns and duties, UNLESS ALL the people complaining about them getting involved, make it in to a long, dragged out political posturing thing....honestly!
> 
> care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressing the mute button is not as difficult as you make it out to be.  It's not lowering and then re-raising the volume.  You push the button once for silence, and then again for the volume to come back.  Now like I said, you have a few options.  If you don't like the mute option then you can cancel your service and try to convince others to do the same.  If enough people cancel service over this then the companies will be forced to do something about it.  However, you do not have the right to try and force anyone to change the volume of their commercials.  You couldn't use violence to do so by yourself, and the government is not given authority by the Constitution to do so on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE!
> 
> That is so ridiculous, that you have to pick up your remote and mute every 7 minutes then un-mute 3 minutes later!  What you are asking me to do is unacceptable and it is also ridiculous that YOU EXPECT ME to do without ANY TELEVISION AT ALL....
> 
> there is no competition, and no one to change my service to, that does not BLARE commercials.
> 
> DISH and Direct tv BOTH do such...direct tv is even worse than Dish at my parents's house in florida.
> 
> WHERE in their 2 year signing contract with them for tv service do THEY DISCLOSE that they can and will raise and lower the volume of MY TV?
> 
> They DID NOT disclose this as part of MY CONTRACT.
> 
> I'm sorry, but THEY are IN THE WRONG, Not me.
> 
> And as others have said, what if your child is napping in the room but you still want to hear the news and you are also busy doing other work around the house...?  I should NOT have to carry the remote around with me....THIS IS MY HOUSE, for goodness sakes!
> 
> Maybe you guys from mars that hold on to the remote like it is your privates, can handle this, but as a female, I do not hold on to the remote control every living second, and I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO......
> 
> It is just WRONG that the cable/satellite companies do this.....and someone needs to fix it or in the LEAST....they should LEGALLY DISCLOSE that they can and will CONTROL your tv and the *peace* in your house before you have to sign a contract with them...and they do NOT do such...
> 
> They ARE DISTURBING THE PEACE in my own home?
> 
> Care
Click to expand...


You don't have to hold onto the remote, you can set it down next to you.  Chances are it's close anyways.

I don't expect you to do without any television, but let's not act like you have a fundamental right to watch television.  You could go without television if it bothered you that much, the fact that you're not willing to do so says that it's not really that big of a deal.  Commercials are air time that are purchased by companies to promote their product, and as such are their own private property for that period of time.  You have no more right to dictate the level of those ads than you do to dictate what airs on your favorite network.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Emma said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit deflecting.
> 
> How is this 'unconstitutional'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The federal government is not given authority by the Constitution to regulate the level of commercials.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> It is indeed constitutional for Congress to regulate the public airways.
> 
> _*To regulate commerce* with foreign nations, and *among the several states*, and with the Indian tribes;_
> 
> _To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, *and fix the standard of weights and measures;*_
> 
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with _regulating interstate and international communications_ by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.
> 
> Unless, of course, you know of some magic force field that prevents radio signals from crossing state lines...
Click to expand...


Well for one, the FCC itself is unconstitutional itself.  Secondly, to regulate interstate trade means to make regular.  Which means the federal government is given the authority to stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  That's all it means.  Third, I'm not sure why people keep bringing up a section of the Constitution that is clearly referring to money and money alone.  That's a huge stretch of constitutional interpretation.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> KKen is really cracking me up with all this pseudo-intellectual unconstitutional schtick.
> 
> Perhaps he didn't do his homework so he doesn't know that the government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.



I'm glad you're amused.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Care4all said:


> They can multi task....


Bullshit. They can't even read the bills they're voting on.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people want it and their elected officials give it to them it most certainly is constitutional. Judging from the article and the response on this thread, the people DO want it.
> 
> And...it isn't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the federal government can do whatever it wants so long as the people want it?  Then what's the purpose of the Constitution?  The truth is that the Constitution doesn't change just because the people want it to, the Constitution only changes through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they cannot violate someone's civil rights. In this instance, no one's civil rights are being violated.
Click to expand...


The rights of the advertisers.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...


I have one word for everyone who hates commercials

TIVO  Proud owner since 1999


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the federal government can do whatever it wants so long as the people want it?  Then what's the purpose of the Constitution?  The truth is that the Constitution doesn't change just because the people want it to, the Constitution only changes through the amendment process.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cannot violate someone's civil rights. In this instance, no one's civil rights are being violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights of the advertisers.
Click to expand...

They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cannot violate someone's civil rights. In this instance, no one's civil rights are being violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the advertisers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
Click to expand...


That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.


----------



## noose4

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the advertisers.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.
Click to expand...


are you the sham wow guy?


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the advertisers.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. They are free to purchase airtime but they are not free to control my television.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

noose4 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you the sham wow guy?
Click to expand...


His name is Vince, my name is Kevin.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true. They are free to purchase airtime but they are not free to control my television.
Click to expand...


They're not controlling your television, however.  Your television's volume remains the same.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not true. They are free to purchase airtime but they are not free to control my television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not controlling your television, however.  Your television's volume remains the same.
Click to expand...

Same thing...if they are making their commercials louder than my settings they are controlling my television against my wishes.


----------



## Mr Natural

Get a DVR and zip through that shit with the greatest of ease.


----------



## geauxtohell

Excuse me if this has already been brought up, but doesn't the government regulate "subliminal messages" in advertisements too?

Is that also unconstitutional?

Why or why not?


----------



## Care4all

Honestly, it is just BS, that they can control the volume that I have set, for inside my own home...and they ARE disturbing the peace, for me and my family....they should LISTEN to their customer's complaints...I have made many of them and so have my parents and so have my neighbors....

Is there ANY cable company or satellite tv company that DOES NOT do this in our entire country?  What are our choices?  NO TV at ALL or have them do this crap?  Be glued to the tv with remote in hand so that you can mute it every 7 minutes when commercials come on?

What is the real purpose of their actions of raising the volume of ones own volume set in their own home?  Are they really selling more products by increasing the volume?  Or are they just annoying the heck out of their PAID customers and having many of them just hitting their MUTE, defeating their quest to MAKE us listen to their advertisers?

It makes no sense to argue against this imho....congress is probably doing them a favor by passing this law...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cannot violate someone's civil rights. In this instance, no one's civil rights are being violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the advertisers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
Click to expand...

They don't. The volume setting on yuor TV remains the same.

Please tell me I don't have to explain the science behind how two different sounds can be recorded at different volumes...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That air-time is their personal property for a set period of time, and can be as loud as they choose to make it.  If you don't like it, I'd suggest the mute button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true. They are free to purchase airtime but they are not free to control my television.
Click to expand...



Control your tv? 

You *do* realize that was just part of the intro, right? Fiction, Ravi, fiction...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I7vPbthvWo[/ame]


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not true. They are free to purchase airtime but they are not free to control my television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not controlling your television, however.  Your television's volume remains the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same thing...if they are making their commercials louder than my settings they are controlling my television against my wishes.
Click to expand...

They're not making anything louder than your settings. Turn the volume down when the commercial comes on next time and I guarantee you it won't be so loud.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1857990 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the advertisers.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't. The volume setting on yuor TV remains the same.
> 
> Please tell me I don't have to explain the science behind how two different sounds can be recorded at different volumes...
Click to expand...

Please don't make me explain to you that if the volume gets louder they've increased the volume...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> Honestly, it is just BS, that they can control the volume that I have set, for inside my own home...and they ARE disturbing the peace, for me and my family....they should LISTEN to their customer's complaints...I have made many of them and so have my parents and so have my neighbors....
> 
> Is there ANY cable company or satellite tv company that DOES NOT do this in our entire country?  What are our choices?  NO TV at ALL or have them do this crap?  Be glued to the tv with remote in hand so that you can mute it every 7 minutes when commercials come on?
> 
> What is the real purpose of their actions of raising the volume of ones own volume set in their own home?  Are they really selling more products by increasing the volume?  Or are they just annoying the heck out of their PAID customers and having many of them just hitting their MUTE, defeating their quest to MAKE us listen to their advertisers?
> 
> It makes no sense to argue against this imho....congress is probably doing them a favor by passing this law...



TIVO
TIVO
TIVO
TIVO
TIVO
TIVO
TIVO​
   HAPPY NEW YEARS 


FULL DISCLOSURE:   Yes I own multiple stocks in the company that makes TIVO  .
http://www.tivo.com/


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1857990 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a right to increase the volume on my television.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't. The volume setting on yuor TV remains the same.
> 
> Please tell me I don't have to explain the science behind how two different sounds can be recorded at different volumes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't make me explain to you that if the volume gets louder they've increased the volume...
Click to expand...



wow...

So anytime an explosion goes off in the movie you're watching on TV, you see green bars going across the screen and/or the knob turns?

Your TV's haunted, Ravi.

Go ask a soundtech about recording vs. playback volume.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not true. They are free to purchase airtime but they are not free to control my television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not controlling your television, however.  Your television's volume remains the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same thing...if they are making their commercials louder than my settings they are controlling my television against my wishes.
Click to expand...


No, it's not the same thing at all.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Honestly, it is just BS, that they can control the volume that I have set, for inside my own home...and they ARE disturbing the peace, for me and my family....they should LISTEN to their customer's complaints...I have made many of them and so have my parents and so have my neighbors....
> 
> Is there ANY cable company or satellite tv company that DOES NOT do this in our entire country?  What are our choices?  NO TV at ALL or have them do this crap?  Be glued to the tv with remote in hand so that you can mute it every 7 minutes when commercials come on?
> 
> What is the real purpose of their actions of raising the volume of ones own volume set in their own home?  Are they really selling more products by increasing the volume?  Or are they just annoying the heck out of their PAID customers and having many of them just hitting their MUTE, defeating their quest to MAKE us listen to their advertisers?
> 
> It makes no sense to argue against this imho....congress is probably doing them a favor by passing this law...



It makes perfect sense to argue against this.  Any violation of the Constitution should be argued against.

As for any television service provider that doesn't have loud commercials, I have AT&T U-Verse and I've never felt that the commercials were overbearingly loud.  Though, as I said, I usually mute them regardless.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858011 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1857990 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't. The volume setting on yuor TV remains the same.
> 
> Please tell me I don't have to explain the science behind how two different sounds can be recorded at different volumes...
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't make me explain to you that if the volume gets louder they've increased the volume...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow...
> 
> So anytime an explosion goes off in the movie you're watching on TV, you see green bars going across the screen and/or the knob turns?
> 
> Your TV's haunted, Ravi.
> 
> Go ask a soundtech about recording vs. playback volume.
Click to expand...

 So you're okay with Congress regulating the levels that boost the volume I take it.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not controlling your television, however.  Your television's volume remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing...if they are making their commercials louder than my settings they are controlling my television against my wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that you need to change your thread title.

There is no civil right enjoyed by advertisers that allow them to make their commercials louder than the program being watched.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing...if they are making their commercials louder than my settings they are controlling my television against my wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you really believe that you need to change your thread title.
> 
> There is no civil right enjoyed by advertisers that allow them to make their commercials louder than the program being watched.
Click to expand...


There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.

The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that you need to change your thread title.
> 
> There is no civil right enjoyed by advertisers that allow them to make their commercials louder than the program being watched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.
> 
> The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.
Click to expand...

MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.

You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.


----------



## Zoom-boing

We had a tv that when commercials came on it automatically lowered the volume.  I was an option in the settings menu.  Can't remember what kind of tv but Tommy Smothers was in the ad for it.  Loved that feature.  They either got rid of that feature or the commercial people found a way to get around it.  Commercials have always been louder; some now are uuuber loud.  I don't give a shit the why of it, I just mute the thing or lower the volume . . . but mostly I just change the channel.  I had one remote that had commercial skip . . . you set a timer for say 3 minutes on the channel you are watching then bop around and at the end of the 3 minutes the tv went back to your original channel.  Yeah, that feature doesn't exist anymore either.


----------



## Liability

I wish the fucking Congress WOULD pass the so-called "CALM Act."

I'd much prefer that legislation to their moronic efforts to "fix" the economy by utterly unprincipled massive stupid deficit spending.

As for the Act allegedly being "Unconstitutional," I am of mixed opinion.  Those airwaves belong to the PEOPLE.  We permit (through the government) private companies to use them for a profit.  To the extent that proposition is true, then we certainly have a right to put some reasonable conditions on the license we grant them to use our airwaves.  We aren't threatening free speech in this -- not even commercial speech.  We are just saying, lower your voice!

Some of these fucking commercials blast my ear drums.  I get the volume set to a reasonable level for some show I am enjoying and BAM it's commercial time.  

Hey fuckers!  If you shout at me, I'm not only not more likely to buy your shit, I am absolutely LESS likely to do so.   In the interim, stop fucking shouting at me, you fucktards.

Are we clear on this, you advertising assholes?


----------



## Care4all

Zoom-boing said:


> We had a tv that when commercials came on it automatically lowered the volume.  I was an option in the settings menu.  Can't remember what kind of tv but Tommy Smothers was in the ad for it.  Loved that feature.  They either got rid of that feature or the commercial people found a way to get around it.  Commercials have always been louder; some now are uuuber loud.  I don't give a shit the why of it, I just mute the thing or lower the volume . . . but mostly I just change the channel.  I had one remote that had commercial skip . . . you set a timer for say 3 minutes on the channel you are watching then bop around and at the end of the 3 minutes the tv went back to your original channel.  Yeah, that feature doesn't exist anymore either.



Yes, we too bought a tv that moderated the Commercial and Program volume as well, but it DOES NOT WORK if you have DISH or Direct TV....their cable box OVERRIDES what we payed for....  if it were a moderate volume rise...so be it, but it is grossly and obnoxiously much louder now for commercials.

These companies should listen to their customers and are doing a disservice to their advertisers by increasing the noise decimal so much that everyone is muting their tv's or channel surfing when commercials are on.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a tv that when commercials came on it automatically lowered the volume.  I was an option in the settings menu.  Can't remember what kind of tv but Tommy Smothers was in the ad for it.  Loved that feature.  They either got rid of that feature or the commercial people found a way to get around it.  Commercials have always been louder; some now are uuuber loud.  I don't give a shit the why of it, I just mute the thing or lower the volume . . . but mostly I just change the channel.  I had one remote that had commercial skip . . . you set a timer for say 3 minutes on the channel you are watching then bop around and at the end of the 3 minutes the tv went back to your original channel.  Yeah, that feature doesn't exist anymore either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we too bought a tv that moderated the Commercial and Program volume as well, but it DOES NOT WORK if you have DISH or Direct TV....their cable box OVERRIDES what we payed for....  if it were a moderate volume rise...so be it, but it is grossly and obnoxiously much louder now for commercials.
> 
> These companies should listen to their customers and are doing a disservice to their advertisers by increasing the noise decimal so much that everyone is muting their tv's or channel surfing when commercials are on.
Click to expand...


Do you ever notice the hearing aid commercials are much quieter?


----------



## Zoom-boing

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a tv that when commercials came on it automatically lowered the volume.  I was an option in the settings menu.  Can't remember what kind of tv but Tommy Smothers was in the ad for it.  Loved that feature.  They either got rid of that feature or the commercial people found a way to get around it.  Commercials have always been louder; some now are uuuber loud.  I don't give a shit the why of it, I just mute the thing or lower the volume . . . but mostly I just change the channel.  I had one remote that had commercial skip . . . you set a timer for say 3 minutes on the channel you are watching then bop around and at the end of the 3 minutes the tv went back to your original channel.  Yeah, that feature doesn't exist anymore either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we too bought a tv that moderated the Commercial and Program volume as well, but it DOES NOT WORK if you have DISH or Direct TV....their cable box OVERRIDES what we payed for....  if it were a moderate volume rise...so be it, but it is grossly and obnoxiously much louder now for commercials.
> 
> These companies should listen to their customers and are doing a disservice to their advertisers by increasing the noise decimal so much that everyone is muting their tv's or channel surfing when commercials are on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever notice the hearing aid commercials are much quieter?
Click to expand...


What??


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Zoom-boing said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we too bought a tv that moderated the Commercial and Program volume as well, but it DOES NOT WORK if you have DISH or Direct TV....their cable box OVERRIDES what we payed for....  if it were a moderate volume rise...so be it, but it is grossly and obnoxiously much louder now for commercials.
> 
> These companies should listen to their customers and are doing a disservice to their advertisers by increasing the noise decimal so much that everyone is muting their tv's or channel surfing when commercials are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever notice the hearing aid commercials are much quieter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What??
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that you need to change your thread title.
> 
> There is no civil right enjoyed by advertisers that allow them to make their commercials louder than the program being watched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.
> 
> The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have the right to control your property.  You can mute the television, or cancel your service.

The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Care4all said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a tv that when commercials came on it automatically lowered the volume.  I was an option in the settings menu.  Can't remember what kind of tv but Tommy Smothers was in the ad for it.  Loved that feature.  They either got rid of that feature or the commercial people found a way to get around it.  Commercials have always been louder; some now are uuuber loud.  I don't give a shit the why of it, I just mute the thing or lower the volume . . . but mostly I just change the channel.  I had one remote that had commercial skip . . . you set a timer for say 3 minutes on the channel you are watching then bop around and at the end of the 3 minutes the tv went back to your original channel.  Yeah, that feature doesn't exist anymore either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we too bought a tv that moderated the Commercial and Program volume as well, but it DOES NOT WORK if you have DISH or Direct TV....their cable box OVERRIDES what we payed for....  if it were a moderate volume rise...so be it, but it is grossly and obnoxiously much louder now for commercials.
> 
> These companies should listen to their customers and are doing a disservice to their advertisers by increasing the noise decimal so much that everyone is muting their tv's or channel surfing when commercials are on.
Click to expand...


Yeah Comcast may be the same.  I think the tv with that feature may have been a Magnavox we had a long time ago.  The advertisers only end up losing any possible business they may have gained by making the volume so loud.  I rarely pay attention to commercials and the more they crank the volume the more I change the channel and the less I even see the commercials. 

It's ear shattering at my parents house cause they have the tv up really loud to begin with then when the commercials come on   Run for the hills!


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.
> 
> The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you have the right to control your property.  You can mute the television, or cancel your service.
> 
> The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.
Click to expand...

I pay for the airwaves...and so do you.


----------



## Emma

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.



What?!?

LOL

Now I'm convinced you're just playin' with us


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.
> 
> The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you have the right to control your property.  You can mute the television, or cancel your service.
> 
> The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.
Click to expand...


Nope.  The airwaves (at least in legal theory -- or legal fiction?) belong to ALL of US!

*We permit* the gubmint to lease the airwaves to the commercial communication companies.  That's a license!

Licenses can be CONDITIONED as WE, the owners, deem appropriate.

And the conditions are not static.  They can be amended (such as when the licenses come up for renewal).


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have the right to control your property.  You can mute the television, or cancel your service.
> 
> The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  The airwaves (at least in legal theory -- or legal fiction?) belong to ALL of US!
> 
> *We permit* the gubmint to lease the airwaves to the commercial communication companies.  That's a license!
> 
> Licenses can be CONDITIONED as WE, the owners, deem appropriate.
> 
> And the conditions are not static.  They can be amended (such as when the licenses come up for renewal).
Click to expand...


And where in the Constitution do we permit the government to do this?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't make me explain to you that if the volume gets louder they've increased the volume...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow...
> 
> So anytime an explosion goes off in the movie you're watching on TV, you see green bars going across the screen and/or the knob turns?
> 
> Your TV's haunted, Ravi.
> 
> Go ask a soundtech about recording vs. playback volume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're okay with Congress regulating the levels that boost the volume I take it.
Click to expand...



I assume, from the fact that you clicked 'submit reply', that you were trying to say something. What it might have been, I can't decipher.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that you need to change your thread title.
> 
> There is no civil right enjoyed by advertisers that allow them to make their commercials louder than the program being watched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.
> 
> The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
Click to expand...



Again... contrary to what The Outer Limits said, they don't really control your tv. Stop freaking out and take toe foil off your head.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858632 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the right to control your own property, and that's what this is an example of.
> 
> The thread title is the same as the title of the article, I didn't choose the title.  It makes sense though.  As Proletarian has pointed out, there is a difference between recorded volumes and playback volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again... contrary to what The Outer Limits said, they don't really control your tv. Stop freaking out and take toe foil off your head.
Click to expand...

You must be feeling emotional today...need help?


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have the right to control your property.  You can mute the television, or cancel your service.
> 
> The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The airwaves (at least in legal theory -- or legal fiction?) belong to ALL of US!
> 
> *We permit* the gubmint to lease the airwaves to the commercial communication companies.  That's a license!
> 
> Licenses can be CONDITIONED as WE, the owners, deem appropriate.
> 
> And the conditions are not static.  They can be amended (such as when the licenses come up for renewal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where in the Constitution do we permit the government to do this?
Click to expand...

The bit about providing for the national defense. Without an accessible communication system there is no national defense.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> Those airwaves belong to the PEOPLE.



The equipment and content belong to their respective (mostly private) owners. Those signals only effect you if you tune your equipment to them.


> We are just saying, lower your voice!



Lower the volume yourself. It's not that hard.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY right to control MY property (the television's loudness) is the only right in question here.
> 
> You do not enjoy a civil right that infringes on someone else's civil right. Therefore, MY property is off limits to the advertiser's control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have the right to control your property.  You can mute the television, or cancel your service.
> 
> The airwaves, however, are the property of who paid for them, and they can control their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I pay for the airwaves...and so do you.
Click to expand...



Uh... no... You pay for equipment (the TV) you tune to receive the signals put out by other equipment owned almost entirely by private entities. In the case of cable/dish, you also pay for someone to rely that owned data to your equipment for you to enjoy.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Bill, how can the masses own the radiation emitted by equipment owned by private entities?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The airwaves (at least in legal theory -- or legal fiction?) belong to ALL of US!
> 
> *We permit* the gubmint to lease the airwaves to the commercial communication companies.  That's a license!
> 
> Licenses can be CONDITIONED as WE, the owners, deem appropriate.
> 
> And the conditions are not static.  They can be amended (such as when the licenses come up for renewal).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where in the Constitution do we permit the government to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bit about providing for the national defense. Without an accessible communication system there is no national defense.
Click to expand...

''


wait.. loud commercials on Fox prevent the Army from communicating?

Are you retarded?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The airwaves (at least in legal theory -- or legal fiction?) belong to ALL of US!
> 
> *We permit* the gubmint to lease the airwaves to the commercial communication companies.  That's a license!
> 
> Licenses can be CONDITIONED as WE, the owners, deem appropriate.
> 
> And the conditions are not static.  They can be amended (such as when the licenses come up for renewal).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where in the Constitution do we permit the government to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bit about providing for the national defense. Without an accessible communication system there is no national defense.
Click to expand...


The government regulating the airwaves is not national defense.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858657 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where in the Constitution do we permit the government to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> The bit about providing for the national defense. Without an accessible communication system there is no national defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ''
> 
> 
> wait.. loud commercials on Fox prevent the Army from communicating?
> 
> *Are you retarded?*
Click to expand...

Yes. How does it feel to have a retarded person make you look like a fool?


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where in the Constitution do we permit the government to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> The bit about providing for the national defense. Without an accessible communication system there is no national defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government regulating the airwaves is not national defense.
Click to expand...

It is vital to national defense.


----------



## Zoom-boing

The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bit about providing for the national defense. Without an accessible communication system there is no national defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government regulating the airwaves is not national defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is vital to national defense.
Click to expand...


Regulating the volume of commercials, or the content of television is not vital to our national defense in any way shape or form.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government regulating the airwaves is not national defense.
> 
> 
> 
> It is vital to national defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulating the volume of commercials, or the content of television is not vital to our national defense in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.


----------



## Zona

I have a pretty good surround sound system...not the bass booming crap, but good sound at low, mid and high levels.

I hate it when your watching a program late at night, and at this point expect the commercials will be so damn loud I have to turn it down.  Personally, I am glad they will stop this crap, but did it have to go this high to make it stop?


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KKen is really cracking me up with all this pseudo-intellectual unconstitutional schtick.
> 
> Perhaps he didn't do his homework so he doesn't know that the government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're amused.
Click to expand...


You should be glad to be slightly less ignornant.


----------



## manifold

I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)



manifold said:


> *The government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.*
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.


----------



## Liability

Zoom-boing said:


> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.



There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.

But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.


----------



## manifold

Liability said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.
> 
> But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.
Click to expand...


I have to give credit where it's due and this is 100% correct and well said.


----------



## Mr Natural

Zoom-boing said:


> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.



Bullshit!

I pay these fuckers in Washington a lot of money every year and I want something useful for it in return.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.*
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.
Click to expand...


And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.
> 
> But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.
Click to expand...


Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.
> 
> But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.
Click to expand...


Nope.

They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.

And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.

The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either.  The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.


----------



## Care4all

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.*
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
Click to expand...


but kevin, where are the lawsuits?  Where are the people like you in the process?  Why not sue, on the grounds of unconstitutionality, IF you really believe this is all, unconstitutional?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.
> 
> But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
> 
> And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
> 
> The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either.  The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


That's not how the Constitution works.  The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing.  If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.

Isn't it?  The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force?  I would have to disagree.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but kevin, where are the lawsuits?  Where are the people like you in the process?  Why not sue, on the grounds of unconstitutionality, IF you really believe this is all, unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


Well for one there must be standing.  So I couldn't sue on this subject, because I don't run commercials.  Secondly, those with standing, the advertisers, probably find it easier just to go along with it because they're going to waste a lot of money fighting it and ultimately probably losing anyways.  Not to mention they probably don't see it as worth fighting in the first place, even if they thought they could win.


----------



## 2Parties

This seems like a great law.  

It's in the US Constitution Article 12 Section 128.  Look it up.

Congress shall regulate the decibel differential in all television programming and the corresponding commercials.

Also the Bible, which the Constitution was based on, agrees.

Panasonic Chapter 11, Verse 15

And the Lord said, Thou shalt not air commercials louder than the program or they will be shut down.



You people who hate government should get a brain.  This stuff is great.  God and government commanded it.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
> 
> And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
> 
> The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either.  The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not how the Constitution works.  The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing.  If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
> 
> Isn't it?  The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force?  I would have to disagree.
Click to expand...


WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"

Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.

But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want.  Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.

I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.  

The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense.  Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit.  (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).

Now then:  Who does own our AIRWAVES?  The correct answer is WE DO.  But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation.  We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons.  Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves.  And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government.  The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> Who does own our AIRWAVES?  The correct answer is WE DO.  But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation.  We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons.  Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves.  And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government.  The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.



Why isn't their massive conflict at a global scale?  Why isn't there a global authority?


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who does own our AIRWAVES?  The correct answer is WE DO.  But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation.  We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons.  Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves.  And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government.  The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't their massive conflict at a global scale?  Why isn't there a global authority?
Click to expand...


Is that "question" meant to be a real difficult poser?

Do you not comprehend that if Cuba (as an example) tried to send signals to Florida that were designed to interfere with some commercial broadcasters in Florida, like the National Broadcast Company or the ABC radio networks, we could JAM the Cuban signals?  Fuck if it came down to it, we might even be able and willing to destroy their transmittors.  

We do not subscribe to global authority.

But a fair argument can be made that we have agreed to permit our Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce.  I just KNOW I read that somewhere.

And, of course, this differentiates between regulation of access to the airwaves (because it is a limited commodity) and improper government regulation of content.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> Do you not comprehend that if Cuba (as an example) tried to send signals to Florida that were designed to interfere with some commercial broadcasters in Florida, like the National Broadcast Company or the ABC radio networks, we could JAM the Cuban signals?



I haven't seen that hypothetical scenario happen yet on 24?  Is that gonna be on this season?



> Fuck if it came down to it, we might even be able and willing to destroy their transmittors.



Destroy that transmitter Jack, protect the USA!



> But a fair argument can be made that we have agreed to permit our Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce.  I just KNOW I read that somewhere.



Yeah, that's the excuse government gives when they create numerous environmental laws that contribute to the destruction of our economy.



> And, of course, this differentiates between regulation of access to the airwaves (because it is a limited commodity) and improper government regulation of content.



Every single physical thing on earth is a limited commodity, and being the statist you are, you believe government should regulate every aspect of it.  At least you would if you were logically consistent, which you aren't.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
> 
> And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
> 
> The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either.  The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how the Constitution works.  The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing.  If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
> 
> Isn't it?  The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force?  I would have to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"
> 
> Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.
> 
> But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want.  Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.
> 
> I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.
> 
> The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense.  Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit.  (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).
> 
> Now then:  Who does own our AIRWAVES?  The correct answer is WE DO.  But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation.  We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons.  Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves.  And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government.  The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
Click to expand...


The Constitution doesn't have to forbid the federal government from doing anything.  If it doesn't explicitly give them authority then they're not allowed to do it.  That's what the 10th Amendment tells us.

If the army and navy are implicit, then why does the Constitution mention them explicitly?  Because the framers knew that the Constitution had to explicitly spell out the powers of the federal government.  Implicit powers are the creation of statists intended to increase the power of the state.  I would support a constitutional amendment giving the federal government the power to maintain an air-force, but let's not pretend the Constitution actually gives them the power to do so implicitly.  That opens up pandora's box for statism.


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time.  This bill is about re-writing the regulations.*
> 
> Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed.  Even if say, that's a loud explosion.  And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching.  This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation.  It's hardly precedent setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
Click to expand...


It proves that your argument is academic and moot.  You give me the impression you might think otherwise.


----------



## Anguille

*What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.*


----------



## Zoom-boing

Mr Clean said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> I pay these fuckers in Washington a lot of money every year and I want something useful for it in return.
Click to expand...


Bullshit?  You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube?  I can and I do.

You want something useful for your money from the DCers and_ this _is what it is?    You're easily pleased.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> *What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.*



I turned your volume down.  That was easy.


----------



## Liability

I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.

Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:  



> * * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
> many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
> Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
> not available to all.  That is its unique characteristic,
> and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
> is subject to government regulation. * * * *


National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226. 

Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that?  If so, how?  Why?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Liability said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.
> 
> But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's have uncle fix a problem that we can easily fix ourselves with the push of a button.  

I have no idea if this is constitutional or not or if uncle should or shouldn't or are already involved. Push the damn button if the loudness of the commercials bothers you.  It's really pretty simple.  Of course, you'd have to move a body part to pick up the remote.  

[mumbling to self] . . . I can't believe I'm arguing with people about a problem they can fix with the push of a button  . . .


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how the Constitution works.  The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing.  If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
> 
> Isn't it?  The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force?  I would have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"
> 
> Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.
> 
> But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want.  Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.
> 
> I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.
> 
> The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense.  Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit.  (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).
> 
> Now then:  Who does own our AIRWAVES?  The correct answer is WE DO.  But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation.  We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons.  Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves.  And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government.  The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't have to forbid the federal government from doing anything.  If it doesn't explicitly give them authority then they're not allowed to do it.  That's what the 10th Amendment tells us.
> 
> If the army and navy are implicit, then why does the Constitution mention them explicitly?  Because the framers knew that the Constitution had to explicitly spell out the powers of the federal government.  Implicit powers are the creation of statists intended to increase the power of the state.  I would support a constitutional amendment giving the federal government the power to maintain an air-force, but let's not pretend the Constitution actually gives them the power to do so implicitly.  That opens up pandora's box for statism.
Click to expand...


It mentioned "Army" and "Navy" in terms of the military authority of the Federal Government because there was no other notion of an armed force.  The Air Force, however, is clearly implicit.

The constitution DOES provide for the Federal Government's AUTHORITY, moreover, with regard to interstate commerce.  And when it comes to regulating the airwaves, that is what the Federal government is doing.


----------



## Liability

Zoom-boing said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break.  If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be *booming* their insipid noise at us.
> 
> But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them.  Those are my ear drums.  And those are OUR airwaves they are using.  And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad.  This is not a Constitutional issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, let's have uncle fix a problem that we can easily fix ourselves with the push of a button.
> 
> I have no idea if this is constitutional or not or if uncle should or shouldn't or are already involved. Push the damn button if the loudness of the commercials bothers you.  It's really pretty simple.  Of course, you'd have to move a body part to pick up the remote.
> 
> [mumbling to self] . . . I can't believe I'm arguing with people about a problem they can fix with the push of a button  . . .
Click to expand...


The Federal Government CAN regulate the volume of commercials even if you and I also have mute buttons.  

If you think it's a waste of time, I don't fully disagree.  But it's one waste of their time I don't much mind.  

In fact, I still PREFER that they fiddle around with that kind of relatively unimportant stuff over their efforts at doing such "business" as taking-over car companies, banks, credit agencies or the provision of national health care.

I can't believe you think it's just a  matter of pusing a button either.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Bullshit?  You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube?  I can and I do.



or watch PBS. 

Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> In fact, I still PREFER that they fiddle around with that kind of relatively unimportant stuff over their efforts at doing such "business" as taking-over car companies, banks, credit agencies or the provision of national health care.



This is one of the extremely few times I agree with you entirely...


----------



## Samson

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit?  You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube?  I can and I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or watch PBS.
> 
> Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.
Click to expand...


I really hate government regulation...on the one hand

On the other, I hate being blasted awake by someone wanting to SELL ME THE SHAMU-SHAMMY WASH CLOTH MADE IN GERMANY!!!!

My solution is to VCR 90% of whatever I wanna watch, FF through commercials.


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I still PREFER that they fiddle around with that kind of relatively unimportant stuff over their efforts at doing such "business" as taking-over car companies, banks, credit agencies or the provision of national health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the extremely few times I agree with you entirely...
Click to expand...


It is one of the *almost* non-existent times you are right!


----------



## The T

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...

 
Seems to me this is a matter for the Federal Communications Commission, and Technical Standards...

*Radio and Television Broadcast Rules *
*47 CFR Part 73*

Seems to me if a station is staying within it's bandwith limits of Visual/Aural levels (Deviation)?

Too bad.


----------



## Liability

I REQUOTE my own earlier post to give Kevin Kennedy a chance to see it.



Liability said:


> I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.
> 
> Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
> many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
> Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
> not available to all.  That is its unique characteristic,
> and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
> is subject to government regulation. * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.
> 
> Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that?  If so, how?  Why?
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
> 
> And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
> 
> The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either. The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing. If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
> 
> Isn't it? The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force? I would have to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"
> 
> Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.
> 
> But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want. Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.
> 
> I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.
> 
> The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense. Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit. (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).
> 
> Now then: Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. *The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.*
Click to expand...

 
From a technical standpoint? This is correct, and by reasons of the physics/science of Propegation of RF Energy.

As to the AirForce? Remember? It at one time was called the "*US ARMY AIR CORPS*", and belonged TO the US Army. it became it's separate entity on 18 September 1947.

And yes it still falls under Military as expressed in the US Constitution.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I turned your volume down.  That was easy.
Click to expand...



I muted you both


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.
> 
> Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
> many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
> Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
> not available to all.  That is its unique characteristic,
> and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
> is subject to government regulation. * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.
> 
> Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that?  If so, how?  Why?
Click to expand...



Megaphones, speakers, and speech itself, inherently is not available to all. That is why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to government regulation. * * *


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861270 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.
> 
> Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
> many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
> Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
> not available to all.  That is its unique characteristic,
> and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
> is subject to government regulation. * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.
> 
> Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that?  If so, how?  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Megaphones, speakers, and speech itself, inherently is not available to all. That is why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to government regulation. * * *
Click to expand...


I presume that you are joking.  Because, of course, there is no limitation on megaphones and soapboxes.  There is no inherent limit on access to printing presses and paper and ink or computers and printers and copiers.  But there IS a very natural limitation on the amount of usuable frequencies available for radio transmission or television transmission  -- especially where we are trying to avoid the prospect that two or more groups trying to use the SAME limited frequencies effectively override each other so completely that that frequency becomes unusable to anybody.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves that your argument is academic and moot.  You give me the impression you might think otherwise.
Click to expand...


This is an online message board.  I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves that your argument is academic and moot.  You give me the impression you might think otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an online message board.  I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.
Click to expand...


Well, maybe in the least...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.
> 
> Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
> many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
> Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
> not available to all.  That is its unique characteristic,
> and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
> is subject to government regulation. * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.
> 
> Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that?  If so, how?  Why?
Click to expand...


I would say Frankfurter is incorrect.  I find nothing in the Constitution to back up the claim that the radio is subject to government regulation, also I find that the market can regulate more efficiently than the government.  Simply respect property rights in regards to radio airwaves and I see no problem.  As for regulating interstate commerce, that simply means that the federal government may strike down any trade barriers put up between the states.


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?



I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves.  The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"
> 
> Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.
> 
> But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want.  Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.
> 
> I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.
> 
> The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense.  Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit.  (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).
> 
> Now then:  Who does own our AIRWAVES?  The correct answer is WE DO.  But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation.  We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons.  Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves.  And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government.  The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't have to forbid the federal government from doing anything.  If it doesn't explicitly give them authority then they're not allowed to do it.  That's what the 10th Amendment tells us.
> 
> If the army and navy are implicit, then why does the Constitution mention them explicitly?  Because the framers knew that the Constitution had to explicitly spell out the powers of the federal government.  Implicit powers are the creation of statists intended to increase the power of the state.  I would support a constitutional amendment giving the federal government the power to maintain an air-force, but let's not pretend the Constitution actually gives them the power to do so implicitly.  That opens up pandora's box for statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentioned "Army" and "Navy" in terms of the military authority of the Federal Government because there was no other notion of an armed force.  The Air Force, however, is clearly implicit.
> 
> The constitution DOES provide for the Federal Government's AUTHORITY, moreover, with regard to interstate commerce.  And when it comes to regulating the airwaves, that is what the Federal government is doing.
Click to expand...


You're correct.  I wasn't questioning why they only mentioned Army and Navy, I was questioning why they felt the need to mention them at all if they're implicit powers.  The answer is because they knew that the Constitution must explicitly state what the federal government is authorized to do, and with that in mind I would say that a constitutional amendment is necessary for the air-force.

Yes, the Constitution says the federal government may regulate interstate commerce.  But regulate meant "to make regular," meaning that they were supposed to make interstate commerce regular.  Which means the states would not be permitted to enact protectionist trade policies against one another.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves that your argument is academic and moot.  You give me the impression you might think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an online message board.  I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, maybe in the least...
Click to expand...


I have no delusions of grandeur that the Supreme Court or any federal officials, or any officials whatsoever, are looking at my posts and rethinking their entire philosophy as it pertains to government.  I simply post what I think on here to engage with others and for my own amusement.


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly does that prove?  That they're already violating the Constitution?  One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves that your argument is academic and moot.  You give me the impression you might think otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an online message board.  I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.
Click to expand...


But this argument means nothing anywhere you have it, not just on an online messageboard.  Whether or not universal healthcare is a good thing or a bad thing on the other hand has real world implications, even if our opinions about it do not.

See the difference?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves.  The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.
Click to expand...


It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody.  One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves that your argument is academic and moot.  You give me the impression you might think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an online message board.  I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this argument means nothing anywhere you have it, not just on an online messageboard.  Whether or not universal healthcare is a good thing or a bad thing on the other hand has real world implications, even if our opinions about it do not.
> 
> See the difference?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that whether or not something is constitutional means nothing anywhere you have it?  Because I'd have to disagree.  I was merely responding to your accusation that I think my opinion has any more basis than just that, my opinion.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.
> 
> Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
> many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
> Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
> not available to all.  That is its unique characteristic,
> and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
> is subject to government regulation. * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.
> 
> Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that?  If so, how?  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say Frankfurter is incorrect.  I find nothing in the Constitution to back up the claim that the radio is subject to government regulation, also I find that the market can regulate more efficiently than the government.  Simply respect property rights in regards to radio airwaves and I see no problem.  As for regulating interstate commerce, that simply means that the federal government may strike down any trade barriers put up between the states.
Click to expand...


YOU see nothing in the Constitution "to back up the claim that the radio is subject to government regulation." Hm.  I'm afraid that doesn't quite settle the matter.

Of course the market can resolve lots of things, but it cannot necessarily resolve disputes such as the ones likely to develop where:

 Radio Station A in State X near the border of State Y uses the SAME frequency as Radio Station B in State Y near the border of State X.   The two radio stations using the same frequency creates a cacaphony rendering both stations largely useless where their transmissions overlap.  State X cannot regulate the frequency used by Radio Station B even though B's use interferes with Radio Station A IN State X.  And vice versa.  The problem is that the number of usable frequencies is limited.  And regulating this matter *does* involve interstate commerce.  

Your definition would seem to suggest that the only valid Federal say in interstate commerce matters is with regard to trade barriers (like taxes and tolls).  But there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that unduly limited interpretation.

The creation of the FCC was not an undue overreaching by the Feds.  It does involve ACTUAL interstate commerce and the Federal Government IS the logical entity in a large nation to craft reasonable rules to regulate the use and enjoyment of those airwaves.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an online message board.  I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe in the least...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no *delusions of grandeur* that the Supreme Court or any federal officials, or any officials whatsoever, are looking at my posts and rethinking their entire philosophy as it pertains to government.  I simply post what I think on here to engage with others and for my own amusement.
Click to expand...




I had an old English teacher (many many moons ago, alas) who used to enjoy tweaking his students by suggesting to them that they enjoyed *delusions of adequacy!*


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves.  The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody.  One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.
Click to expand...


It is your interpretation of the constitution that the government cannot own the airwaves.  Others would have a different interpretation.

The 5th amendment says that the government shall not take private property without just compensation.  That implies that the government can own property.  Thus, the government can own the airwaves.


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves.  The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody.  One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your interpretation of the constitution that the government cannot own the airwaves.  Others would have a different interpretation.
> 
> The 5th amendment says that the government shall not take private property without just compensation.  That implies that the government can own property.  Thus, the government can own the airwaves.
Click to expand...


they would have to buy them, which they could do anytime they like, whether the networks like it or not.


----------



## Zoom-boing

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861262 said:
			
		

> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I turned your volume down.  That was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I muted you both
Click to expand...


Ah, but did you crush my head as well?  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbETsbv1NZ4[/ame]


----------



## Screaming Eagle

I hate the way the commercials are always loud as hell and the show is quiet and you have to turn your tv up all the way just to hear it and then get blasted by the commercials. I only watch tv after leaving it paused long enough to skip all the commercials in a show. 

But I don't think it is the government's job to regulate television broadcasting volume levels unless there is a real public danger involved. Otherwise, federal, state, and local governments should all butt the hell out.


----------



## Toro

elvis3577 said:


> they would have to buy them, which they could do anytime they like, whether the networks like it or not.



Not if the government established domain over the airwaves before they were commercialized.  Isn't that how the federal government became the largest landowner in the West?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit?  You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube?  I can and I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or watch PBS.
> 
> *Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution*. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.
Click to expand...


You're right, better to remain motionless and let the noise of the network adverts pop an ear drum.  Seriously the remote is sitting right there, on the sofa or coffee table.  Just pick it up and lower the volume, change the channel, or hit mute.  It really works I just did it.


----------



## Ravi

elvis3577 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody.  One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your interpretation of the constitution that the government cannot own the airwaves.  Others would have a different interpretation.
> 
> The 5th amendment says that the government shall not take private property without just compensation.  That implies that the government can own property.  Thus, the government can own the airwaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they would have to buy them, which they could do anytime they like, whether the networks like it or not.
Click to expand...

Buy them from whom?

We the people own the airwaves. The airwaves are vital for national defense. We may regulate the airwaves as long as we don't infringe on someone's civil rights. There is no right to make things louder than they are...I really, really don't understand the problem some of the posters here are having with this concept.


----------



## Liability

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit?  You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube?  I can and I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or watch PBS.
> 
> *Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution*. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, better to remain motionless and let the noise of the network adverts pop an ear drum.  Seriously the remote is sitting right there, on the sofa or coffee table.  Just pick it up and lower the volume, change the channel, or hit mute.  It really works I just did it.
Click to expand...


As I noted before, yes, we can all do that.

BUT, why should we be compelled to do so?

By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?

If they have no particular right do do that (and they don't) then why can't we just impose a rule on their obnoxious asses that forces them to be civil?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Liability said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> or watch PBS.
> 
> *Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution*. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, better to remain motionless and let the noise of the network adverts pop an ear drum.  Seriously the remote is sitting right there, on the sofa or coffee table.  Just pick it up and lower the volume, change the channel, or hit mute.  It really works I just did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I noted before, yes, we can all do that.
> 
> BUT, why should we be compelled to do so?
> 
> By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?
> 
> If they have no particular right do do that (and they don't) then why can't we just impose a rule on their obnoxious asses that forces them to be civil?
Click to expand...


You do realize that they will just find others ways to be obnoxious, right?  Maybe loud commercials are better than whatever else they'll come up with . . . like the little adverts they have now for shows in the corner of the tv while your show is on.  They'll start putting ads for coke and sham-wow there.  Personally I find that way more annoying than a loud commercial because I have no control over it at all.  I do with commercials.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?



The same right you have to not own or even turn on a television. 

Just like the libbies you believe in positive rights.  Your angle is the same one used by them for universal health care, censorship, and any government take over of any private property.

It's quite amusing, contradictory, and flat out funny.


----------



## Ravi

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same right you have to not own or even turn on a television.
> 
> Just like the libbies you believe in positive rights.  Your angle is the same one used by them for universal health care, censorship, and any government take over of any private property.
> 
> It's quite amusing, contradictory, and flat out funny.
Click to expand...

Censorship is not allowed under the constitution.

Fail.

Nor is taking private property without compensation.

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

I didn't think so.


----------



## 2Parties

Ravi said:


> Censorship is not allowed under the constitution.



Just like the government not infringing on the right to bear arms.  Fail indeed.



> Nor is taking private property without compensation.



What are taxes?



> Have you ever actually read the constitution?
> 
> I didn't think so.



Yes, and I understand how pointless and worthless it really is.  It says censorship isn't allowed.  So what?  Censorship happens.

It says they can't take private property without compensation.  So what?  They do.


----------



## Ravi

Taxes are not without compensation.

The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech. 

How may more red herrings are you going to toss out before you admit that we own the airwaves and can regulate them in this manner?


----------



## 2Parties

Ravi said:


> Taxes are not without compensation.



Good luck proving that out.  It's supposed to be "just compensation" and I'm sure you could find tens of millions of Americans who would tell you (and rightly) they are not being justly compensated for them.



> The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.



They do.


----------



## elvis

2Parties said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are not without compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck proving that out.  It's supposed to be "just compensation" and I'm sure you could find tens of millions of Americans who would tell you (and rightly) they are not being justly compensated for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do.
Click to expand...


Do you not consider national defense just compensation?  or crime prevention?


----------



## 2Parties

elvis3577 said:


> Do you not consider national defense just compensation?  or crime prevention?



Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?

We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.


----------



## elvis

2Parties said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not consider national defense just compensation?  or crime prevention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?
> 
> We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.
Click to expand...


how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?


----------



## 2Parties

elvis3577 said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not consider national defense just compensation?  or crime prevention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?
> 
> We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?
Click to expand...


What is exactly involved in this scenario?  If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now I'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.  

If they were worse I don't really know, but I guarantee it's less than 100%.  If it was 100% for "just compensation" I'm nothing but a slave.


----------



## elvis

2Parties said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?
> 
> We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is exactly involved in this scenario?  If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now I'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.
> 
> If they were worse I don't really know, but I guarantee it's less than 100%.  If it was 100% for "just compensation" I'm nothing but a slave.
Click to expand...


Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iran under the current Mullahs.


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same right you have to not own or even turn on a television.
> 
> Just like the libbies you believe in positive rights.  Your angle is the same one used by them for universal health care, censorship, and any government take over of any private property.
> 
> It's quite amusing, contradictory, and flat out funny.
Click to expand...




There is no analog in your analogy.  Thus, it fails miserably.

No.  My right to own a TV is not dependent on any lease from the government.  You are wrong.

The broadcasters' and advertisers' rights to the USE of the PUBLIC's airwaves, by contrast, IS dependent on a lease from the government.

If it do not care for CNN or MSLSD, I am not obligated to turn on their biased shitty programming.  And I don't.

But if I am enjoying, at a comfortable decibel level, some show broadcast over those PUBLIC airwaves, then I damn well DO have a right to TELL the broadcaster and the advertisers not to blast my eardrums.  And in a representative democracy, I can tell them that in a number of ways _*including*_ having my congresscritters draft appropriate laws or give proper REGULATORY power to an agency along those lines.

There is not a hint of analog between that and having the government impose universal public healthcare on us.  Your contention is simply fraudulent.  There is also no valid hint of analog in anything I have said and any claim of power by the government to impose "censorship."  Control of volume, in the context we have been discussing it, is NOT even remotely akin to imposing censorship.  One can both agree with so much of the FCC's existence as achieves legitimate ends and disagree with any efforts by the FCC to censor free speech.

And no, the government is NOT properly allowed to "take" private property EXCEPT by eminent domain for properly limited purposes.  Somebody should have advised the fucking SCOTUS of that fact, however.  Under proper circumstances, and given proper fair payment, the government CAN take private property under eminent domain; but there is NO analog worthy of the name between that Constitutional authority and the regulatory limitation of the audible volume of a commercial on broadcast television.


----------



## 2Parties

elvis3577 said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is exactly involved in this scenario?  If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now I'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.
> 
> If they were worse I don't really know, but I guarantee it's less than 100%.  If it was 100% for "just compensation" I'm nothing but a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iran under the current Mullahs.
Click to expand...


What's your number?

I don't have one because I oppose all governments.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> The broadcasters' and advertisers' rights to the USE of the PUBLIC's airwaves, by contrast, IS dependent on a lease from the government.



As soon as permission is required it is no longer a right UNLESS it is a positive right.



> If it do not care for CNN or MSLSD, I am not obligated to turn on their biased shitty programming.  And I don't.



They broadcast on the public's airwaves.




> But if I am enjoying, at a comfortable decibel level, some show broadcast over those PUBLIC airwaves, then I damn well DO have a right to TELL the broadcaster and the advertisers not to blast my eardrums.



Sure you can tell them not to blast your eardrums.  They also would be perfectly justified to tell you to pound sand and completely eliminate all of their broadcasts.



> And in a representative democracy, I can tell them that in a number of ways _*including*_ having my congresscritters draft appropriate laws or give proper REGULATORY power to an agency along those lines.



So you resort to violence when a peaceful broadcaster provides you with a service you don't approve of.

I think I've seen this somewhere before.  In fact I've seen it numerous places.



> There is not a hint of analog between that and having the government impose universal public healthcare on us.



If I believed in the right to be provided a certain level of health care (decibel level of advertisements), and believed that the current system (they are too loud) was inadequate of I may just force insurance providers (television broadcasters) to do what I want because I deserve it.


----------



## elvis

2parties said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is exactly involved in this scenario?  If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now i'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.
> 
> If they were worse i don't really know, but i guarantee it's less than 100%.  If it was 100% for "just compensation" i'm nothing but a slave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nazi germany, soviet russia, or iran under the current mullahs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what's your number?
> 
> I don't have one because i oppose all governments.
Click to expand...


312-867-5309.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

elvis3577 said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are not without compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck proving that out.  It's supposed to be "just compensation" and I'm sure you could find tens of millions of Americans who would tell you (and rightly) they are not being justly compensated for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not consider national defense just compensation?  or crime prevention?
Click to expand...


They take my taxes to build another state's bridge to nowhere, give themselves golf carts, bailn out AIG, fly first-class on their vacations...

Cut Federal Spending First. Here, For Example. And Here&#8230; And Here&#8230; « Stop the Pork!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
 so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861811 said:
			
		

> The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
> so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.



The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate.  But, it serves its purpose as legal fictions go.  It is intended to connote that the airwaves cannot be held by a private company or companies thereby depriving all of us of the use of that medium.  So, it is not the "government" that "owns" the airwaves.  WE do and we ask the government to regulate its use so that none of us can be denied access to it.

Since they are OUR airwaves, we DO have the right to regulate their use (in terms of access).  That's why stations get leases for their use, not ownership.  

But WE do object if and/or when the government attempts, on that basis, to improperly regulate content.

That might get us into a debate on censorship and the actual meaning (original intention of the phrase) "freedom of speech."  That's a worthy topic of discussion in its own right.

But *WE* do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc.   By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."


----------



## The T

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861811 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
> so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate. But, it serves its purpose as legal fictions go. It is intended to connote that the airwaves cannot be held by a private company or companies thereby depriving all of us of the use of that medium. So, it is not the "government" that "owns" the airwaves. WE do and we ask the government to regulate its use so that none of us can be denied access to it.
> 
> Since they are OUR airwaves, we DO have the right to regulate their use (in terms of access). That's why stations get leases for their use, not ownership.
> 
> But WE do object if and/or when the government attempts, on that basis, to imporperly regulate content.
> 
> That might get us into a debate on censorship and the actual meaning (original intention of the phrase) "freedom of speech." That's a worthy topic of discussion in its own right.
> 
> But *WE* do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."
Click to expand...

 
*


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861811 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
> so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate...
> 
> But *WE* do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc.   By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."
Click to expand...


You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise. 

To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863112 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861811 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
> so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate...
> 
> But *WE* do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc.   By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.
> 
> To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.
Click to expand...


Nah.  You just have some problem keeping up is all.

WE do own it.  Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters.  But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.  If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same.  But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access.  So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it.  As a legal fiction, we all own it.  We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.

If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance.  The point remains.  You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it.  WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863112 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate...
> 
> But *WE* do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc.   By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.
> 
> To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.  You just have some problem keeping up is all.
> 
> WE do own it.  Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters.  But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.  If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same.  But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access.  So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it.  As a legal fiction, we all own it.  We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.
> 
> If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance.  The point remains.  You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it.  WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.
Click to expand...


My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863112 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.
> 
> To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.  You just have some problem keeping up is all.
> 
> WE do own it.  Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters.  But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.  If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same.  But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access.  So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it.  As a legal fiction, we all own it.  We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.
> 
> If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance.  The point remains.  You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it.  WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.
Click to expand...


True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech.  Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.

All analogies limp, of course.  But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.

And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own



When did we nationalize photons?


> to be controlled in its way by transmitters.  But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.


Uh... we do grant exclusive right to use certain frequencies. That's why FOX and MSNBC aren't allowed to jam eachother.


> If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same.  But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access.



You purchase the rights to another frequency- as you've said repeatedly.


> If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance


Because you're losing 

Regulation and ownership are not equivalent terms, you twit.


> .  The point remains.  You have no ownership right to that frequency* in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it*



Yes, you do. That's the whole point of the system.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863606 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did we nationalize photons?
Click to expand...


Never.  No need to.  That's why it is just a creative legal fiction.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863606 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be controlled in its way by transmitters.  But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... we do grant exclusive right to use certain frequencies. That's why FOX and MSNBC aren't allowed to jam eachother.
Click to expand...


No no.  Stop being obtuse.  Fox or MSLSD or ABC or CBS have TEMPORARY exclusive rights to use, which is the point I was making.  But they do not OWN jack shit.  I do not OWN an apartment, either, if I rent one.  When I rent, I have the right to exclude others from my TEMPORARY dwelling, true.  But it's still just a LEASE and not a fee simple ownership.

I snipped, at this point, the balance of your rather carelessly spewed post since you seem unwilling to be serious.

You can quibble all you wish, but the facts are not so easily swept under the proverbial rug.  Without this legal fiction that we all collectively own the airwaves, we could face radio/broadcast TV cacophony.  The legal fiction we chose to employ has been quite serviceable.  

I'd be interested in reading a serious suggestion for how to revise the system (along the line preferred by the "purists") that would not lead, inevitably, to the very problems the PRESENT SYSTEM successfully circumvents.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.  You just have some problem keeping up is all.
> 
> WE do own it.  Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters.  But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.  If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same.  But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access.  So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it.  As a legal fiction, we all own it.  We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.
> 
> If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance.  The point remains.  You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it.  WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech.  Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.
> 
> All analogies limp, of course.  But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.
> 
> And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.
Click to expand...


Control of speech?  It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863606 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did we nationalize photons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never.  No need to.  That's why it is just a creative legal fiction.
Click to expand...


So you're saying the masses don't own the energy radiated by radio/tv transmitters?

The key part of your post is 'fiction'.





> No no.  Stop being obtuse.  Fox or MSLSD or ABC or CBS have TEMPORARY exclusive rights to use, which is the point I was making.  But they do not OWN jack shit.  I do not OWN an apartment, either, if I rent one



You purchase the rights to it and it becomes your property (though not solely so) during the course of the contract. That is why there are restrictions on the landlord entering your apt.


> .  When I rent, I have the right to exclude others from my TEMPORARY dwelling, true.  But it's still just a LEASE and not a fee simple ownership.



The difference is that the  building is owned by a person or group of people.  Purchasing the rights to a bandwidth more closely resembles paying a fee for the gov'ts service in enforcing your right to free speech, using an allotted bandwidth to do so in a manner that does not conflict with the rights of other persons.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech.  Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.
> 
> All analogies limp, of course.  But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.
> 
> And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of speech?  It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.  The government does NOT own the airwaves.  WE do.  We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.

The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se.  It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.  

To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I _start_ to share your concerns.  

However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.

SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.  

OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned *not* with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.

As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment).  That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion.  But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition.  If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> The government does NOT own the airwaves.


AMERICAN CIVICS: LESSON 1

the government = 'we the people'


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863718 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government does NOT own the airwaves.
> 
> 
> 
> AMERICAN CIVICS: LESSON 1
> 
> the government = 'we the people'
Click to expand...


Actually, the Federal government is WE, the States.  The phrase "we the people" is a bit misleading.  In America, we, the PEOPLE are sovereign, but that doesn't mean that we did not create a government.  And we recognize that governments take on powers -- and this poses dangers.  So we deliberately restricted the authority of the government and diligently went about setting up lots of impediments to the improper use of powers by the federal government.

The PEOPLE reserve onto themselves certain authority and deny it to the gubmint.

The PEOPLE own the airwaves.  We ask the government, in our name, to do the business of regulating it, in terms of access, in order to prevent individuals or corporations from effectively denying us access to OUR airwaves.  But the federal government, technically, doesn't "own" shit.

It does lay claim in various ways (like national parks, etc) to "ownership" of property, but when we scratch the surface of such claims, we see that it is just an imprecise use of language.  Much like what you just did.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech.  Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.
> 
> All analogies limp, of course.  But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.
> 
> And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Control of speech?  It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The government does NOT own the airwaves.  WE do.  We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.
> 
> The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se.  It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.
> 
> To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I _start_ to share your concerns.
> 
> However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.
> 
> SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.
> 
> OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned *not* with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.
> 
> As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment).  That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion.  But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition.  If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.
Click to expand...


This is taking us away from the point.  That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves.  Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions.  The market remains better at regulation than government.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Control of speech?  It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The government does NOT own the airwaves.  WE do.  We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.
> 
> The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se.  It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.
> 
> To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I _start_ to share your concerns.
> 
> However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.
> 
> SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.
> 
> OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned *not* with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.
> 
> As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment).  That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion.  But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition.  If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is taking us away from the point.  That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves.  Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions.  The market remains better at regulation than government.
Click to expand...


No.  That is NOT "the point."  It is your merely contention.  And your contention is based on a false premise.

I have already addressed that mistake you make.

The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.  

The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The government does NOT own the airwaves.  WE do.  We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.
> 
> The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se.  It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.
> 
> To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I _start_ to share your concerns.
> 
> However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.
> 
> SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.
> 
> OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned *not* with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.
> 
> As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment).  That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion.  But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition.  If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is taking us away from the point.  That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves.  Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions.  The market remains better at regulation than government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  That is NOT "the point."  It is your merely contention.  And your contention is based on a false premise.
> 
> I have already addressed that mistake you make.
> 
> The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.
> 
> The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.
Click to expand...


Yes, my contention, or my point.  Same thing.

It doesn't deprive you of access at all.  You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is taking us away from the point.  That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves.  Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions.  The market remains better at regulation than government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is NOT "the point."  It is your merely contention.  And your contention is based on a false premise.
> 
> I have already addressed that mistake you make.
> 
> The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.
> 
> The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, my contention, or my point.  Same thing.
> 
> It doesn't deprive you of access at all.  You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.
Click to expand...


You miss the point.  There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.

The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us.  The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.

And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own?  Who do they "buy" that frequency from?  If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?  If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?



The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous.  Common sense.


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous.  Common sense.
Click to expand...


Common sense.  Hm.  You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.


----------



## RadiomanATL

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous.  Common sense.
Click to expand...


Uhhh...

no.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?


The same thing that keeps you from turning the volume all the way up on your stereo system when you don't buy the right to have a radio. The same thing that keeps me from showing up at someone else's demonstration, taking over their stage, and turning turning the volume up louder than theirs.

The laws in these instances all serve the same purpose: regulating and limiting the right to free speech in order to better protect everyone's rights.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous.  Common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common sense.  Hm.  You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.
Click to expand...


Most people really don't act like you think they do.  The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.

Most people don't blast their car stereos.
Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.

If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous.  Common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.  Hm.  You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people really don't act like you think they do.  The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.
> 
> Most people don't blast their car stereos.
> Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
> Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.
> 
> If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.
Click to expand...


Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.

But, psssst.

If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find (if you are honest and if you had the ability to notice little things that jump off the freakin' page all the time)?

CRIMINALS.

Yup.  It's twue.  It's twue!

Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?

Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle!   They even had a name for that kind of thing:  "cattle rustlers!"

And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?

No?

Look it up.

How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it?  That's RIGHT.  You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864104 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that keeps you from turning the volume all the way up on your stereo system when you don't buy the right to have a radio. The same thing that keeps me from showing up at someone else's demonstration, taking over their stage, and turning turning the volume up louder than theirs.
> 
> The laws in these instances all serve the same purpose: regulating and limiting the right to free speech in order to better protect everyone's rights.
Click to expand...


No.  Your "examples" are non-responsive.  Entirely so.

If you show up at the performance of some other guy's band (when that band bought the stage time and the right to benefit from the sale of the tickets at that venue and you didn't) the police would toss your ass the fuck out and probably arrest you because you are not allowed to steal the other guy's license rights.

But if there is nobody to SELL the airwaves to you, then your use of it is just a brute claim of "right" which is not legally superior to MY claim of right.  I claim it because I choose to try to exploit it.  It's right there in the ether.  Who the fuck is gonna stop me?  YOU?

Now, you MIGHT object and say some silly crap like, "but i was here first!"  

"Wah wah wah.  Tough titties.  I was here second and my wattage is bigger than your, so fuck off," I might just respond.  

These kind of disputes are NORMALLY settled by resort to the law.  But, *according to you*, there is no "law" here since the airwaves and the frequencies cannot be "owned."  And if they cannot be "owned" then nobody can lease them to limit the access to them in any kind of orderly way.  Your right is NOT then superior to my right.  We can squabble over it, but you lose your right to exploit it profitably if you can't exclude me -- so you're screwed.  Bugger off!

As I said before, WE employ the legal fiction in order to create the conditions whereby the frequencies CAN be exploited profitably.  And unless we do, it's anarchy, chaos and cacophony.  Hey.  That can be fun, too, I suppose.  But the radio signals are gonna sound like shit.  SKRRRRRRttttttchhhzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Emma

Why do you even bother?


----------



## Liability

Emma said:


> Why do you even bother?



Who?  Me?

I'm on a (more or less educational) mission from God!


----------



## Emma

Liability said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you even bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?  Me?
> 
> I'm on a (more or less educational) mission from God!
Click to expand...


Could you at least sing and dance for us? 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTJeT2i9QU[/ame]


----------



## blu

Liability said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.  Hm.  You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people really don't act like you think they do.  The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.
> 
> Most people don't blast their car stereos.
> Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
> Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.
> 
> If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.
> 
> But, psssst.
> 
> If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find (if you are honest and if you had the ability to notice little things that jump off the freakin' page all the time)?
> 
> CRIMINALS.
> 
> Yup.  It's twue.  It's twue!
> 
> *Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?
> 
> Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle!   They even had a name for that kind of thing:  "cattle rustlers!"*
> 
> And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?
> 
> No?
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it?  That's RIGHT.  You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.
Click to expand...


ummmmm don't you mean its because cows of different owners get mixed up in the field and they need an easy way to sort them out?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is NOT "the point."  It is your merely contention.  And your contention is based on a false premise.
> 
> I have already addressed that mistake you make.
> 
> The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.
> 
> The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my contention, or my point.  Same thing.
> 
> It doesn't deprive you of access at all.  You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.
> 
> The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us.  The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.
> 
> And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own?  Who do they "buy" that frequency from?  If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?  If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.
Click to expand...


There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.


----------



## RadiomanATL

This thread is tasty.


----------



## Ravi

Liability has performed some extreme pwnage on this thread. 

Not surprised that JB doesn't comprehend and sorry to see that KK's blinders are so firmly in place.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> But if there is nobody to SELL the airwaves to you, then your use of it  is just a brute claim of "right" which is not legally superior to MY  claim of right.  I claim it because I choose to try to exploit it.  It's  right there in the ether.  Who the fuck is gonna stop me?  YOU?



But if there is nobody to SELL the right to free speech to you, then your use of it  is just a brute claim of "right" which is not legally superior to MY  claim of right.  I claim it because I choose to try to exploit it.  It's  right there in the ether.  Who the fuck is gonna stop me?  YOU?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> *according to you*, there is no "law" here since the airwaves and the frequencies cannot be "owned."  And if they cannot be "owned" then nobody can lease them to limit the access to them in any kind of orderly way.



Are you retarded?


GO read my posts again, slowly, with the help of an adult.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864889 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> *according to you*, there is no "law" here since the airwaves and the frequencies cannot be "owned."  And if they cannot be "owned" then nobody can lease them to limit the access to them in any kind of orderly way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you retarded?
> 
> 
> GO read my posts again, slowly, with the help of an adult.
Click to expand...


No ya whining shithead.  Just addressing your ignorant questions.

Why the fuck are you asking your idiot questions if you concede that there are appropriate laws needed to regulate the airwaves for purposes of access?  

Do you argue just to see your dopey words posted, you twit?

Go fuck off.  As I noted before, it makes sense to discuss these things with Kevin Kennedy and guys like him, because at least they have the ability to follow along even if they disagree.  You?  Not so much.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> Just addressing your ignorant questions.



I asked no questions. i corrected you.

Why do you lie and purposely misrepresent what people say?


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my contention, or my point.  Same thing.
> 
> It doesn't deprive you of access at all.  You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.
> 
> The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us.  The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.
> 
> And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own?  Who do they "buy" that frequency from?  If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?  If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.
Click to expand...


A silly rejoinder, Kevin.  As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech.  Finite frequencies do.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

What if there are finite locations where one may speak freely?


----------



## Liability

blu said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people really don't act like you think they do.  The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.
> 
> Most people don't blast their car stereos.
> Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
> Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.
> 
> If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.
> 
> But, psssst.
> 
> If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find (if you are honest and if you had the ability to notice little things that jump off the freakin' page all the time)?
> 
> CRIMINALS.
> 
> Yup.  It's twue.  It's twue!
> 
> *Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?
> 
> Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle!   They even had a name for that kind of thing:  "cattle rustlers!"*
> 
> And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?
> 
> No?
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it?  That's RIGHT.  You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummmmm don't you mean its because cows of different owners get mixed up in the field and they need an easy way to sort them out?
Click to expand...


Uuuummmm.  No.

That is, in fact, just one reason cows are branded.  Another reason cows, or horses, etc., get branded is so that I might have some evidence that some fucker stole MY cow or MY horse.

I can own a cow and exclude your right to use it.   Ownership of property is clearly recognized in the law and tools to enforce my exclusive right are well known.

But unless we create some legal method to preserve one's claimed exclusive right to use a radio frequency, how the fuck can anybody exclude another person's use of that very same frequency in some area?  The frequencies are simply OUT THERE in the ether.  I cannot brand them or put a Lojack on them.  What *IS* my claim of right to use that frequency?   Where does it come from?  Without laws and regulations, your right to try to exploit the frequency is not superior to my right to try to do so.  What are you gonna do?  Bully me?  Well, fuck you.  Maybe I'll just bully your ass instead.  Or that third guy might try to bully both of us and vice versa.

To avoid these problems and related problems (like our competition over that frequency making it unusable to all), we engage in the legal fiction that the public owns the airwaves and the public has their servant, the government, write the laws and rules and regulations that avoid those problems, granting temporary leases to those who wish to exploit certain frequencies.  

NOW we have a mechanism to make my right to exploit that frequency exclusive (at least for as long as I have the lease rights and can get that lease renewed).  Now there is a legal right that the government can enforce.  NOW if you try to exploit the frequnecy to which I have the legal lease rights, the LAW recognizes my legal right and will shut you down.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865008 said:
			
		

> What if there are finite locations where one may speak freely?



Try to stop being an asshole.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> To avoid these problems and related problems (like our competition over that frequency making it unusable to all), we engage in the legal fiction that the public owns the airwaves and the public has their servant, the government, write the laws and rules and regulations that avoid those problems, granting temporary leases to those who wish to exploit certain frequencies.
> 
> NOW we have a mechanism to make my right to exploit that frequency exclusive (at least for as long as I have the lease rights and can get that lease renewed).  Now there is a legal right that the government can enforce.  NOW if you try to exploit the frequnecy to which I have the legal lease rights, the LAW recognizes my legal right and will shut you down.



Bravo.


----------



## 2Parties

> If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find?
> 
> CRIMINALS.



Who took more from the American people this year?  Petty criminals or government?

You, like most Americans, believe if you set up a giant monopolistic governing body it will generally work in the best interest of the people they govern (to regulate airwaves, to protect us, etc.).  The problem is that will never happen.  Real monopolies (not Wal-Mart) don't work like that.  This governing body, by it's very nature, will attract criminals.  That's why you see so many of them at the highest level of government.

You are a utopian just like the leftists who want national health care, art funding, without the military.  You want the military without the national health care and art funding.  Hint: If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find? That governments don't work like that.  You are going to get both.



> Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?
> 
> Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle!   They even had a name for that kind of thing:  "cattle rustlers!"



If I wanted to spend my entire income on cattle I'd automatically have half my cattle "rustled" by government...

...and you'd be ok with that.



> And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?



The principal behind it (I refuse to get into a "legal" debate as their are numerous contradicting laws on some things) is that someone is occupying or taking something that is not rightfully theirs.  This is something you refuse to understand.



> How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it?  That's RIGHT.  You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.



Isn't it mysterious that oil drillers have ties to government and get away with it?  Isn't it shocking the government isn't protecting the innocent person by enforcing regulations against this? Not really.

You are always going to have crime.  I get it.  I also understand that creating a giant governing body that forcefully takes large chunks of income is the larger crime, and that's something you refuse to see.


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find?
> 
> CRIMINALS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who took more from the American people this year?  Petty criminals or government?
> 
> You, like most Americans, believe if you set up a giant monopolistic governing body it will generally work in the best interest of the people they govern (to regulate airwaves, to protect us, etc.).  The problem is that will never happen.  Real monopolies (not Wal-Mart) don't work like that.  This governing body, by it's very nature, will attract criminals.  That's why you see so many of them at the highest level of government.
> 
> You are a utopian just like the leftists who want national health care, art funding, without the military.  You want the military without the national health care and art funding.  Hint: If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find? That governments don't work like that.  You are going to get both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?
> 
> Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle!   They even had a name for that kind of thing:  "cattle rustlers!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I wanted to spend my entire income on cattle I'd automatically have half my cattle "rustled" by government...
> 
> ...and you'd be ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principal behind it (I refuse to get into a "legal" debate as their are numerous contradicting laws on some things) is that someone is occupying or taking something that is not rightfully theirs.  This is something you refuse to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it?  That's RIGHT.  You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it mysterious that oil drillers have ties to government and get away with it?  Isn't it shocking the government isn't protecting the innocent person by enforcing regulations against this? Not really.
> 
> You are always going to have crime.  I get it.  I also understand that creating a giant governing body that forcefully takes large chunks of income is the larger crime, and that's something you refuse to see.
Click to expand...


Although unduly long-winded, your silly rambling post is essentially non-responsive.

Of course we are always going to have crime.  And government includes (wait for it) police.  But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking.  The solution?   Hm.

Real poser.

Your "argument" makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## 2Parties

Liability said:


> But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking.



How much can they rightfully take?

If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.



> The solution?   Hm.



Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals.  Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.

Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"?  Nah.


----------



## Liability

2Parties said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much can they rightfully take?
> 
> If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.
Click to expand...


I'd like to believe that nobody is as stupid as that response you just vomited makes it appear you are.  But, clearly, you ARE just that stupid.

Who the fuck actually objects to paying fair and reasonable taxes for valid and desired public services like sanitation and police and courts, etc.  



2Parties said:


> The solution?   Hm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals.  Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.
> 
> Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"?  Nah.
Click to expand...




Yeah.  Excellent advice.  "Don't get entangled with criminals."  Brilliant!  

Nevermind the fact that THEY sometimes have different ideas, you nitwit.

I have no clue what the fuck you are attempting to "say" in that last line, however.

It may be that your mental retardation just impedes any hint of a possibility you might otherwise have to offer meaningful communication.


----------



## Paulie

It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.

That doesn't make any sense to me.  You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud?  You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?

WTF???


----------



## Liability

Paulie said:


> It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me.  You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud?  You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?
> 
> WTF???



We all can do that, sure.  But none of us should HAVE to.

And besides, no matter how inconsequential this legislation is, it is STILL true that I'd prefer the idiots in Congress spend lots of time on this crap than ANY time on most of the rest of what they are doing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.
> 
> The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us.  The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.
> 
> And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own?  Who do they "buy" that frequency from?  If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?  If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A silly rejoinder, Kevin.  As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech.  Finite frequencies do.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic.  I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.  Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite.  So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?


----------



## The T

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A silly rejoinder, Kevin. As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech. Finite frequencies do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
Click to expand...

 
Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?

It's been denied to their people.

*Story*


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.unless we create some legal method to preserve one's claimed exclusive right to use a radio frequency, how the fuck can anybody exclude another person's use of that very same frequency in some area?


 
TRhw way we do now 

BTW, the same frequency is use by multiple parties. 98.8 FM or 640Am will oft be different in different cities. They just don't allot two transmitters in the same area the same frequency.


> What *IS* my claim of right to use that frequency?


 
The same as your right to use a bullhorn. Should you purchase, lease, or otherwise have accessto the equipment, you may use it to exerciseyourright to free speech so long as you do not violate the rights of others. Just as there are laws restricting when, where, and how I may se a bullhorn, there are laws regarding when, where, and how I may use a radio transmitter- how poerful a signal I may emit, what frequency/ies I may use, and what I can use it for

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if there are finite locations where one may speak freely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to stop being an asshole.
Click to expand...

 Why do you refuse to answer?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Paulie said:


> It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?
> 
> WTF???


 It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A silly rejoinder, Kevin.  As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech.  Finite frequencies do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic.  I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.  Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite.  So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
Click to expand...


Of course a finite number remains finite.  That's not changed by who allocates the distribution of frequencies.

The point is that BECAUSE they are finite, if we were to permit some corporations to simply seize permanent control over the finite number of frequencies, we would end up with NO available frequencies.  But, because we ask the government to do the allocating of that finite number -- as leases -- the frequencies do not become private property and forever unavailable.  And because we employ the legal fiction  that the airwaves belong to ALL of us, we can also impose conditions on HOW the corporations may use those LEASED airwaves -- such as forbidding them from denying us all access to the airwaves.

If the airwaves are OURS, not the "private property" of ABC or MSLSD, then WE reserve some of our access to those airwaves.  But as soon as the "market" does the allocating without the rules and regulations of the government, then the private property owners would inevitably and almost certainly lay claim to the right to completely EXCLUDE us in order to more fully exploit their "property."

If I own the land I have my house on, I can damn well exclude you.  But if the government "owns" that land (in the limited sense of holding it FOR us), then when they LEASE that land to a company, they can absolutely place conditions on that lease (like, "thou shalt not restrict the public from the use and enjoyment of this land for X number of hours per week.")


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

The T said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A silly rejoinder, Kevin. As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech. Finite frequencies do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?
> 
> It's been denied to their people.
Click to expand...

 Yel L is the one effectively saying the government owns the frequencies. No matter how he tries to spin it, whenever he says' we' as in the collective, he means the government. He makes this clear with every post.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
			
		

> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?
> 
> WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
Click to expand...


Blather and nonsense.  Not unexpected from you.

You are, of course, again, simply wrong.

I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.

I do, however, fully disagree with _your_ contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."

It is NOT "unneeded."  It is needed.  And, it has worked out fairly well.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865812 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?
> 
> It's been denied to their people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yel L is the one effectively saying the government owns the frequencies. No matter how he tries to spin it, whenever he says' we' as in the collective, he means the government. He makes this clear with every post.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  I am saying no such thing and no matter how you try to spin what I am saying, your falsehoods do not change diddly dog.

WE own the frequencies.  The government really cannot "own" private property, if we care to speak in a highly technical sense.  

Because WE own it, we USE the government as our AGENT to provide the laws, rules and regulations necessary to insure that WE get the benefit of the airwaves while still permitting them to be exploited by private companies.

That a dufus like you cannot comprehend this is telling about you, sickle boi.  But the tale it tells about you is kinda pathetic.

When I say "we" -- despite your ineffectual and dishonest effort to distort what I said and what I still mean -- I mean "we."


----------



## The T

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865812 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?
> 
> It's been denied to their people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yel L is the one effectively saying the government owns the frequencies. No matter how he tries to spin it, whenever he says' we' as in the collective, he means the government. He makes this clear with every post.
Click to expand...

 
No. The _people_ DO, and the FCC manages it at our behest, and the Creation of the FCC via the Communications Act of 1934. It's a regulation body. Liability is correct.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.


 
So you are against this bill?


> I do, however, fully disagree with _your_ contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."
> 
> It is NOT "unneeded." It is needed. And, it has worked out fairly well.


 
To which matter do you refer? The original bill this thread used to be about (which is what I was referring to), or the regulation of broadcasting frequencies?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

You've made it clear that you mean the collective and thatyou view the government as the embodimentof the collective (unless you reject the FF and the principles upon which this nmation was built).


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865847 said:
			
		

> You've made it clear that you mean the collective and thatyou view the government as the embodimentof the collective (unless you reject the FF and the principles upon which this nmation was built).



No I have made no such thing clear to you.  YOU, however, have _chosen_ to engage in obvious deliberate distortion to suit your purpose.  That only shows that you are dishonest.  And it serves to underscore that you cannot support your position without resorting to your lies.

Ho hum.

Your utter lack of comprehension of the principles upon which our Republic was based is revealed more fully with each one of your blathering silly posts.


----------



## The T

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865841 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against this bill?
> 
> 
> 
> I do, however, fully disagree with _your_ contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."
> 
> It is NOT "unneeded." It is needed. And, it has worked out fairly well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which matter do you refer? The original bill this thread used to be about (which is what I was referring to), or the regulation of broadcasting frequencies?
Click to expand...

 
The airwaves must be regulated for fair use at the behest of the people. That's why owners of broadcast stations are licensed, and have to uphold technical standards that promote their use for the people to the fullest extent. And while ensuring that no station interferes with another.

Now let us not confuse this issue with _content._ That is wholly a different matter, and falls into other Constitutional areas. But the medium is a vehicle of speech. That much is certain.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865841 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against this bill?
> 
> 
> 
> I do, however, fully disagree with _your_ contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."
> 
> It is NOT "unneeded." It is needed. And, it has worked out fairly well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which matter do you refer? The original bill this thread used to be about (which is what I was referring to), or the regulation of broadcasting frequencies?
Click to expand...


Good grief are you a dunce.

  The regulation of broadcasting frequencies is exactly why it is perfectly appropriate for the gubmint to pass laws or regulations regarding the matter of the volume of commercials.


----------



## The T

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865841 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against this bill?
> 
> 
> 
> I do, however, fully disagree with _your_ contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."
> 
> It is NOT "unneeded." It is needed. And, it has worked out fairly well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which matter do you refer? The original bill this thread used to be about (which is what I was referring to), or the regulation of broadcasting frequencies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief are you a dunce.
> 
> The regulation of broadcasting frequencies is exactly why it is perfectly appropriate for the gubmint to pass laws or regulations regarding the matter of the volume of commercials.
Click to expand...

 
Tech Standards that every station must comply lest they lose their license. And it is monitored. Trust me. And as it is in the Commercial Two-Way radio market. Same thing applies as to spectural purity.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

The T said:


> The airwaves must be regulated for fair use at the behest of the people...
> 
> Now let us not confuse this issue with _content._


 
Glad you finally get it


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865841 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against this bill?
> 
> 
> 
> I do, however, fully disagree with _your_ contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."
> 
> It is NOT "unneeded." It is needed. And, it has worked out fairly well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which matter do you refer? The original bill this thread used to be about (which is what I was referring to), or the regulation of broadcasting frequencies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief are you a dunce.
> 
> The regulation of broadcasting frequencies is exactly why it is perfectly appropriate for the gubmint to pass laws or regulations regarding the matter of the volume of commercials.
Click to expand...

 
Fail. Demonstrtethat loud slaphop commercials prevent another commercial from coming on. None of the arguments for regulatng bradcast frequencies are applicale here.


----------



## The T

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865897 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The airwaves must be regulated for fair use at the behest of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you finally get it
Click to expand...

 
Yes I do...but from a purely _technical _standpoint. And much the case/cause of this thread.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Therecorded volume of the commercials or show in _content_, which you can choose whether or not to view/listen to yourself.

Enough of this nanny state bullshit. How pathetic are you people? Next, you'll want the government to program your DVR for you and tell you whatbooks to read.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865902 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865841 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against this bill?
> 
> 
> To which matter do you refer? The original bill this thread used to be about (which is what I was referring to), or the regulation of broadcasting frequencies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief are you a dunce.
> 
> The regulation of broadcasting frequencies is exactly why it is perfectly appropriate for the gubmint to pass laws or regulations regarding the matter of the volume of commercials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail. Demonstrtethat loud slaphop commercials prevent another commercial from coming on. None of the arguments for regulatng bradcast frequencies are applicale here.
Click to expand...


No, idiot.  YOU fail again.   I attribute your continued stupidity on this topic to your severe mental retardation. 

Once we recognize that the airwaves are OURS and that we have permitted (even asked) the Federal Government to allocate the USE of the airwaves by proper laws, rules and regulations, then we can impose any reasonable regulation on how they broadcast their stuff.  

Once that authority of the government is recognized, there is *no Constitutional infirmity* which would prohibit us from imposing on the lessors (i.e., the broadcasters) rules regarding commercial advertising volume.  The point is that the property is OURS.  WE get to say how it can be used.  Those rules and regulations may not (permissibly) regulate what can be said (except in circumstances not relevant to this discussion at the moment).  But there's no problem -- Constitutionally or otherwise-- in telling the lessors that they are not free to blast our eardrums.

If a bunch of us own some land and we ask a land management agent to lease that land to companies who can use it to generate a profit (God bless them), then we can impose various lease restrictions on those lease-holders as a term of the lease.  The different form the "property" takes in the case of broadcasting doesn't alter that princple in any meaningful way.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

:yawn:

You didn't demonstrate how a loud slaopchop commercial interferes with any other advertiser's rights or inhibits anyone's freespeech. You ad homs sefrve as evidence that you cannot do so.

Funny how statists like you cite the authority given to the State, not the reasons a gven authority was granted, as justifuication for the State assuming more power than it was granted or can be justified.

You sound like a Democrat.


----------



## The T

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865917 said:
			
		

> Therecorded volume of the commercials or show in _content_, which you can choose whether or not to view/listen to yourself.
> 
> Enough of this nanny state bullshit. How pathetic are you people? Next, you'll want the government to program your DVR for you and tell you whatbooks to read.


 

Dude? (Dudette)? This is a matter of spectural purity, and practices. SURE it's a damned annoyance. But I don't recall anyone stating they want government wants anyone to program their DVR...(or for the much-less incompitent getting the flashing 12:00 AM on them to go away).

What we are talking here is keeping levels at an equal level and that means program content as well as commercials. And that lies at the feet of the engineers whom run the boards at these stations.

In any case? it IS an annoyance, and YES I change the frequency I am watching when it happens. Should Government be telling stations to adhere to tech standards?


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865917 said:
			
		

> *Therecorded volume of the commercials or show in content, which you can choose whether or not to view/listen to yourself.*
> 
> Enough of this nanny state bullshit. How pathetic are you people? Next, you'll want the government to program your DVR for you and tell you whatbooks to read.



Sickle boi claims, "The recorded volume of the commercials or show [is] _content_, which you can choose whether or not to view/listen to yourself."  

No, ya dishonest twit.  Volume is volume.  It is not content.

Here, let me symbolically demonstrate it for you, you jerkoff.

 {Whispered:}   "Sickle boi is a moron." 

 {Shouted.}      "*Sickle boi is a moron.*" 

See?  Exactly the SAME content.  Just different volumes.

And it is not "nanny state" for the owners (us) to ask the agent (the government) to put some restrictions into a lease so that the lessors are put on notice that we demand quiet enjoyment of OUR property.

You remain the pathetic one here.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> this is a matter of spectural purity,


 
No, it's not. Just because the show has a louder recording volume doesn't mean it causes the broadcast signal to bleed into the surroubnding frequencies.


> I don't recall anyone stating they want government wants anyone to program their DVR


 
They want them to mute or turn fdown their TVs for them. It's the same damned thing. They want the government to push a button for them.


> What we are talking here is keeping levels at an equal level and that means program content as well as commercials.


 
All of which is content of the broadcast. If you don't like it, get together and cease to pay for service until it changes. Or get a Tivo or a DVR or hiot the mute button.



> In any case? it IS an annoyance, and YES I change the frequency I am watching when it happens. Should Government be telling stations to adhere to tech standards?


 
Only insomuch as the regulation serves to protect free speech and enterprise, as the regulation of broadcast frequencies does.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> See? Exactly the SAME content. Just different volumes.


 
Actually, it's different content, but I don't expect you to know anything about such technical matters or much of anything else. Two copies of the same audio clip recordedat different volumes arwenot identical. How you can fail to grasp that, I don't know. Perhaps you're simply totally ignorant of how data is stored and transmitted.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865973 said:
			
		

> See? Exactly the SAME content. Just different volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's different content, but I don't expect you to know anything about such technical matters or much of anything else. Two copies of the same audio clip recordedat different volumes arwenot identical. How you can fail to grasp that, I don't know. Perhaps you're simply totally ignorant of how data is stored and transmitted.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot.

The CONTENT is the message.

The volume is the volume, not the message itself, nitwit.

You are not even remotely honest.

It would have been easier (and honest) of you to just admit that you were a buffoon or even to just accept the proper bitch slapping response you received to you asshol post.

But since you are just an asshole, your dishonest reply to the beat down you took is not unexpected.


----------



## The T

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865969 said:
			
		

> this is a matter of spectural purity,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. Just because the show has a louder recording volume doesn't mean it causes the broadcast signal to bleed into the surroubnding frequencies.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone stating they want government wants anyone to program their DVR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want them to mute or turn fdown their TVs for them. It's the same damned thing. They want the government to push a button for them.
> 
> 
> 
> What we are talking here is keeping levels at an equal level and that means program content as well as commercials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of which is content of the broadcast. If you don't like it, get together and cease to pay for service until it changes. Or get a Tivo or a DVR or hiot the mute button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case? it IS an annoyance, and YES I change the frequency I am watching when it happens. Should Government be telling stations to adhere to tech standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only insomuch as the regulation serves to protect free speech and enterprise, as the regulation of broadcast frequencies does.
Click to expand...

 
I can see the TECH stuff has you a bit confused. I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A silly rejoinder, Kevin.  As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech.  Finite frequencies do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic.  I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.  Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite.  So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course a finite number remains finite.  That's not changed by who allocates the distribution of frequencies.
> 
> The point is that BECAUSE they are finite, if we were to permit some corporations to simply seize permanent control over the finite number of frequencies, we would end up with NO available frequencies.  But, because we ask the government to do the allocating of that finite number -- as leases -- the frequencies do not become private property and forever unavailable.  And because we employ the legal fiction  that the airwaves belong to ALL of us, we can also impose conditions on HOW the corporations may use those LEASED airwaves -- such as forbidding them from denying us all access to the airwaves.
> 
> If the airwaves are OURS, not the "private property" of ABC or MSLSD, then WE reserve some of our access to those airwaves.  But as soon as the "market" does the allocating without the rules and regulations of the government, then the private property owners would inevitably and almost certainly lay claim to the right to completely EXCLUDE us in order to more fully exploit their "property."
> 
> If I own the land I have my house on, I can damn well exclude you.  But if the government "owns" that land (in the limited sense of holding it FOR us), then when they LEASE that land to a company, they can absolutely place conditions on that lease (like, "thou shalt not restrict the public from the use and enjoyment of this land for X number of hours per week.")
Click to expand...


I simply don't except the notion that it's bad that a corporation or any other private entity own a frequency.  You accept the notion that you can exclude people from your land, but why is that not bad?  It's a conflicting argument to say that it's ok to exclude people from your privately owned land, but it's bad if you can exclude people from interfering with your privately owned frequency.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic.  I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.  Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite.  So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course a finite number remains finite.  That's not changed by who allocates the distribution of frequencies.
> 
> The point is that BECAUSE they are finite, if we were to permit some corporations to simply seize permanent control over the finite number of frequencies, we would end up with NO available frequencies.  But, because we ask the government to do the allocating of that finite number -- as leases -- the frequencies do not become private property and forever unavailable.  And because we employ the legal fiction  that the airwaves belong to ALL of us, we can also impose conditions on HOW the corporations may use those LEASED airwaves -- such as forbidding them from denying us all access to the airwaves.
> 
> If the airwaves are OURS, not the "private property" of ABC or MSLSD, then WE reserve some of our access to those airwaves.  But as soon as the "market" does the allocating without the rules and regulations of the government, then the private property owners would inevitably and almost certainly lay claim to the right to completely EXCLUDE us in order to more fully exploit their "property."
> 
> If I own the land I have my house on, I can damn well exclude you.  But if the government "owns" that land (in the limited sense of holding it FOR us), then when they LEASE that land to a company, they can absolutely place conditions on that lease (like, "thou shalt not restrict the public from the use and enjoyment of this land for X number of hours per week.")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I simply don't except the notion that it's bad that a corporation or any other private entity own a frequency.  You accept the notion that you can exclude people from your land, but why is that not bad?  It's a conflicting argument to say that it's ok to exclude people from your privately owned land, but it's bad if you can exclude people from interfering with your privately owned frequency.
Click to expand...


Yes, I accept the basic premise of private property that gives me the right to exclude others from my land or the use of my property.

But, no.  There is no conflict whatsoever in maintaining that, as I do, and also recognizing that there are some things in this world that are not subject to being privately owned.  

Do you own the air?

Does anyone?

In the movie Total Recall, up there on Mars, a private company did own the air.   In reality, here on Earth, that would be a stupendously idiotic notion.

The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air.  Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.

Similarly, radio frequencies are there for all of us to use.  If we permitted unconditioned private property rights over radio frequencies, sooner or later very few of us would have access to that medium and that would dangerously impede the public's ability to engage in speech.

In order to obtain commercial benefit over radio frequencies, however, access has to be limited.  So we, the nominal owners of the airwaves, crafted a solution.  We all are said to own the airwaves.  We ask the government to act as our agent to distribute lease rights for those frequencies to commercial companies, and in the process we insist that our access to those frequencies has to be provided-for at certain times each day or week.

So I fail to see what the problem is.  The solution we cobbled together has worked pretty well.  And as owners, we also retain the interests of owners!  Thus, whether the lessors like it or not, we HAVE reserved the right to impose certain restricitions on THEIR use of OUR "property."  For example, we have insisted on retaining at least the right of some access to the medium during each period of their lease.  And we now propose a new rule which, when/if it takes effect, will impose an audible volume limit on their commercial advertisement terms and conditions to advertisers.  (If we buy the premise, as I do, that we "own" those airwaves, then we certainly should have the right to preserve our quiet enjoyment of our property!  If our lessors don't like it, then tough luck.  They go into some other line of business.)

There is no Constitutional infirmity in any part of that analysis.  And there no contradiction in anything I have maintained.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course a finite number remains finite.  That's not changed by who allocates the distribution of frequencies.
> 
> The point is that BECAUSE they are finite, if we were to permit some corporations to simply seize permanent control over the finite number of frequencies, we would end up with NO available frequencies.  But, because we ask the government to do the allocating of that finite number -- as leases -- the frequencies do not become private property and forever unavailable.  And because we employ the legal fiction  that the airwaves belong to ALL of us, we can also impose conditions on HOW the corporations may use those LEASED airwaves -- such as forbidding them from denying us all access to the airwaves.
> 
> If the airwaves are OURS, not the "private property" of ABC or MSLSD, then WE reserve some of our access to those airwaves.  But as soon as the "market" does the allocating without the rules and regulations of the government, then the private property owners would inevitably and almost certainly lay claim to the right to completely EXCLUDE us in order to more fully exploit their "property."
> 
> If I own the land I have my house on, I can damn well exclude you.  But if the government "owns" that land (in the limited sense of holding it FOR us), then when they LEASE that land to a company, they can absolutely place conditions on that lease (like, "thou shalt not restrict the public from the use and enjoyment of this land for X number of hours per week.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply don't except the notion that it's bad that a corporation or any other private entity own a frequency.  You accept the notion that you can exclude people from your land, but why is that not bad?  It's a conflicting argument to say that it's ok to exclude people from your privately owned land, but it's bad if you can exclude people from interfering with your privately owned frequency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I accept the basic premise of privatge propety that gives me the right to exclude others from my property or the use of my stuff.
> 
> But, no.  There is no conflict whatsoever in maintaining that, as I do, and also recognizing that there are some things in this world that are not subject to being privately owned.
> 
> Do you own the air?
> 
> Does anyone?
> 
> In the movie Total Recall, up there on Mars, a private company did own the air.   In reality, here on Earth, that would be a stupendously idiotic notion.
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air.  Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> Similarly, radio frequencies are there for all of us to use.  If we permitted private property rights over radio frequencies, sooner or later very few of us would have access to that medium and that would dangerously impede the public's ability to engage in speech.
> 
> In order to obtain commercial benefit over radio frequencies, however, access has to be limited.  So we, the nominal owners of the airwaves, crafted a solution.  We all are said to own the airwaves.  We ask the gubmint to act as our agent to distribute lease rights to those frequencies and in the process we insist that our access to those frequencies has to be provided-for at certain times each day or week.
> 
> So I fail to see what the problem is.  The solution we cobbled together has worked pretty well.  And as owners, we also retain the interests of owners!  Thus, whether the lessors like it or not, we HAVE reserved the right to impose certain restricitions on THEIR use of OUR "property."  For example, we have insisted on retaining at least the right of some access to the medium during each period of their lease.  And we now propose a new rule which, when/if it takes effect, will impose an audible volume limit on their commercial advertisement terms and conditions to advertisers.
> 
> No Constitutional infirmity in any part of that analysis.  And no contradiction in anything I have maintained.
Click to expand...


Well I'm not suggesting that anyone own the air, I'm suggesting they own the airwaves or the frequency they broadcast on.

At any rate, I think we're going in circles now and neither of us is willing to give an inch here.  So we're going to have to agree to disagree.  Good discussion, however.  I didn't think that this thread was going anywhere when I first posted it up, I honestly thought most people would agree with me.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply don't except the notion that it's bad that a corporation or any other private entity own a frequency.  You accept the notion that you can exclude people from your land, but why is that not bad?  It's a conflicting argument to say that it's ok to exclude people from your privately owned land, but it's bad if you can exclude people from interfering with your privately owned frequency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I accept the basic premise of privatge propety that gives me the right to exclude others from my property or the use of my stuff.
> 
> But, no.  There is no conflict whatsoever in maintaining that, as I do, and also recognizing that there are some things in this world that are not subject to being privately owned.
> 
> Do you own the air?
> 
> Does anyone?
> 
> In the movie Total Recall, up there on Mars, a private company did own the air.   In reality, here on Earth, that would be a stupendously idiotic notion.
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air.  Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> Similarly, radio frequencies are there for all of us to use.  If we permitted private property rights over radio frequencies, sooner or later very few of us would have access to that medium and that would dangerously impede the public's ability to engage in speech.
> 
> In order to obtain commercial benefit over radio frequencies, however, access has to be limited.  So we, the nominal owners of the airwaves, crafted a solution.  We all are said to own the airwaves.  We ask the gubmint to act as our agent to distribute lease rights to those frequencies and in the process we insist that our access to those frequencies has to be provided-for at certain times each day or week.
> 
> So I fail to see what the problem is.  The solution we cobbled together has worked pretty well.  And as owners, we also retain the interests of owners!  Thus, whether the lessors like it or not, we HAVE reserved the right to impose certain restricitions on THEIR use of OUR "property."  For example, we have insisted on retaining at least the right of some access to the medium during each period of their lease.  And we now propose a new rule which, when/if it takes effect, will impose an audible volume limit on their commercial advertisement terms and conditions to advertisers.
> 
> No Constitutional infirmity in any part of that analysis.  And no contradiction in anything I have maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm not suggesting that anyone own the air, I'm suggesting they own the airwaves or the frequency they broadcast on.
> 
> At any rate, I think we're going in circles now and neither of us is willing to give an inch here.  So we're going to have to agree to disagree.  Good discussion, however.  I didn't think that this thread was going anywhere when I first posted it up, I honestly thought most people would agree with me.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ! Nobody is saying that you are claiming that anyone should own the air.  That was just a fucking analogy.  And we fully well GET IT that YOU are suggesting that some private entities should be permitted to "own"  the frequency they broadcast on.  No purpose is served in repeating it.  It's your basic position and we already know your basic position.  It's just that you asked me some questions about my position and I answered those questions.  

I recognize that you are being stubborn.  

When you can tell me how the public's right to use the airwaves for purposes of freedom of speech can be maintained when private companies can own the frequencies (with all the right of property owners to fully exclude the rest of us from having access to the use of those same frequncies), I would be interested in giving that some thought.  Until then, the arrangement we have now successfully addresses a variety of competing concerns and CBS, MSLSD, NBC, ABC, etc., don't seem to be unduly damaged by it in terms of their bottom lines.



P.S.  I think your thread was indeed a good one.  Made me look up a few things and got me thinking about some of the issues of our day (like the fairness doctrine crap, etc.) in a slightly renewed light.

Think I might just have to go back to the OP just to rep your ass, Kev!


----------



## Misty

I don't watch much tv because of the CONTENT of commercials not the volume

most commercials are soooo depressing. 

They are either for funeral homes, dying animals, or medication. 

I'd rather congress waste time on this crap honestly. It's harmless.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air.  Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.




The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to shelter. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.

The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.

The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to clothing. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.

What was that you were saying about commies?

Even if we accept your premise that the means of survival are a right, radio transmitters are still a stretch. Yours is a fool's argument.



> In order to obtain commercial benefit over radio frequencies, however, access has to be limited



Just like the capitalist to think only of profit. 

So much for it being a matter of rights 


> .  So we, the nominal owners of the airwaves,



Because you say so? Yours is the reasoning of Hugo Chaves. Yours are the justifications given for nationalization.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865973 said:
			
		

> See? Exactly the SAME content. Just different volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's different content, but I don't expect you to know anything about such technical matters or much of anything else. Two copies of the same audio clip recordedat different volumes arwenot identical. How you can fail to grasp that, I don't know. Perhaps you're simply totally ignorant of how data is stored and transmitted.
Click to expand...





What a nitwit.


----------



## Paulie

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
			
		

> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?
> 
> WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
Click to expand...


What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.

I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.

I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?
> 
> WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
Click to expand...



With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?
> 
> WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of why we need government. To protect consumers. Anyone who pays for cable should not have to put up with the annoying earsplitting ads. Clearly cable companies and TV stations are not looking out for the consumer's best interests, so government has to do it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Whole lotta ignorance in this thread. Coming from both the pro-side and con-side.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad. If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom? If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here. That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
Click to expand...

 
That is provided as a matter of course that you know what a "dB" is?


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866325 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air.  Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to shelter. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to clothing. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> What was that you were saying about commies?
> 
> Even if we accept your premise that the means of survival are a right, radio transmitters are still a stretch. Yours is a fool's argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to obtain commercial benefit over radio frequencies, however, access has to be limited
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like the capitalist to think only of profit.
> 
> So much for it being a matter of rights
> 
> 
> 
> .  So we, the nominal owners of the airwaves,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so? Yours is the reasoning of Hugo Chaves. Yours are the justifications given for nationalization.
Click to expand...




Just when I begin to think that you've hit rock bottom and cannot say anything more stupid, you pull out the detonators and the dynamite and start blasting to get even deeper in to the bedrock of stupidity!

Hugo Chavez, you fucking imbecile, nationalizes to aggrandize the power of the STATE.

The People's ownership -- OUR ownership -- of the frequencies in the airwaves prevents that and other forms of monopoly.

You truly are a moron, sickle boi.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
Click to expand...


That is retarded Rav.  Not only is a TV commercial nowhere close to 194 db even at their loudest, someone standing outside your door is on _your property_.  You can kindly ask them to leave, or call the police and have them removed.

When it comes to TV advertising, you invited it into your house by virtue of paying for a TV and cable service.  YOU set the volume standards at that point.  

What if there are just as many people who WANT commericals to be louder?  That's obviously a possibility.  What makes your desire for less volume any more important than someone else's desire for more volume?

You paid for the service, you paid for the TV, it's YOUR house, so YOU set the standard on an individual level.

Why do you need the government to regulate it for you?


----------



## The T

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866325 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to shelter. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to breathe air. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> The free market should not be "trusted" to permit some company to sell me the right to clothing. Instead, air is a fucking birthright for all people.
> 
> What was that you were saying about commies?
> 
> Even if we accept your premise that the means of survival are a right, radio transmitters are still a stretch. Yours is a fool's argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the capitalist to think only of profit.
> 
> So much for it being a matter of rights
> 
> 
> 
> . So we, the nominal owners of the airwaves,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so? Yours is the reasoning of Hugo Chaves. Yours are the justifications given for nationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I begin to think that you've hit rock bottom and cannot say anything more stupid, you pull out the detonators and the dynamite and start blasting to get even deeper in to the bedrock of stupidity!
> 
> *Hugo Chavez,* you fucking imbecile, nationalizes to aggrandize the power of the STATE.
> 
> The People's ownership -- OUR ownership -- of the frequencies in the airwaves prevents that and other forms of monopoly.
> 
> You truly are a moron, sickle boi.
Click to expand...

 
I will admit ownership of that aspct of Sickle's remarks since *I* introduced that aspect [element], into the discussion *HERE.*

My bad.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Throwing another log on the fire here....



> The Federal Communications Commission does not specifically regulate the volume of TV programs or TV commercials. _However, broadcasters are required to have equipment that limits the peak power they can use to send out their audio and video signals. That means the loudest TV commercial will never be any louder than the loudest part of any TV program. _A TV program has a mix of audio levels. There are loud parts and soft parts. Nuance is used to build the dramatic effect.
> 
> Most advertisers dont want nuance. They want to grab your attention. To do that, the audio track is electronically processed to make every part of it as loud as possible within legal limits. Nothing is allowed to be subtle, says Brian Dooley, Editor-At-Large for CNET.com. Everything is loud  the voices, the music and the sound effects.
> 
> Spencer Critchley, writing in Digital Audio last month, explained it this way:_ The peak levels of commercials are no higher than the peak levels of program content. But the average level is way, way higher, and thats the level your ears care about. If someone sets off a camera flash every now and then its one thing; if they aim a steady spot light into your eyes its another, even if the peak brightness is no higher._
> 
> Theres also what Brian Dooley of CNET.com calls perceived loudness. If youre watching a drama with soft music and quiet dialogue and the station slams into a commercial for the July 4th Blow Out Sale, its going to be jarring. If you happen to go from the program into a commercial for a sleeping pill, one with a subtle soundtrack, it probably wont bother you.
> 
> Help is on the way! Last month Dolby Laboratories announced it has developed technology to level out the sound differences that take place during shows and between TV programs and commercials. You pick the volume you like and the Dolby software will make the adjustments in real time automatically.
> 
> Dolby Volume could show up in some TV sets by the end of this year or early next year.



Why are TV commercials so loud? - ConsumerMan- msnbc.com


----------



## RadiomanATL

RadiomanATL said:


> Throwing another log on the fire here....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission does not specifically regulate the volume of TV programs or TV commercials. _However, broadcasters are required to have equipment that limits the peak power they can use to send out their audio and video signals. That means the loudest TV commercial will never be any louder than the loudest part of any TV program. _A TV program has a mix of audio levels. There are loud parts and soft parts. Nuance is used to build the dramatic effect.
> 
> Most advertisers dont want nuance. They want to grab your attention. To do that, the audio track is electronically processed to make every part of it as loud as possible within legal limits. Nothing is allowed to be subtle, says Brian Dooley, Editor-At-Large for CNET.com. Everything is loud  the voices, the music and the sound effects.
> 
> Spencer Critchley, writing in Digital Audio last month, explained it this way:_ The peak levels of commercials are no higher than the peak levels of program content. But the average level is way, way higher, and thats the level your ears care about. If someone sets off a camera flash every now and then its one thing; if they aim a steady spot light into your eyes its another, even if the peak brightness is no higher._
> 
> Theres also what Brian Dooley of CNET.com calls perceived loudness. If youre watching a drama with soft music and quiet dialogue and the station slams into a commercial for the July 4th Blow Out Sale, its going to be jarring. If you happen to go from the program into a commercial for a sleeping pill, one with a subtle soundtrack, it probably wont bother you.
> 
> Help is on the way! Last month Dolby Laboratories announced it has developed technology to level out the sound differences that take place during shows and between TV programs and commercials. You pick the volume you like and the Dolby software will make the adjustments in real time automatically.
> 
> Dolby Volume could show up in some TV sets by the end of this year or early next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are TV commercials so loud? - ConsumerMan- msnbc.com
Click to expand...


The quicker posters out there will grasp that this means that it will be virtually impossible to effectively stop this from happening via congressional mandate...


----------



## Paulie

This thread is amazing.

I've been mad about loud TV commercials my DAMN self, but never that mad that I thought we needed the federal fucking government to help us out with it.

It's 60 fucking seconds of volume increase!  That's really THAT FUCKING BAD?

With the advent of remote controls, and more recently Tivo/DVR, how much easier does it get to regulate it yourself?  You push one damn button and it all goes away. 

Should we also have the government regulate the times that TV stations are allowed to air a commercial so we don't get saturated with ads all at the same time?  I mean, it's annoying to change the station during a commercial only to find that all the other stations are in commercial as well.  

You know what?  I don't really like a lot of the products that are on commercials anyway.  I shouldn't have to sit through those particular ones.  How about we legislate certain product ads out of existence for our convenience?

This is ridiculous.  I don't know if I'm more surprised that there are actually this many total people advocating such nonsense, or more specifically that there are even CONSERVATIVES advocating it.


----------



## Paulie

I think some of you are simply watching ENTIRELY too much television for commercial volume levels to bother you this much.

Go get some fucking SUN, you couch potatoes!


----------



## RadiomanATL

Now that I've added a little fuel to the fire. I'm off to have dinner. I'll check responses next week when I log on again.

Toodles everyone.


----------



## blu

Liability said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much can they rightfully take?
> 
> If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that nobody is as stupid as that response you just vomited makes it appear you are.  But, clearly, you ARE just that stupid.
> 
> *Who the fuck actually objects to paying fair and reasonable taxes for valid and desired public services like sanitation and police and courts, etc.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution?   Hm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals.  Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.
> 
> Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"?  Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Excellent advice.  "Don't get entangled with criminals."  Brilliant!
> 
> Nevermind the fact that THEY sometimes have different ideas, you nitwit.
> 
> I have no clue what the fuck you are attempting to "say" in that last line, however.
> 
> It may be that your mental retardation just impedes any hint of a possibility you might otherwise have to offer meaningful communication.
Click to expand...


i woudl rather the private sector do it where it would be done efficiently and without giving life and death judgments to a corrupt government


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865804 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
Click to expand...



You have to actively choose to turn on a TV and tune it to a station in your house.

Your analogy fails.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Anguille said:


> . Anyone who pays for cable should not have to put up with the annoying earsplitting ads. .


Turn off the TV or press the mute button. Noone's forcing you to tune in.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

RadiomanATL said:


> Help is on the way! Last month Dolby Laboratories announced it has developed technology to level out the sound differences that take place during shows and between TV programs and commercials. You pick the volume you like and the Dolby software will make the adjustments in real time automatically.
> 
> Dolby Volume could show up in some TV sets by the end of this year or early next year.


Why are TV commercials so loud? - ConsumerMan- msnbc.com[/quote]
Holy crap, a free market solution!

What was billy saying earlier about the free market not being able to come up with solutions?

Of course, the free market came up with a solution shortly after the TV became popular. It is called 'mute' and is oft located near the volume controls.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866773 said:
			
		

> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Help is on the way! Last month Dolby Laboratories announced it has developed technology to level out the sound differences that take place during shows and between TV programs and commercials. You pick the volume you like and the Dolby software will make the adjustments in real time automatically.
> 
> Dolby Volume could show up in some TV sets by the end of this year or early next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are TV commercials so loud? - ConsumerMan- msnbc.com
Click to expand...

Holy crap, a free market solution!

What was billy saying earlier about the free market not being able to come up with solutions?

Of course, the free market came up with a solution shortly after the TV became popular. It is called 'mute' and is oft located near the volume controls.[/QUOTE]


What a douchebag.

If -- by "billy [sic]" -- you mean Liability, you douchebag, then the answer is "no."  It was not me who said anything about the free market not being able to come up with solutions.   The free market often comes up with solutions -- at least as to those things it is able to deal with.  For instance:  A free market can deal with business failures.  A free market will not solve the hatred of Islamofuckers directed against people who do not share their pig-dog religion.

What I did say is that the free market lacks the ability to effectively  deal with the problem of allocating frequencies in a way that is consistent with the right of the people to have access to those frequencies.  I said NOTHING about the market not being able to come up with a solution to the advertisement audible-volume problem.  The market already addressed that once and the broadcasters and advertisers bypassed it.  Since those pricks will not do it willingly, we have every right to exercise OUR power by compelling them to be civil.  That is what I have said, you dishonest douchebag.

Leave it to a fucking lying twat like sickle-boi to find it necessary to resort to lies, again, to "make" his argument.   Typical of his weak mind.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866759 said:
			
		

> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Anyone who pays for cable should not have to put up with the annoying earsplitting ads. .
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off the TV or press the mute button. Noone's forcing you to tune in.
Click to expand...


What a douchebag.  No.  Nobody is forcing me to watch the game I want to watch, you numbskull.  But when I choose to do so, I have every right to insist that the broadcasters not blast my eardrums.  Those are OUR airwaves and they are but lessors of the frequencies which WE permit them to exploit for a profit.  Since we LET the  pricks use our airwaves, we have every right to insist that they be civil and let us enjoy it in relative quiet.

If I want the volume to shatter my eardrums, that's MY choice, not theirs.  I can turn the volume all the way up or not -- as I choose.  You can mute ir or not, as you choose.  This whole freedom of choice thing has you stymied it seems, you twit. 

 But when they fucking BLAST the commercials, they have controlled the volume, not me;  and even for that moment it takes to reach for the remote, they have imposed their arrogant will on the folks who LET them use that frequency.  Fucking rude and fucking stupid of them.  If they won't be civil in my house in the use of MY fucking property which they only lease from me, then I will impose it on their lease if I choose to do so.

And yes.  It is a petty issue in many respects, but again:  I prefer that Congress attend to one of my expressed directions rather than going about their usual business of imposing their will on me AGAINST my will.


----------



## RadiomanATL

See: Audio dynamic range compression.

Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> See: Audio dynamic range compression.
> 
> Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.



Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.

An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Audio dynamic range compression.
> 
> Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.
> 
> An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.
Click to expand...


The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.

There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".

This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over. 

I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).

See ya next week.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Audio dynamic range compression.
> 
> Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.
> 
> An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
Click to expand...


Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.

They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866759 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Anyone who pays for cable should not have to put up with the annoying earsplitting ads. .
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off the TV or press the mute button. Noone's forcing you to tune in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a douchebag.
Click to expand...




Yes, how fucked up of me to expect a grown-ass man to be able to push a button instead of crying like a little bitch for Uncle Sam to mute the TV until Barney comes back on.


> No.  Nobody is forcing me to watch the game I want to watch, you numbskull.  But when I choose to do so, I have every right to insist that the broadcasters not blast my eardrums



See those buttons on your remote labeled 'volume'?


> But when they fucking BLAST the commercials



They're no louder than the show itself gets, per the current legislation. Grow the fuck up already and stop acting like a child.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

RadiomanATL said:


> See: Audio dynamic range compression.
> 
> Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.


Shouldn't it be possible to subject the incoming signal to volume normalization prior to forwarding it to the tv?


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is retarded Rav.  Not only is a TV commercial nowhere close to 194 db even at their loudest, someone standing outside your door is on _your property_.  You can kindly ask them to leave, or call the police and have them removed.
> 
> When it comes to TV advertising, you invited it into your house by virtue of paying for a TV and cable service.  YOU set the volume standards at that point.
> 
> What if there are just as many people who WANT commericals to be louder?  That's obviously a possibility.  What makes your desire for less volume any more important than someone else's desire for more volume?
> 
> You paid for the service, you paid for the TV, it's YOUR house, so YOU set the standard on an individual level.
> 
> Why do you need the government to regulate it for you?
Click to expand...

 The wouldn't be standing on my property...they'd be on public property...blasting 194 dB at me.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Throwing another log on the fire here....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission does not specifically regulate the volume of TV programs or TV commercials. _However, broadcasters are required to have equipment that limits the peak power they can use to send out their audio and video signals. That means the loudest TV commercial will never be any louder than the loudest part of any TV program. _A TV program has a mix of audio levels. There are loud parts and soft parts. Nuance is used to build the dramatic effect.
> 
> Most advertisers dont want nuance. They want to grab your attention. To do that, the audio track is electronically processed to make every part of it as loud as possible within legal limits. Nothing is allowed to be subtle, says Brian Dooley, Editor-At-Large for CNET.com. Everything is loud  the voices, the music and the sound effects.
> 
> Spencer Critchley, writing in Digital Audio last month, explained it this way:_ The peak levels of commercials are no higher than the peak levels of program content. But the average level is way, way higher, and thats the level your ears care about. If someone sets off a camera flash every now and then its one thing; if they aim a steady spot light into your eyes its another, even if the peak brightness is no higher._
> 
> Theres also what Brian Dooley of CNET.com calls perceived loudness. If youre watching a drama with soft music and quiet dialogue and the station slams into a commercial for the July 4th Blow Out Sale, its going to be jarring. If you happen to go from the program into a commercial for a sleeping pill, one with a subtle soundtrack, it probably wont bother you.
> 
> Help is on the way! Last month Dolby Laboratories announced it has developed technology to level out the sound differences that take place during shows and between TV programs and commercials. You pick the volume you like and the Dolby software will make the adjustments in real time automatically.
> 
> Dolby Volume could show up in some TV sets by the end of this year or early next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are TV commercials so loud? - ConsumerMan- msnbc.com
Click to expand...

Sweet! Then there will be no need for government regulation and Dolby will make money.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866754 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to actively choose to turn on a TV and tune it to a station in your house.
> 
> Your analogy fails.
Click to expand...

And I choose to live in a house without a sound barrier. Your stupidity knows no bounds.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.
> 
> An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.
> 
> They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.
Click to expand...

Exactly right.


----------



## Care4all

It's baloney....  I am watching a program on the history channel....there is not one point in this program where the volume is high, yet the commercials are blaring and very very very loud....  

How is it that the commercials are not suppose to be any louder than the peak point in what you are watching, yet these commercials are double to triple times louder than the program I am watching?

Does it go by the loudest program on the History Channel or the loudest program out of all programs on all of the cable channels combined?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866754 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to actively choose to turn on a TV and tune it to a station in your house.
> 
> Your analogy fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I choose to live in a house without a sound barrier. Your stupidity knows no bounds.
Click to expand...


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1867254 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> 
> But when they fucking BLAST the commercials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're no louder than the show itself gets, per the current legislation. Grow the fuck up already and stop acting like a child.
Click to expand...


Of course they are louder than the show itself.  Stop being such a dishonest dumbfucker.

And "growing up" is a concept utterly alien to you,  so feel obliged apply your hypocritical advice to yourself, sickle-boi.


----------



## Anguille

Care4all said:


> It's baloney....  I am watching a program on the history channel....there is not one point in this program where the volume is high, yet the commercials are blaring and very very very loud....
> 
> How is it that the commercials are not suppose to be any louder than the peak point in what you are watching, yet these commercials are double to triple times louder than the program I am watching?
> 
> Does it go by the loudest program on the History Channel or the loudest program out of all programs on all of the cable channels combined?



The new legislation will require that the volume of the commercial go no higher than the highest volume of the the last 5 minutes of the segment of programming that it follows. Because of all the attention and complaints I think that the advertisers will be monitored more closely and not be able to get away with breaking the laws as they currently have been doing. I also have noticed that they do indeed exceed the volume level of the program they follow.


----------



## Anguille

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866759 said:
			
		

> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Anyone who pays for cable should not have to put up with the annoying earsplitting ads. .
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off the TV or press the mute button. Noone's forcing you to tune in.
Click to expand...

If you prefer to prostrate yourself before the advertising corporations and invite them to ride roughshod over you, be my guest. 
I will continue to insist on my rights as a tax payer and a consumer till I get what I pay for.


----------



## Samson

Anguille said:


> If you prefer to prostrate yourself before the advertising corporations and invite them to ride roughshod over you, be my guest. .



My guess is that prole enjoys being "prostrate," and being ridden "roughshod."


----------



## Ravi

Samson said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you prefer to prostrate yourself before the advertising corporations and invite them to ride roughshod over you, be my guest. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that prole enjoys being "prostrate," and being ridden "roughshod."
Click to expand...

All at high volume.


----------



## Care4all

if the cable companies only want to cater to their advertising customers and NOT their paid customers then give me cable/satellite for FREE!


----------



## Care4all

I'm old enough to remember one of the things cable used to tout as a plus for them over the broadcast stations was that they had NO or FEWER commercials....  (Maybe I shouldn't admit that...)


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is some advocating government intervention when it's most convenient for them.
> 
> I don't see why a company or an individual for that matter that pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to run an ad should not have the freedom to choose a desired volume level on the ad.  If they want to make themselves look like assholes for placing an extra loud ad, why should they not have that freedom?  If we have such a problem with it, we should simply not buy their products, and along with not buying the products, send them an email letting them know why.
> 
> I fail to see how the government is necessary here.  That is SUCH a fucking cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your logic, any advertiser can stand outside my door and blast some propaganda for their product at 194 dB. And I'm free to buy noise canceling headphones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is retarded Rav.  Not only is a TV commercial nowhere close to 194 db even at their loudest, someone standing outside your door is on _your property_.  You can kindly ask them to leave, or call the police and have them removed.
Click to expand...


Broadcasting waves pass through my property, so your excuse is invalid.


Paulie said:


> When it comes to TV advertising, you invited it into your house by virtue of paying for a TV and cable service.  YOU set the volume standards at that point.
> 
> What if there are just as many people who WANT commericals to be louder?  That's obviously a possibility.  What makes your desire for less volume any more important than someone else's desire for more volume?


  When that day happens then they would also have a say in the issue. As it stands, no consumer has come forward to express that masochistic desire. Yet, you think that on the off chance that someone might, means everyone else has to just put up with it?  


Paulie said:


> You paid for the service, you paid for the TV, it's YOUR house, so YOU set the standard on an individual level.


 No shit, Sherlock. That's why we have the right to regulate it.


Paulie said:


> Why do you need the government to regulate it for you?


Cuz Al-Qaeda and the abortion clinic bombers are too busy.


----------



## Samson

Has anyone in this thread called their TV stations to complain?








Me niether.


----------



## Anguille

blu said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much can they rightfully take?
> 
> If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that nobody is as stupid as that response you just vomited makes it appear you are.  But, clearly, you ARE just that stupid.
> 
> *Who the fuck actually objects to paying fair and reasonable taxes for valid and desired public services like sanitation and police and courts, etc.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals.  Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.
> 
> Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"?  Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Excellent advice.  "Don't get entangled with criminals."  Brilliant!
> 
> Nevermind the fact that THEY sometimes have different ideas, you nitwit.
> 
> I have no clue what the fuck you are attempting to "say" in that last line, however.
> 
> It may be that your mental retardation just impedes any hint of a possibility you might otherwise have to offer meaningful communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i woudl rather the private sector do it where it would be done efficiently and without giving life and death judgments to a corrupt government
Click to expand...

The private sector is doing it now. That's why we have a problem.


----------



## Anguille

RadiomanATL said:


> Dolby Volume could show up in some TV sets by the end of this year or early next year.


First big business finds a way to create a problem for us. Then they find a way to sell us a solution to the problem they created. 

Otherwise known as selling protection.


----------



## Anguille

Samson said:


> Has anyone in this thread called their TV stations to complain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me niether.




I was going to call the one station that I watch that does that but all of a sudden they lowered the volume.


----------



## Liability

blu said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much can they rightfully take?
> 
> If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that nobody is as stupid as that response you just vomited makes it appear you are.  But, clearly, you ARE just that stupid.
> 
> *Who the fuck actually objects to paying fair and reasonable taxes for valid and desired public services like sanitation and police and courts, etc.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> 
> Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals.  Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.
> 
> Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"?  Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Excellent advice.  "Don't get entangled with criminals."  Brilliant!
> 
> Nevermind the fact that THEY sometimes have different ideas, you nitwit.
> 
> I have no clue what the fuck you are attempting to "say" in that last line, however.
> 
> It may be that your mental retardation just impedes any hint of a possibility you might otherwise have to offer meaningful communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i woudl rather the private sector do it where it would be done efficiently and without giving *life and death judgments* to a corrupt government
Click to expand...


Commercial advertisement volume is a matter involving life and death judgment?


----------



## Care4all

Samson said:


> Has anyone in this thread called their TV stations to complain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me niether.



As I mentioned earlier, both me and the hubby and my parents have done so.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

This, my friends, is why America ceased to be... Amreican's are like sad little children who need Uncie Sammie to take care of them


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you prefer to prostrate yourself before the advertising corporations and invite them to ride roughshod over you, be my guest. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that prole enjoys being "prostrate," and being ridden "roughshod."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All at high volume.
Click to expand...


----------



## Father Time

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...


Biggest waste of time I've ever seen.

First they wanted to accommodate people who couldn't use the channel button (FCC) now they want to accommodate people too lazy to use the damn volume button?

I hope the ghost of Billy Mays haunts these suckers.


----------



## Father Time

noose4 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> how loud the commercials are NOW, is obscene.
> 
> i bought a tv that would moderate the volume just to deal with it, but the cable box....damn cable box, overrides it........
> 
> commercials can break your eardrums nowadays and NO, I SHOULD NOT have to keep remote in hand so i can raise and lower the volume every 7 minutes.
> 
> we, customers have complained...but no one is listening at Dish network or direct tv....  i pay for my service, they should not intrude on my peace while I am using something I PAID FOR....
> 
> nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have the choice of muting the television, stop using their service, or try to convince others to stop using their service.  I personally choose to mute the television when commercials come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if you are napping while watching? stupid blaring commercial comes on and wakes you up!!!!!
Click to expand...


Think of it as a reminder that the TV's still on and you're wasting electricity.

I find it disturbing that the only arguments are 'it's annoying so we should have government stop it'.


----------



## Father Time

Anguille said:


> When that day happens then they would also have a say in the issue. As it stands, no consumer has come forward to express that masochistic desire. Yet, you think that on the off chance that someone might, means everyone else has to just put up with it?



Why yes because your wishes can not (or at least should not) trample an individual's rights when they aren't affecting you.



Anguille said:


> You paid for the service, you paid for the TV, it's YOUR house, so YOU set the standard on an individual level.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock. That's why we have the right to regulate it.
Click to expand...


Show me where in the constitution it grants you the power to regulate anything you use. Although you can always self-regulate. Use the mute button. No matter how much you want to bitch and moan and whine and scream all your problems can be solved with one button that you all ready have. The fact that you choose not to use it but instead cry to government like some useless runt makes me have absolutely no sympathy for you.


----------



## Anguille

Amazing how some people are so fanatically anti government. They must be anarchists.


----------



## Father Time

Anguille said:


> Amazing how some people are so fanatically anti government. They must be anarchists.



Even more amazing that some people want the government to solve a problem that they can solve themselves with a single button. They must be morons.

Oh and wanting government to not regulate TV does not make someone an anarchist. Not even close.


----------



## Zoom-boing

I'm watching tv right now and a commercial just came it.  It was a little louder than the show I as watching so I reached over to the remote that is sitting on the sofa cushion and pushed the volume down button two times and guess what?  The sound got lower!  Don't you just love the world of technology we live in?


----------



## Care4all

Zoom-boing said:


> I'm watching tv right now and a commercial just came it.  It was a little louder than the show I as watching so I reached over to the remote that is sitting on the sofa cushion and pushed the volume down button two times and guess what?  The sound got lower!  Don't you just love the world of technology we live in?



hahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Zoom-boing

Care4all said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching tv right now and a commercial just came it.  It was a little louder than the show I as watching so I reached over to the remote that is sitting on the sofa cushion and pushed the volume down button two times and guess what?  The sound got lower!  Don't you just love the world of technology we live in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahahahahaha!
Click to expand...




When the show came back on I didn't raise the volume again either . . . maybe I had the tv too loud to begin with!


----------



## Care4all

Some people d not just sit and watch tv with the remote in hand....I realize this is hard for any man to understand....

But when I have the tv on in my home, I am usually listening to it and not watching it....I am doing house work, or crocheting scarves and hats for the poor, or even on my lap top doing other work or on this site being a mod....it is an extreme inconvenience to HAVE TO STOP what I am doing and reach for the remote, EVERY 7 MINUTES, when the comercials come on to turn the volume down....muting it is out of the question because I am not looking at the tv, and I would not know when the program I was LISTENING to, comes back on.

I have complained to DISH network and my parents have complained to DIRECT TV, many times.

They have the Law on their side because they have the federal government TELLING THEM it is okay to be as loud as the loudest part of what you are watching.

All I am asking is that the LAW is on OUR SIDE, as they got the LAW to be on their side.

We should not have to mute or turn down the volume, EVERY 7 MINUTES FOR ALL COMMERCIALS that run, in OUR OWN HOMES.

How many paying customers are begging the government to allow Commercials to BLAIR in their homes every time they come on?  

I should be able to adjust the volume on my tv ONCE and not have to adjust it every 7 minutes for the commercials....THAT IS UNPRODUCTIVE and a nuisance if you are not just a couch potato or a man that holds on to the remote like it is their one eyed trouser worm.

If you enjoy the very loud commercials then please, by all means, send a note to your representatives and beg them to please keep the commercials much louder than the programs you are watching or just do without TV because the commercials are not loud enough for you....


----------



## Father Time

Care have you considered talking to other cable providers to see if they have a solution to your plight? If they do you can switch to them and tell off your old company. Hell one company would eventually realize they could score a bunch of customers just by implementing the sound diluter thing.


----------



## Care4all

Father Time said:


> Care have you considered talking to other cable providers to see if they have a solution to your plight? If they do you can switch to them and tell off your old company. Hell one company would eventually realize they could score a bunch of customers just by implementing the sound diluter thing.



yes, I have most certainly considered it, but I have no choices or competition in service other than DISH or Direct tv, here in RURAL maine....

We do not even have Broadband service where I live...no cable companies, no dsl services....I am stuck with paying verizon wireless $60 bucks a months for just a CRAWLING speed barely above dial up....

and please don't tell me that I should sell my house and move....


----------



## Ravi

Father Time said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how some people are so fanatically anti government. They must be anarchists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more amazing that some people want the government to solve a problem that they can solve themselves with a single button. They must be morons.
> 
> Oh and wanting government to not regulate TV does not make someone an anarchist. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Why can't we regulate what we own?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Anguille said:


> Amazing how some people are so fanatically anti government. They must be anarchists.



Just because one opposes the government doing something it has no constitutional authority doing, not to mention something so ridiculous, does not make one an anarchist.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Some people d not just sit and watch tv with the remote in hand....I realize this is hard for any man to understand....
> 
> But when I have the tv on in my home, I am usually listening to it and not watching it....I am doing house work, or crocheting scarves and hats for the poor, or even on my lap top doing other work or on this site being a mod....it is an extreme inconvenience to HAVE TO STOP what I am doing and reach for the remote, EVERY 7 MINUTES, when the comercials come on to turn the volume down....muting it is out of the question because I am not looking at the tv, and I would not know when the program I was LISTENING to, comes back on.
> 
> I have complained to DISH network and my parents have complained to DIRECT TV, many times.
> 
> They have the Law on their side because they have the federal government TELLING THEM it is okay to be as loud as the loudest part of what you are watching.
> 
> All I am asking is that the LAW is on OUR SIDE, as they got the LAW to be on their side.
> 
> We should not have to mute or turn down the volume, EVERY 7 MINUTES FOR ALL COMMERCIALS that run, in OUR OWN HOMES.
> 
> How many paying customers are begging the government to allow Commercials to BLAIR in their homes every time they come on?
> 
> I should be able to adjust the volume on my tv ONCE and not have to adjust it every 7 minutes for the commercials....THAT IS UNPRODUCTIVE and a nuisance if you are not just a couch potato or a man that holds on to the remote like it is their one eyed trouser worm.
> 
> If you enjoy the very loud commercials then please, by all means, send a note to your representatives and beg them to please keep the commercials much louder than the programs you are watching or just do without TV because the commercials are not loud enough for you....



Now far be it from me to tell you what to do with your own television, but if you're not watching it don't you think maybe you should just turn it off?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Zoom-boing said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching tv right now and a commercial just came it.  It was a little louder than the show I as watching so I reached over to the remote that is sitting on the sofa cushion and pushed the volume down button two times and guess what?  The sound got lower!  Don't you just love the world of technology we live in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahahahahaha!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the show came back on I didn't raise the volume again either . . . maybe I had the tv too loud to begin with!
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zoom-boing again.


----------



## Father Time

Ravi said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how some people are so fanatically anti government. They must be anarchists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more amazing that some people want the government to solve a problem that they can solve themselves with a single button. They must be morons.
> 
> Oh and wanting government to not regulate TV does not make someone an anarchist. Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't we regulate what we own?
Click to expand...


You can, it's called a remote control.


----------



## Ravi

Father Time said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more amazing that some people want the government to solve a problem that they can solve themselves with a single button. They must be morons.
> 
> Oh and wanting government to not regulate TV does not make someone an anarchist. Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we regulate what we own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can, it's called a remote control.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the question.

We own the airwaves collectively. Why can we not regulate something we own...in the manner discussed in the OP.


----------



## Father Time

Ravi said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we regulate what we own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can, it's called a remote control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are avoiding the question.
> 
> We own the airwaves collectively. Why can we not regulate something we own...in the manner discussed in the OP.
Click to expand...


Ah I mistook who you were referring to when you said we. I don't think you can't regulate it in some manner it's just that it would be completely unnecessary.


----------



## Care4all

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people d not just sit and watch tv with the remote in hand....I realize this is hard for any man to understand....
> 
> But when I have the tv on in my home, I am usually listening to it and not watching it....I am doing house work, or crocheting scarves and hats for the poor, or even on my lap top doing other work or on this site being a mod....it is an extreme inconvenience to HAVE TO STOP what I am doing and reach for the remote, EVERY 7 MINUTES, when the comercials come on to turn the volume down....muting it is out of the question because I am not looking at the tv, and I would not know when the program I was LISTENING to, comes back on.
> 
> I have complained to DISH network and my parents have complained to DIRECT TV, many times.
> 
> They have the Law on their side because they have the federal government TELLING THEM it is okay to be as loud as the loudest part of what you are watching.
> 
> All I am asking is that the LAW is on OUR SIDE, as they got the LAW to be on their side.
> 
> We should not have to mute or turn down the volume, EVERY 7 MINUTES FOR ALL COMMERCIALS that run, in OUR OWN HOMES.
> 
> How many paying customers are begging the government to allow Commercials to BLAIR in their homes every time they come on?
> 
> I should be able to adjust the volume on my tv ONCE and not have to adjust it every 7 minutes for the commercials....THAT IS UNPRODUCTIVE and a nuisance if you are not just a couch potato or a man that holds on to the remote like it is their one eyed trouser worm.
> 
> If you enjoy the very loud commercials then please, by all means, send a note to your representatives and beg them to please keep the commercials much louder than the programs you are watching or just do without TV because the commercials are not loud enough for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now far be it from me to tell you what to do with your own television, but if you're not watching it don't you think maybe you should just turn it off?
Click to expand...


ahhhhhhh, so now you too want to indirectly control my tv habits...your way or the highway?    j/k u KK.

I *listen* to it.  Most of the shows that interest me, are things like c-span, or the 24/7 news or the Discovery or History channel programs on the States, or our Presidents or the Universe or How the Earth was Made etc, that I find interesting and one does not need to view them to get the information the programs bring...Listening to them, while multi tasking is just fine.  I have never been a one task woman....not when I worked and not now.

And you or the cable/satellite companies or the advertisers should not and do not have the right to control what I want to do, view or just listen to the tv, or what level I choose to put the volume on that is comfortable for me, or anything else in my own home, on my tv that I bought, or with the service that I paid for...

Right now, the advertisers and the cable services have gotten our government to give them the legal "okay" to blast us out of house and home, through legislation that permits them to release their commercials with volumes at the previous shows HIGHEST volume level.  (I believe they are not following this measure, especially on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel...their programs are never loud and do not have any major impact scenes of crashes and bombings or gunfire, not the previous programs to the commercials of the subsequent programs are loud...yet the commercials can bust ones eardrums when they come on.)

Ideally, IF our government had not legislated the volumes in the first place, (giving them the legal permission to make the commercials as loud as the loudest point, even if it be for only a few seconds, of a program,) then these companies would probably listen to their CUSTOMERS complaining without giving them the generic answer, "That they are not breaking the law...." bullcrap imho.  But it is too late now...the government HAS done something...regulated this already...and we need to somehow UNDO, what they have done... again, imho.

Care


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> We own the airwaves collectively.


You do not own collectively what I produce privately. That's one of the very principles of liberalism upon which this nation was founded.


----------



## Care4all

Produce what you want privately, it's all yours...

But, if you have to lease from the ''collective us'', to get what you produced to work, then you need to follow the lessor's rules...and the lessee can choose to follow such requests from the lessor or give up the lease....and make what you produced worthless....simple as that....


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Care4all said:


> But, if you have to lease from the ''collective us'', to get what you produced to work, then you need to follow the lessor's rules...and the lessee can choose to follow such requests from the lessor or give up the lease....and make what you produced worthless....simple as that....


They lease the broadcasting equipment from the Fed?

And what the hell does 'what you produced to work' mean?


----------



## BridgieBridge

I'm with this care4all chic, she makes alot of good points.

I have a DVR, and it does not help me with my problem.

My problem is, i like to sleep with a light sound. I prefer to put on the history channel or something quiet like that. I then set my sleep timer on my t.v and prepare for my snooze. But yes, about every 7 minutes i have to emerge from my pile of blankets, poke my head up, turn the volume down......... wait to get comfortable again bc i know i have to turn the volume back up in order to finish listening to my night time story. Then it's get comfortable again, as i slowly start to doze back off, then............ BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!!!!!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH, so just as i am falling asleep, i'm awaken. I don't care if i push the mute button, or lower the volume or wait as i fast forward the dvr, they are all actions i DO NOT WANT to do as i am trying to fall asleep. So i don't give a damn who fixes this, but i would surely like it fixed. It's my damn tv and i want it on the volume i set it on, not multiple changing volumes, that somebody else wants for me.  I DO NOT WANT TO *HAVE* to pick up and put down my remote. I just want to fall asleep listening to whatever program i put on to listen to, and fall asleep the way i like to, and let my tv turn itself off after i'm asleep like it always does. It's my damn house, and my tv.


----------



## Care4all

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875519 said:
			
		

> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you have to lease from the ''collective us'', to get what you produced to work, then you need to follow the lessor's rules...and the lessee can choose to follow such requests from the lessor or give up the lease....and make what you produced worthless....simple as that....
> 
> 
> 
> They lease the broadcasting equipment from the Fed?
> 
> And what the hell does 'what you produced to work' mean?
Click to expand...


no silly, you own the equipment and pay/produce the talent.

what you produced with your money...''The Nightly News'' program as example....would be worthless, without the airwaves you lease, from the collective us to broadcast it over.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Ok, I've been paying attention to the commercials and not ALL commercials blast.  From my observation most don't.  Some are a bit louder than a show - but the show itself may be quieter (ex. _The Good Wife_, mostly talking vs._ 24_, lots of shooting) by comparison.  There are some commercials that I can hear outside but these are few and far between.  Not saying that the volume isn't louder on some commercials but the blanket statement that ALL commercials blast ungodly loud is not true.  <sigh>  Not arguing here, just pointing something out.


----------



## Care4all

Zoom-boing said:


> Ok, I've been paying attention to the commercials and not ALL commercials blast.  From my observation most don't.  Some are a bit louder than a show - but the show itself may be quieter (ex. _The Good Wife_, mostly talking vs._ 24_, lots of shooting) by comparison.  There are some commercials that I can hear outside but these are few and far between.  Not saying that the volume isn't louder on some commercials but the blanket statement that ALL commercials blast ungodly loud is not true.  <sigh>  Not arguing here, just pointing something out.


 yes, as i mentioned for me, it usually happens on the History or Discovery channel....oh, and HGTV too....plus the local news.

this should not happen if the rules in place now, were followed....unless we misunderstand the rule?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

BridgieBridge said:


> I'm with this care4all chic, she makes alot of good points.
> 
> I have a DVR, and it does not help me with my problem.
> 
> My problem is, i like to sleep with a light sound. I prefer to put on the history channel or something quiet like that. I then set my sleep timer on my t.v and prepare for my snooze. But yes, about every 7 minutes i have to emerge from my pile of blankets, poke my head up, turn the volume down......... wait to get comfortable again bc i know i have to turn the volume back up in order to finish listening to my night time story. Then it's get comfortable again, as i slowly start to doze back off, then............ BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!!!!!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH, so just as i am falling asleep, i'm awaken. I don't care if i push the mute button, or lower the volume or wait as i fast forward the dvr, they are all actions i DO NOT WANT to do as i am trying to fall asleep. So i don't give a damn who fixes this, but i would surely like it fixed. It's my damn tv and i want it on the volume i set it on, not multiple changing volumes, that somebody else wants for me.  I DO NOT WANT TO *HAVE* to pick up and put down my remote. I just want to fall asleep listening to whatever program i put on to listen to, and fall asleep the way i like to, and let my tv turn itself off after i'm asleep like it always does. It's my damn house, and my tv.



Get a noisemaker or turn the radio on low. Hell, put on an easy listening or smooth jazz cd and turn the volume down. Congress doesn't need to intervene just because you're stupid.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Care4all said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875519 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you have to lease from the ''collective us'', to get what you produced to work, then you need to follow the lessor's rules...and the lessee can choose to follow such requests from the lessor or give up the lease....and make what you produced worthless....simple as that....
> 
> 
> 
> They lease the broadcasting equipment from the Fed?
> 
> And what the hell does 'what you produced to work' mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no silly, you own the equipment and pay/produce the talent.
> 
> what you produced with your money...''The Nightly News'' program as example....would be worthless, without the airwaves you lease, from the collective us to broadcast it over.
Click to expand...


You do release there's no natural network of magical 'airwaves' on which we broadcast, right? 

Privately owned equipment emits radiation you choose to detect so you can use your equipment to decode the information encoded in the radiation (radio and broadcast TV). With cable, you pay for a wire to come into your house with electrical signals (photons) emitted by the cable company's equipment so you can decode the information contained therein and view the content.


----------



## BridgieBridge

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875751 said:
			
		

> Get a noisemaker or turn the radio on low. Hell, put on an easy listening or smooth jazz cd and turn the volume down. Congress doesn't need to intervene just because you're stupid.



Lol...a noisemaker? I don't want a noisemaker. The radio, is not the history channel. I don't want to listen to music as i fall asleep, i want my t.v. I should not be forced into using another option to fall asleep when i like my t.v, just not the volume of commercials. Your stupid bc i said, i don't care who fixes it just as long as someone does. You don't have to bring it to the level of calling names just bc i'm right and your wrong!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

History Channel on Demand 

No commercials!

There, problem solved. Grow up and stop crying.


----------



## BridgieBridge

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875789 said:
			
		

> History Channel on Demand
> 
> No commercials!
> 
> There, problem solved. Grow up and stop crying.



I don't have "on demand", so problem not solved. I have to have "on demand" to be comfortable in my own home? I have to be forced and stuck with one option that i don't even have? Oh and for your info, i am grown, and not at all crying just complaining, wich i have every right to do!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people d not just sit and watch tv with the remote in hand....I realize this is hard for any man to understand....
> 
> But when I have the tv on in my home, I am usually listening to it and not watching it....I am doing house work, or crocheting scarves and hats for the poor, or even on my lap top doing other work or on this site being a mod....it is an extreme inconvenience to HAVE TO STOP what I am doing and reach for the remote, EVERY 7 MINUTES, when the comercials come on to turn the volume down....muting it is out of the question because I am not looking at the tv, and I would not know when the program I was LISTENING to, comes back on.
> 
> I have complained to DISH network and my parents have complained to DIRECT TV, many times.
> 
> They have the Law on their side because they have the federal government TELLING THEM it is okay to be as loud as the loudest part of what you are watching.
> 
> All I am asking is that the LAW is on OUR SIDE, as they got the LAW to be on their side.
> 
> We should not have to mute or turn down the volume, EVERY 7 MINUTES FOR ALL COMMERCIALS that run, in OUR OWN HOMES.
> 
> How many paying customers are begging the government to allow Commercials to BLAIR in their homes every time they come on?
> 
> I should be able to adjust the volume on my tv ONCE and not have to adjust it every 7 minutes for the commercials....THAT IS UNPRODUCTIVE and a nuisance if you are not just a couch potato or a man that holds on to the remote like it is their one eyed trouser worm.
> 
> If you enjoy the very loud commercials then please, by all means, send a note to your representatives and beg them to please keep the commercials much louder than the programs you are watching or just do without TV because the commercials are not loud enough for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now far be it from me to tell you what to do with your own television, but if you're not watching it don't you think maybe you should just turn it off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ahhhhhhh, so now you too want to indirectly control my tv habits...your way or the highway?    j/k u KK.
> 
> I *listen* to it.  Most of the shows that interest me, are things like c-span, or the 24/7 news or the Discovery or History channel programs on the States, or our Presidents or the Universe or How the Earth was Made etc, that I find interesting and one does not need to view them to get the information the programs bring...Listening to them, while multi tasking is just fine.  I have never been a one task woman....not when I worked and not now.
> 
> And you or the cable/satellite companies or the advertisers should not and do not have the right to control what I want to do, view or just listen to the tv, or what level I choose to put the volume on that is comfortable for me, or anything else in my own home, on my tv that I bought, or with the service that I paid for...
> 
> Right now, the advertisers and the cable services have gotten our government to give them the legal "okay" to blast us out of house and home, through legislation that permits them to release their commercials with volumes at the previous shows HIGHEST volume level.  (I believe they are not following this measure, especially on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel...their programs are never loud and do not have any major impact scenes of crashes and bombings or gunfire, not the previous programs to the commercials of the subsequent programs are loud...yet the commercials can bust ones eardrums when they come on.)
> 
> Ideally, IF our government had not legislated the volumes in the first place, (giving them the legal permission to make the commercials as loud as the loudest point, even if it be for only a few seconds, of a program,) then these companies would probably listen to their CUSTOMERS complaining without giving them the generic answer, "That they are not breaking the law...." bullcrap imho.  But it is too late now...the government HAS done something...regulated this already...and we need to somehow UNDO, what they have done... again, imho.
> 
> Care
Click to expand...


Well you said you don't want to mute it because then you wouldn't know when the television show comes back on.  Is it really that difficult to look up and check when it comes back on?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

BridgieBridge said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875789 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History Channel on Demand
> 
> No commercials!
> 
> There, problem solved. Grow up and stop crying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have "on demand", so problem not solved. I have to have "on demand" to be comfortable in my own home? I have to be forced and stuck with one option that i don't even have? Oh and for your info, i am grown, and not at all crying just complaining, wich i have every right to do!
Click to expand...

You choose to turn the tv on. You choose how loud to set your receiver.

If you don't like it, turn it off or change the channel.


----------



## BridgieBridge

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876072 said:
			
		

> You choose to turn the tv on. You choose how loud to set your receiver.
> 
> If you don't like it, turn it off or change the channel.



Yep i chose to watch the history channel, yes i chose a low volume. No i do not choose for when the commercials come on for it to get louder. 

So i should just suffer and turn my tv off all together bc someone else chooses to raise the volume during commercials? Unfortunately i happen to like the programs on alot of channels that do this, like the history and discovery and hgtv. So changing the channel will not help.

I'm glad to see you are so concerned about my tv watching though, that you are trying to find answers for my issue.

The point is really simple though. I should have the right in my home to have my tv set on ONE volume, that i am comfortable with. It really should'nt be anymore complicated then that. You really should not have to waste your time trying to think up solutions for other people to watch their own t.v's in their own homes in peace.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Next you'll be crying that the explosions are too loud when you watch die Hard 

This is why children should not be allowed to vote.


> The point is really simple though. I should have the right in my home to  have my tv set on ONE volume,



The sad thing is you don't even realize how stupid that statement is. 


They don't change the volume on your TV.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875426 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We own the airwaves collectively.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not own collectively what I produce privately. That's one of the very principles of liberalism upon which this nation was founded.
Click to expand...

You don't produce the airwaves.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875426 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We own the airwaves collectively.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not own collectively what I produce privately. That's one of the very principles of liberalism upon which this nation was founded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't produce the airwaves.
Click to expand...



They produce the radio radiation you nitwit.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875426 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We own the airwaves collectively.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not own collectively what I produce privately. That's one of the very principles of liberalism upon which this nation was founded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't produce the airwaves.
Click to expand...


&#9773;-boi *disturbs* the airwaves.  But that's different!

In the meanwhile, let it be duly noted that Ravi gets bonus points on that post for being right and being concise!


----------



## BridgieBridge

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876151 said:
			
		

> Next you'll be crying that the explosions are too loud when you watch die Hard
> 
> This is why children should not be allowed to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is really simple though. I should have the right in my home to  have my tv set on ONE volume,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is you don't even realize how stupid that statement is.
> 
> 
> They don't change the volume on your TV.
Click to expand...


You are just an ass. Again, i'm not crying but complaining, not a child but an adult. Dumbass, when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.

Wonder if this thingy-do works?





Heartland America: Audiovox TV Volume Regulator

I guess i just have to PAY MORE to just watch my damn tv in peace.


----------



## Ravi

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876169 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875426 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not own collectively what I produce privately. That's one of the very principles of liberalism upon which this nation was founded.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't produce the airwaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They produce the radio radiation you nitwit.
Click to expand...



You are so simplistic.

The facts are: The FCC regulates the broadcast frequencies for Americans. They regulate who uses what frequency and they regulate what the frequencies are used for...and they grant the license for usage...and we have a vested interest in the big, bad Government doing this...they are the ONLY body that can do it while protecting the freedom of speech we all enjoy.

As long as this holds true the broadcasters are not free to do whatever they please. And that means they cannot adjust my television volume unless we as a group allow them to do so...freedom of speech does not cover volume level.

That is all...I'm done with this topic. Your stupidity seems incurable.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

BridgieBridge said:


> when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.






You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

That we regulate the usage of the equipment doesn't mean we own the radiation they emit, you twit, nor is any such convoluted and illogical bullshit needed to justify such regulations.

They're not adjusting your tv, you idiot. I told you, the intro to The Outer Limits was just part of the show. The NWO isn't watching you through the TV or controlling your mind with food additives, regardless of what Terral tells you.

Next you'll be suing Metallica for changing your radio because the background vocs aren't as loud as the lead vocs and the guitars get louder and quieter for effect


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876169 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't produce the airwaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They produce the radio radiation you nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so simplistic.
> 
> The facts are: The FCC regulates the broadcast frequencies for Americans. They regulate who uses what frequency and they regulate what the frequencies are used for...and they grant the license for usage...and we have a vested interest in the big, bad Government doing this...they are the ONLY body that can do it while protecting the freedom of speech we all enjoy.
> 
> As long as this holds true the broadcasters are not free to do whatever they please. And that means they cannot adjust my television volume unless we as a group allow them to do so...freedom of speech does not cover volume level.
> 
> That is all...I'm done with this topic. Your stupidity *seems* incurable.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Sometimes things ARE what they seem to be.


----------



## manifold

this thread is a hoot.

Toiletarian is getting battered like a lippy broad in West Virginia, and he keeps asking for more.


----------



## Anguille

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876495 said:
			
		

> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?
Click to expand...

Lame.

After this post, I agree with both Liability and Ravi above concerning your stupidity.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lame.
> 
> After this post, I agree with both Liability and Ravi above concerning your stupidity.
Click to expand...


Is he really stupid or really stupid?


----------



## manifold

he's jacko stupid.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?
> 
> 
> 
> Lame.
> 
> After this post, I agree with both Liability and Ravi above concerning your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he really stupid or really stupid?
Click to expand...

He's the kind of stupid who, when incapable of admitting he's been proven wrong, doesn't have the common sense to  and just  slink away from a thread.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Here's a test for you. Get an old tv with a volume knob and let me know whether that knob moves on its own when the commercials come on.


----------



## BridgieBridge

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876495 said:
			
		

> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?
Click to expand...


Oh boy.......  

I watch mild stuff to go to SLEEP, not action packed adventures with explosions! Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials. I'm not complaining about the volume of my tv show i'm watching, i'm complaining about the COMMERCIALS, stay on topic!


----------



## Samson

BridgieBridge said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy.......
> 
> I watch mild stuff to go to SLEEP, not action packed adventures with explosions! Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials. I'm not complaining about the volume of my tv show i'm watching, i'm complaining about the COMMERCIALS, stay on topic!
Click to expand...


You've got your hands full if you're gonna keep this crew on topic.

I suggest you just post:

"Palin is Stupid"

"Obama is Stupid"

"Its Bush's Fault"

"Democrats Bad"

Everyone will appreciate you more.


----------



## BridgieBridge

Samson said:


> You've got your hands full if you're gonna keep this crew on topic.
> 
> I suggest you just post:
> 
> "Palin is Stupid"
> 
> "Obama is Stupid"
> 
> "Its Bush's Fault"
> 
> "Democrats Bad"
> 
> Everyone will appreciate you more.



Oh,  silly me!

"Palin is stupid"

"Obama is stupid"

"Every single damn thing is Bush's fault"  (even the volume of my t.v!)

"Democrats bad"

"Republicans Bad" (had to throw that one in, being i am a foe of theirs) 

That better?

Honestly though, i could care less if anyone appreciates me here or not, bc i appreciate myself!  ( Where is the wink smiley? Am i just missing it?)


----------



## Paulie

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Audio dynamic range compression.
> 
> Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.
> 
> An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's called a "limiter".  It's a typical processor in audio.  It's also used with radio broadcast to keep levels constant.  That's why when you have your volume set at a certain level in your car, it's actually more quiet on the radio than it would be if you had a CD in at that volume level.  

Without doing a bunch of ridiculous unnecessary research on this commercial volume topic, I'd guess that the level peaks of the commercials are probably not topping the levels that are legally allowed.  

If you have a problem with a company using this tactic, stop fucking buying their products and tell them WHY.  When the revenue drops, so will the volume.

Or just be a fucking pussy and go cry to mommy.gov


----------



## Care4all

Paulie said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.
> 
> An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, it's called a "limiter".  It's a typical processor in audio.  It's also used with radio broadcast to keep levels constant.  That's why when you have your volume set at a certain level in your car, it's actually more quiet on the radio than it would be if you had a CD in at that volume level.
> 
> Without doing a bunch of ridiculous unnecessary research on this commercial volume topic, I'd guess that the level peaks of the commercials are probably not topping the levels that are legally allowed.
> 
> If you have a problem with a company using this tactic, stop fucking buying their products and tell them WHY.  When the revenue drops, so will the volume.
> 
> Or just be a fucking pussy and go cry to mommy.gov
Click to expand...


paul,

can you explain why this ''limiter'' that you say functions to keep broadcast levels constant, would not be capable of keeping the volume levels constant between programs and commercials?


----------



## Ravi

Care4all said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it's called a "limiter".  It's a typical processor in audio.  It's also used with radio broadcast to keep levels constant.  That's why when you have your volume set at a certain level in your car, it's actually more quiet on the radio than it would be if you had a CD in at that volume level.
> 
> Without doing a bunch of ridiculous unnecessary research on this commercial volume topic, I'd guess that the level peaks of the commercials are probably not topping the levels that are legally allowed.
> 
> If you have a problem with a company using this tactic, stop fucking buying their products and tell them WHY.  When the revenue drops, so will the volume.
> 
> Or just be a fucking pussy and go cry to mommy.gov
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> paul,
> 
> can you explain why this ''limiter'' that you say functions to keep broadcast levels constant, would not be capable of keeping the volume levels constant between programs and commercials?
Click to expand...

A limiter doesn't keep broadcast levels constant. It keeps the signal from clipping...becoming too loud and/or distorted. So no, a limiter would be rather worthless in this case.


----------



## California Girl

Sarah G said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course, who else could do it?
Click to expand...


You? 

Oh, that's right, liberals want the government to do everything for them.


----------



## Ravi

Care, check and see if your television has an "auto volume" feature. If you enable it, it will level the volume between the programs and the commercials. It's not perfect because it will have some effect on overall sound quality but it might help you out.


----------



## Care4all

Ravi said:


> Care, check and see if your television has an "auto volume" feature. If you enable it, it will level the volume between the programs and the commercials. It's not perfect because it will have some effect on overall sound quality but it might help you out.



We just recently bought 2 new tv's, I will see if they have it....thank you!

care


----------



## Zoom-boing

BridgieBridge said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> when my tv is suddenly louder then it was, then YES, THE VOLUME has changed, whether manually done on my tv or not, it's still a louder volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want every single sound to be the same volume, from the explosions to the whispers to the wind picked up by the mic on set?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy.......
> 
> I watch mild stuff to go to SLEEP, not action packed adventures with explosions! *Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.* I'm not complaining about the volume of my tv show i'm watching, i'm complaining about the COMMERCIALS, stay on topic!
Click to expand...


Well that's just completely not true.  I was watching_ Nip/Tuck _last night and as Sean and Christian prepared to sew some guys lips back on they cranked the music (Queen) in the OR - they always have music on in the OR - and was louder than the commercials they were airing during the breaks.  I had to lower the tv until that part was over.  Oh, the effort of pushing that volume button . . . it was exhausting!  I stated this earlier, most commercials are not as loud as you guys are making them out to be.  Some?  Absolutely, but not most and not the majority.  

You know what's really good to fall asleep to?  Soap operas.  They'll knock you out in no time.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it's called a "limiter".  It's a typical processor in audio.  It's also used with radio broadcast to keep levels constant.  That's why when you have your volume set at a certain level in your car, it's actually more quiet on the radio than it would be if you had a CD in at that volume level.
> 
> Without doing a bunch of ridiculous unnecessary research on this commercial volume topic, I'd guess that the level peaks of the commercials are probably not topping the levels that are legally allowed.
> 
> If you have a problem with a company using this tactic, stop fucking buying their products and tell them WHY.  When the revenue drops, so will the volume.
> 
> Or just be a fucking pussy and go cry to mommy.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paul,
> 
> can you explain why this ''limiter'' that you say functions to keep broadcast levels constant, would not be capable of keeping the volume levels constant between programs and commercials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A limiter doesn't keep broadcast levels constant. It keeps the signal from clipping...becoming too loud and/or distorted. So no, a limiter would be rather worthless in this case.
Click to expand...


Rav you can set a limiter to control volume and maintain the peak at any level you choose.  The limiter most certainly WOULD be useful for keeping the volume from passing the peak allowable level.  This is EXACTLY why they are used in radio.  It's _required_.

I've used just about every audio processor you can imagine, in my music production work.  Don't try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

And Care, I've never said it wouldn't be capable of it.  I'm saying the opposite.  It WOULD be.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> paul,
> 
> can you explain why this ''limiter'' that you say functions to keep broadcast levels constant, would not be capable of keeping the volume levels constant between programs and commercials?
> 
> 
> 
> A limiter doesn't keep broadcast levels constant. It keeps the signal from clipping...becoming too loud and/or distorted. So no, a limiter would be rather worthless in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rav you can set a limiter to control volume and maintain the peak at any level you choose.  The limiter most certainly WOULD be useful for keeping the volume from passing the peak allowable level.  This is EXACTLY why they are used in radio.  It's _required_.
> 
> I've used just about every audio processor you can imagine, in my music production work.  Don't try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> And Care, I've never said it wouldn't be capable of it.  I'm saying the opposite.  It WOULD be.
Click to expand...

The point is, why should anyone have to buy one. The new law will put an end to this abuse.


----------



## Ravi

Pauli,

Why don't you try this at home and then report back. Perhaps you will discover the flaw in your logic.


----------



## manifold

Paulie,

Given that you are an honest libertarian (unlike frauderator Dude for example), I'm especially interested in your thoughts on these questions.  If you have the time.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100391-government-regulations-discussion-philosophical-and-or-constitutional.html


----------



## BridgieBridge

Zoom-boing said:


> Well that's just completely not true.  I was watching_ Nip/Tuck _last night and as Sean and Christian prepared to sew some guys lips back on they cranked the music (Queen) in the OR - they always have music on in the OR - and was louder than the commercials they were airing during the breaks.  I had to lower the tv until that part was over.  Oh, the effort of pushing that volume button . . . it was exhausting!  I stated this earlier, most commercials are not as loud as you guys are making them out to be.  Some?  Absolutely, but not most and not the majority.
> 
> You know what's really good to fall asleep to?  Soap operas.  They'll knock you out in no time.





How can you tell me that's not true?????? Do you lay in bed with me at night watching t.v? NO, no you do not, so therefore you do not know what sounds are coming from MY tv. I'm kinda offended you are calling me a liar bc my main motto is "To thine own self be true" I try to live a very honest life. I don't have any reason to be untruthful. When i'm watching the history channel about some ancient kings and queens, there is no funky music playing, and when i am watching house hunters, again no music. Just people talking and looking at houses. I do not watch "loud shows" to fall asleep to. I did not say ALL commercials are louder. What i said is the channels i watch, most of the commercials are louder.

Yea i really don't care for soap operas, but thanks for the advice. The history channel normally works fine for me! Just not the damn commercials!


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Pauli,
> 
> Why don't you try this at home and then report back. Perhaps you will discover the flaw in your logic.



You and Ang aren't getting it.

It's not YOU who uses a limiter, it's the _broadcaster_.  The fact that commercials are louder is because those companies PAID for the air time and decided to raise the volume level.

No one is forcing you to buy their products.  You want the government to control it because you want to have your cake and eat it too.  This way, you can continuing buying their products without feeling guilty about it.

That's the only explanation here.

Whatever happened to people taking a stand for themselves in this country?  It used to be that if people had a collective complaint about companies, they'd simply not buy the products and voice their discontent.  Now everyone wants the government to do their dirty work FOR them.  WHY???

Stop wasting the government's time on this fucking stupid ridiculous bullshit, already.  Again, if commercial volume levels are THAT much of a bother to you, you're probably watching WAY too much TV.  

Should the government regulate what products we get hit with ads by?  What if enough people don't like seeing a certain product on TV because they simply don't like it...should the government step in and regulate it off the air?

I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote.  You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds 

It's SAD.


----------



## Paulie

manifold said:


> Paulie,
> 
> Given that you are an honest libertarian (unlike frauderator Dude for example), I'm especially interested in your thoughts on these questions.  If you have the time.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100391-government-regulations-discussion-philosophical-and-or-constitutional.html



I'll make a promise to you that I'll address this very soon.  Probably not tonight though, definitely tomorrow.  I'll have time tomorrow.


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli,
> 
> Why don't you try this at home and then report back. Perhaps you will discover the flaw in your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS OF LIBERTARIAN HOT AIR THAT I'LL IGNORE.
Click to expand...




> Should the government regulate what products we get hit with ads by?  What if enough people don't like seeing a certain product on TV because they simply don't like it...should the government step in and regulate it off the air?


No.



> I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote.  You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds
> 
> It's SAD.


Because we shouldn't have to do it. The advertisers have no right to blast their commercials at volumes higher than what we've set on our stereo systems. And since we own/control the airwaves we are perfectly free to regulate them in this manner.

Obviously you read nothing on this thread or you are so married to your own idiotic beliefs that you've stagnated.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli,
> 
> Why don't you try this at home and then report back. Perhaps you will discover the flaw in your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS OF LIBERTARIAN HOT AIR THAT I'LL IGNORE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the government regulate what products we get hit with ads by?  What if enough people don't like seeing a certain product on TV because they simply don't like it...should the government step in and regulate it off the air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote.  You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds
> 
> It's SAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we shouldn't have to do it. The advertisers have no right to blast their commercials at volumes higher than what we've set on our stereo systems. And since we own/control the airwaves we are perfectly free to regulate them in this manner.
> 
> Obviously you read nothing on this thread or you are so married to your own idiotic beliefs that you've stagnated.
Click to expand...


So we the viewers have a right to a certain volume level, but some company doesn't?

Explain that logic to me, Rav.  What makes a viewer somehow more important than an advertiser?


----------



## manifold

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS OF LIBERTARIAN HOT AIR THAT I'LL IGNORE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote.  You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds
> 
> It's SAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we shouldn't have to do it. The advertisers have no right to blast their commercials at volumes higher than what we've set on our stereo systems. And since we own/control the airwaves we are perfectly free to regulate them in this manner.
> 
> Obviously you read nothing on this thread or you are so married to your own idiotic beliefs that you've stagnated.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we the viewers have a right to a certain volume level, but some company doesn't?
> 
> Explain that logic to me, Rav.  What makes a viewer somehow more important than an advertiser?
Click to expand...

What makes the advertiser more important than the viewer? The viewer that FREAKING owns the airwaves?

Nothing, nothing at all.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.


I dunno, his last post skated rather close.


----------



## Paulie

Btw, I just loooove the "we shouldn't have to do it" argument.

Do you realize how many analogies could be used to make that argument look ridiculous?

What it comes down to is how willing are you to give more power to the government vs. how willing are you to handle your own damn business.

Personally, I don't care enough about TV to actually want to give congress that power.  

I'll tell you this, though.  If you were able to successfully get a collective together and lobby congress to do this, I'd give you props.  Because what it ends up being is the little people vs. the corporate lobbyists.

If you can beat the lobbyists, more power to you.  Regardless though, I still think both sides have just as much of a right to those airwaves.  So whoever has the power in numbers to win their case, so be it.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli,
> 
> Why don't you try this at home and then report back. Perhaps you will discover the flaw in your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Ang aren't getting it.
> 
> It's not YOU who uses a limiter, it's the _broadcaster_.  The fact that commercials are louder is because those companies PAID for the air time and decided to raise the volume level.
> 
> No one is forcing you to buy their products.  You want the government to control it because you want to have your cake and eat it too.  This way, you can continuing buying their products without feeling guilty about it.
Click to expand...

 Paulie, I don't buy their products nor would I feel guilty about making them stop blasting my eardrums even if I did. 





Paulie said:


> That's the only explanation here.
> 
> Whatever happened to people taking a stand for themselves in this country?  It used to be that if people had a collective complaint about companies, they'd simply not buy the products and voice their discontent.


Because boycotts are a last resort, when government is not doing it's job.





Paulie said:


> Now everyone wants the government to do their dirty work FOR them.  WHY???


 Why do you call it dirty work? We pay taxes so the government will protect us. 





Paulie said:


> Stop wasting the government's time on this fucking stupid ridiculous bullshit, already.


 Why not ask that of the abusive advertisers? They are the ones who created the problem. 





Paulie said:


> Again, if commercial volume levels are THAT much of a bother to you, you're probably watching WAY too much TV.


 Lame. Offensive advertisers are actually doing us a favor by making us turn off our sets. Do you really want offensive advertisers regulating how much TV we watch, Paulie? 


Paulie said:


> Should the government regulate what products we get hit with ads by?  What if enough people don't like seeing a certain product on TV because they simply don't like it...should the government step in and regulate it off the air?
> 
> I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote.  You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds
> 
> It's SAD.


  Again. Pathetic and lame way of excusing bad behavior on the part of advertisers.


----------



## Paulie

I'll only go so far as to say the commerce clause is too vague to _solely_ rely on as distinct constitutionality.

I'm all for an amendment that clears that clause up and makes it air tight concise.

Same with "general welfare".

I think it's way past time we started fixing some of the vagueness in the constitution.


----------



## Ravi

Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.

It is really that simple.


----------



## manifold

Paulie,

Do you honestly believe that unregulated airwaves is practical?


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.
> 
> It is really that simple.



In broad terms, I agree.

The narrowing limitations I would add, though are these:

1. When we say that we "own" the airwaves, I believe we are actually using a term of legal fiction.  It is a serviceable legal fiction, however, and based on common sense.

2.  The "regulations" are properly limited to the accessibility of the airwaves for preseerving OUR freedom of speech rights.  Thus, if we lease frequencies to a broadcaster (thereby preventing any competitor from using THAT particualr frequency), the regulations should be limited to broadcast signal strength, public access rules, etc.  Whatever else they SHOULD include, they should NOT be so broad as to allow the government to restrict free political discourse.

All the rest can be fine tuned.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.



It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this?  If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.
> 
> It is really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In broad terms, I agree.
> 
> The narrowing limitations I would add, though are these:
> 
> 1. When we say that we "own" the airwaves, I believe we are actually using a term of legal fiction.  It is a serviceable legal fiction, however, and based on common sense.
> 
> 2.  The "regulations" are properly limited to the accessibility of the airwaves for preseerving OUR freedom of speech rights.  Thus, if we lease frequencies to a broadcaster (thereby preventing any competitor from using THAT particualr frequency), the regulations should be limited to broadcast signal strength, public access rules, etc.  Whatever else they SHOULD include, they should NOT be so broad as to allow the government to restrict free political discourse.
> 
> All the rest can be fine tuned.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.
> 
> It is really that simple.



Have you contacted the FCC about this issue yet?  

The FCC says the public owns the airwaves, so the public should simply contact them and put in the request.  There's really no need for congress to get involved.  There's already a regulatory body.

Like I said, if the public can outnumber the corporate lobbyists, more power to them.  I don't agree that it's necessary, though.  It's just TV, Rav.

Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in.  Especially during times like these.  I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this?  If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.
Click to expand...


Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in.  Especially during times like these.  I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.


OMG!  The holier than thou tactic!  St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this?  If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.
> 
> Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...


Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.


----------



## manifold

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in.  Especially during times like these.  I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  The holier than thou tactic!  St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.
Click to expand...


A true company man.


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this?  If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.
> 
> Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
Click to expand...


So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.
> 
> It is really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you contacted the FCC about this issue yet?
> 
> The FCC says the public owns the airwaves, so the public should simply contact them and put in the request.  There's really no need for congress to get involved.  There's already a regulatory body.
> 
> Like I said, if the public can outnumber the corporate lobbyists, more power to them.  I don't agree that it's necessary, though.  It's just TV, Rav.
> 
> Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in.  Especially during times like these.  I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly. Should we also contact the CIA and tell them what we want them to do?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.
> 
> Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?
Click to expand...


That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well.  But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in.  Especially during times like these.  I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  The holier than thou tactic!  St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.
Click to expand...

 Yes, times like these that the banks created. He sounds like a good little corporate drone. Thank you master! Use me as you please and I will lick your ass.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this?  If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.
> 
> Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
Click to expand...

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.
> 
> Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.
Click to expand...


You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well.  But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.
Click to expand...


Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?

Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well.  But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?
> 
> Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?
Click to expand...


How are unregulated airwaves unusable?  Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves?  All we need are property rights.  Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.
Click to expand...


Then what is your point?


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well.  But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?
> 
> Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are unregulated airwaves unusable?  Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves?  All we need are property rights.  Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.
Click to expand...


And when two parties broadcast on the same frequency, who arbitrates?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?
> 
> Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are unregulated airwaves unusable?  Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves?  All we need are property rights.  Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when two parties broadcast on the same frequency, who arbitrates?
Click to expand...


The courts.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what is your point?
Click to expand...

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.
Click to expand...


Advertisers don't have rights?


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
Click to expand...

Not at the expense of others' rights.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
Click to expand...

You mean like smokers?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
Click to expand...


Except your rights are not being violated.  You have the means to alter the volume of the commercials at the push of a single button.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like smokers?
Click to expand...

Smokers don't have a right to come into your house and smoke, silly.


----------



## Zoom-boing

BridgieBridge said:


> How can you tell me that's not true??????



You said that the programs don't get as loud as the damn commercials:



BridgieBridge said:


> *Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.*



Yes, shows DO get as loud as the damn commercials . . . . how do I know this is true?  I thought I made that pretty clear.  Again, because _Nip/Tuck _*got louder* than the damn commercials when I was watching it last night.  I didn't specifically say the History channel got louder nor was I calling you a liar.  You also weren't specific that the History Channel does or doesn't get louder than commercials.  Was I to assume that you were just talking about the History Channel?  Cause I didn't.  Just saying that shows DO, in fact, get just as loud or louder than some commercials, as it happened on _Nip/Tuck_.  Last night.  When I was watching it.  

I watched soaps years ago when my kids were little and I put them down for a nap.  lol, of course I probably always fell asleep because I was tired from being a mom to little kids.


----------



## California Girl

manifold said:


> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.



Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?


----------



## Care4all

California Girl said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
Click to expand...


fyi 


The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.


----------



## Ravi

Care4all said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


And here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...


:facepalm:

wrong


----------



## BridgieBridge

Zoom-boing said:


> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you tell me that's not true??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the programs don't get as loud as the damn commercials:
> 
> 
> 
> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, shows DO get as loud as the damn commercials . . . . how do I know this is true?  I thought I made that pretty clear.  Again, because _Nip/Tuck _*got louder* than the damn commercials when I was watching it last night.  I didn't specifically say the History channel got louder nor was I calling you a liar.  You also weren't specific that the History Channel does or doesn't get louder than commercials.  Was I to assume that you were just talking about the History Channel?  Cause I didn't.  Just saying that shows DO, in fact, get just as loud or louder than some commercials, as it happened on _Nip/Tuck_.  Last night.  When I was watching it.
> 
> I watched soaps years ago when my kids were little and I put them down for a nap.  lol, of course I probably always fell asleep because I was tired from being a mom to little kids.
Click to expand...




Oh my goodness..... i'm not sure how many times i must explain this. *Yes some show's like Nip Tuck and others get louder at times during the program. I do not watch loud and exciting and entertaining shows to fall asleep to!* I put on something boring and mild and quiet. In most cases it remains the same volume while the program is on, yes occasionally a women who just found out she got the house of her dreams on hgtv, might get a little excited, when she gets the news, but still even then it's not as loud as the commercial that follows it. I can handle the women who yell's i got the house, or else i would'nt put the show on. And is if she yell's " i got the house!" it's very briefly, not several minutes of loud commercials. I cannot name you every channel that does or does not get louder during commercials bc i don't watch every channel. I do not watch alot of tv, other then to fall asleep to. Sometimes i don't even use the tv for that , sometimes i just read a book till i can no longer keep my eyes open. And actually in all honesty, not every single commercial during the break get's loud. Sometimes it's a loud one, then a regular one, and then another loud one. But i feel that the one's that do get louder should be quiet like other normal commercials, that stay the same volume as the show i'm watching. Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?

Lol , it was probably just bc you were tired from being a mom to little kids! I have a daughter but unfortuately i also have mild insomnia. It's difficult most of the time for me to go to sleep. That's why i get so aggravated when i start to fall asleep and..... *BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!*


----------



## Samson

BridgieBridge said:


> Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?



What's amazing to me is there's no other USMB poster that appears more like you than Zoom-boing.

Now you know what's its like!!!!


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in.  Especially during times like these.  I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  The holier than thou tactic!  St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.
Click to expand...


Holier than thou?  Big business?? 

Please, Ang.

How is saying that wanting government to regulate something as insignificant as TV volume is ridiculous BECAUSE it's insignificant, considered "holier than thou"?  

We ARE in the worst recession since the great depression.  There's millions of people without jobs, many lost their homes, and this is somehow IMPORTANT??  That's holier than thou?  

I don't think I'm better than ANYONE.  I'm just glad I still have what I have.  You can do whatever you want with that statement, I really don't care.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airwaves cross state borders.  The commerce clause applies.
> 
> Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.
Click to expand...


The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but _volume levels_ have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
Click to expand...


Show me the clear and concise part of the constitution that says we have the right to a volume level of our choice on TV?

Or at least anything that somehow pertains to that in your opinion...

In the meantime, here's what I'll give you..

We have the right to PURSUE happiness.  This means that we have the right to lobby the FCC to regulate the airwaves for us in a manner that we desire.

So get off your ass and go do your civic duty if it's that important to you.  If you win, I'll be more than happy to congratulate you on such a victory. 

No matter how much some of you might think I favor big business, you're sorely mistaken.  I'd LOVE to see the people defeat them.  I simply don't think the people have what it takes to get something like that done.  That's why they go crying to congress to do it _FOR_ them.

Come on Rav, go _do it_.


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border.  It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another.  This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but _volume levels_ have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.
Click to expand...

No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.

If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but _volume levels_ have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.
> 
> If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.
Click to expand...


At this point, the only reason I disagree is because I believe the companies have a certain "right" as well, considering they paid very good money to air the ad in the first place.

We already see what a waste of time and resources banning cigarette ads on TV has been.  Those things are killing MORE people than they did before that was illegal.  So what did it really accomplish?

Heart disease and cancer are responsible for half the deaths in the country, and cigs are probably responsible for a majority of those causes.  We regulated cig ads off of the TV, and those numbers have only INCREASED.

The government isn't always the answer to every problem.  You're going to get rid of commercial volume loudness, and STILL find something to complain about.  

This is just strange to me, Rav.  When those loud commercials come on, I laugh because of how ridiculous it is.  I have never once thought that I needed to contact the government and have them put a stop to it.  I just don't understand why it's that big of a deal.

If the best you can come up with is "we shouldn't have to put up with it" then you better buy yourself a big note pad and start making a long list of things the government needs to regulate, because you could literally make a list of infinite things we "shouldn't have to put up with".


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> The advertisers have no right to blast their commercials at volumes higher than what we've set on our stereo systems.




They're not, you idiot. The volume setting on your TV stays the same the whole time.


How can you be so stupid?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Anguille said:


> Paulie, I don't buy their products



Stealing cable is illegal...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?
> 
> Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are unregulated airwaves unusable?  Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves?  All we need are property rights.  Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when two parties broadcast on the same frequency, who arbitrates?
Click to expand...


I explained all this shiit long time ago in this very thread


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.
> 
> And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
Click to expand...


Are they preventing you from pushing mute or turning the damned tv off and picking  up a book without pictures for the first time in your life?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...



Damn, you're stupid. No powers or authority are granted by those words. The powers granted are listed elsewhere, you illiterate twit.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> . That's why i get so aggravated when i start to fall asleep and..... *BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!*



Grow the fuck up and turn off the tv.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Samson said:


> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing to me is there's no other USMB poster that appears more like you than Zoom-boing.
> 
> Now you know what's its like!!!!
Click to expand...


HEY, are you saying I'm a babbler?


----------



## Zoom-boing

BridgieBridge said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you tell me that's not true??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the programs don't get as loud as the damn commercials:
> 
> 
> 
> BridgieBridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, shows DO get as loud as the damn commercials . . . . how do I know this is true?  I thought I made that pretty clear.  Again, because _Nip/Tuck _*got louder* than the damn commercials when I was watching it last night.  I didn't specifically say the History channel got louder nor was I calling you a liar.  You also weren't specific that the History Channel does or doesn't get louder than commercials.  Was I to assume that you were just talking about the History Channel?  Cause I didn't.  Just saying that shows DO, in fact, get just as loud or louder than some commercials, as it happened on _Nip/Tuck_.  Last night.  When I was watching it.
> 
> I watched soaps years ago when my kids were little and I put them down for a nap.  lol, of course I probably always fell asleep because I was tired from being a mom to little kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness..... i'm not sure how many times i must explain this. *Yes some show's like Nip Tuck and others get louder at times during the program. I do not watch loud and exciting and entertaining shows to fall asleep to!* I put on something boring and mild and quiet. In most cases it remains the same volume while the program is on, yes occasionally a women who just found out she got the house of her dreams on hgtv, might get a little excited, when she gets the news, but still even then it's not as loud as the commercial that follows it. I can handle the women who yell's i got the house, or else i would'nt put the show on. And is if she yell's " i got the house!" it's very briefly, not several minutes of loud commercials. I cannot name you every channel that does or does not get louder during commercials bc i don't watch every channel. I do not watch alot of tv, other then to fall asleep to. Sometimes i don't even use the tv for that , sometimes i just read a book till i can no longer keep my eyes open. And actually in all honesty, not every single commercial during the break get's loud. Sometimes it's a loud one, then a regular one, and then another loud one. But i feel that the one's that do get louder should be quiet like other normal commercials, that stay the same volume as the show i'm watching. Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?
> 
> Lol , it was probably just bc you were tired from being a mom to little kids! I have a daughter but unfortuately i also have mild insomnia. It's difficult most of the time for me to go to sleep. That's why i get so aggravated when i start to fall asleep and..... *BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!*
Click to expand...


I got yer point . . . was just making mine.  

Have you ever tried a 'white noise' machine?  Or even a fan?  When my son was little I used to turn a fan on because it was summer and hot and he always slept better when it was on.  He was/is a light sleeper.  16 years later the fan still goes on at night for background noise.  Also did you ever try this?  It's available in most drug or grocery stores, is safe, no side effects and it works to quiet restless minds (if that's what's keeping you from sleeping).



> Quietude® combines homeopathic medicines traditionally used to treat sleeplessness and restless sleep. Homeopathic medicines are made of very dilute substances and are regulated as drugs by the FDA.
> Quietude® is made by Boiron, world leader in homeopathy. For more than 70 years, Boiron has been committed to funding scientific research and education the public and health care officials about homeopathic medicines.
> 
> Made according to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States.



Buy Boiron Quietude, for Sleeplessness and Restless Sleep Online at drugstore.com


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...


Which gives absolutely no power whatsoever, and is simply a pronouncement of why they created the Constitution in the first place.


----------



## Ravi

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but _volume levels_ have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.
> 
> If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point, the only reason I disagree is because I believe the companies have a certain "right" as well, considering they paid very good money to air the ad in the first place.
> 
> We already see what a waste of time and resources banning cigarette ads on TV has been.  Those things are killing MORE people than they did before that was illegal.  So what did it really accomplish?
> 
> Heart disease and cancer are responsible for half the deaths in the country, and cigs are probably responsible for a majority of those causes.  We regulated cig ads off of the TV, and those numbers have only INCREASED.
> 
> The government isn't always the answer to every problem.  You're going to get rid of commercial volume loudness, and STILL find something to complain about.
> 
> This is just strange to me, Rav.  When those loud commercials come on, I laugh because of how ridiculous it is.  I have never once thought that I needed to contact the government and have them put a stop to it.  I just don't understand why it's that big of a deal.
> 
> If the best you can come up with is "we shouldn't have to put up with it" then you better buy yourself a big note pad and start making a long list of things the government needs to regulate, because you could literally make a list of infinite things we "shouldn't have to put up with".
Click to expand...

 You're a hoot!


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.
> 
> If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, the only reason I disagree is because I believe the companies have a certain "right" as well, considering they paid very good money to air the ad in the first place.
> 
> We already see what a waste of time and resources banning cigarette ads on TV has been.  Those things are killing MORE people than they did before that was illegal.  So what did it really accomplish?
> 
> Heart disease and cancer are responsible for half the deaths in the country, and cigs are probably responsible for a majority of those causes.  We regulated cig ads off of the TV, and those numbers have only INCREASED.
> 
> The government isn't always the answer to every problem.  You're going to get rid of commercial volume loudness, and STILL find something to complain about.
> 
> This is just strange to me, Rav.  When those loud commercials come on, I laugh because of how ridiculous it is.  I have never once thought that I needed to contact the government and have them put a stop to it.  I just don't understand why it's that big of a deal.
> 
> If the best you can come up with is "we shouldn't have to put up with it" then you better buy yourself a big note pad and start making a long list of things the government needs to regulate, because you could literally make a list of infinite things we "shouldn't have to put up with".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a hoot!
Click to expand...


That's one hell of a rebuttal Rav, I guess I'm beat. 

The old 'i'll just laugh at you instead' routine.  The Harvard debate team would be jealous.


----------



## Ravi

I asked you to make a case that regulating the volume of commercials violated someone's freedom of speech rights and you went into a rant that made no sense and was full of untruths.


----------



## Paulie

What was untrue?

And I think you're confusing me with someone else.  I have not been debating freedom of speech in this thread.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> No matter how much some of you might think I favor big business, you're sorely mistaken.  I'd LOVE to see the people defeat them.  I simply don't think the people have what it takes to get something like that done.  That's why they go crying to congress to do it _FOR_ them.
> 
> Come on Rav, go _do it_.


Hey clueless, this is what democratic government is, people getting together to defeat tyranny. Crying to congress, as you call it, _is_ the the people taking steps to defeat big business.


----------



## California Girl

Care4all said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs.  It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time.  I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible.  It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd.  I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I see nothing about the volume of adverts.


----------



## Anguille

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881054 said:
			
		

> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie, I don't buy their products
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stealing cable is illegal...
Click to expand...

He was talking about the products being advertised.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...


I hope you're kidding. I'm gonna assume you're not that stupid.


----------



## Anguille

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881073 said:
			
		

> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisers don't have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they preventing you from pushing mute or turning the damned tv off and picking  up a book without pictures for the first time in your life?
Click to expand...

You may think that repeating idiocies over and over again like a broken record or an annoying commercial that broadcasts at high volume will somehow hypnotize people thinking you are right. But most people will just hit the mute button for your posts.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much some of you might think I favor big business, you're sorely mistaken.  I'd LOVE to see the people defeat them.  I simply don't think the people have what it takes to get something like that done.  That's why they go crying to congress to do it _FOR_ them.
> 
> Come on Rav, go _do it_.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey clueless, this is what democratic government is, people getting together to defeat tyranny. Crying to congress, as you call it, _is_ the the people taking steps to defeat big business.
Click to expand...


But you and I differ on what Congress' role ultimately is.

Nice name-calling, too.  It definitely becomes you.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Nice name-calling, too.  It definitely becomes you.


I thought Jersey boys were tough.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice name-calling, too.  It definitely becomes you.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Jersey boys were tough.
Click to expand...


Not THAT tough, Ang


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice name-calling, too.  It definitely becomes you.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Jersey boys were tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not THAT tough, Ang
Click to expand...

Okay, I take it back, Paulie, You have a clue or two.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Jersey boys were tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not THAT tough, Ang
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, I take it back, Paulie, You have a clue or two.
Click to expand...


Aww shucks


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Anguille said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881054 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie, I don't buy their products
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stealing cable is illegal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was talking about the products being advertised.
Click to expand...

Speaking in the third person or sharing the account?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Anguille said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881073 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of others' rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they preventing you from pushing mute or turning the damned tv off and picking  up a book without pictures for the first time in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may think that repeating idiocies over and over again like a broken record or an annoying commercial that broadcasts at high volume will somehow hypnotize people thinking you are right. But most people will just hit the mute button for your posts.
Click to expand...

So the answer to my question is 'no, they're not preventing me from pushing the button; I'm just too stupid to do so'?


----------



## Anguille

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1883704 said:
			
		

> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881054 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stealing cable is illegal...
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about the products being advertised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking in the third person or sharing the account?
Click to expand...

Paulie was talking about the products being advertised. No one is discussing sharing an account. sheesh!


----------



## Ravi

Careful, Angie. This dolt makes RGS look intelligent.


----------



## BridgieBridge

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881085 said:
			
		

> Grow the fuck up and turn off the tv.



You are quite nasty, and it's quite uncalled for.   



Zoom-boing said:


> I got yer point . . . was just making mine.
> 
> Have you ever tried a 'white noise' machine?  Or even a fan?  When my son was little I used to turn a fan on because it was summer and hot and he always slept better when it was on.  He was/is a light sleeper.  16 years later the fan still goes on at night for background noise.  Also did you ever try this?  It's available in most drug or grocery stores, is safe, no side effects and it works to quiet restless minds (if that's what's keeping you from sleeping).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quietude® combines homeopathic medicines traditionally used to treat sleeplessness and restless sleep. Homeopathic medicines are made of very dilute substances and are regulated as drugs by the FDA.
> Quietude® is made by Boiron, world leader in homeopathy. For more than 70 years, Boiron has been committed to funding scientific research and education the public and health care officials about homeopathic medicines.
> 
> Made according to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy Boiron Quietude, for Sleeplessness and Restless Sleep Online at drugstore.com
Click to expand...


I do use a fan in the summer, but my house gets very cold in the winter. I am a light sleeper also, and yes when i lay down and close my eyes, the thoughts start racing. I have not tried that. I have tried other things in the past, but i do not like anything that makes it hard to get up in the morning, and leaving me drowsy. So thanks for the tip, i will check it out!


----------



## The T

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you're kidding. I'm gonna assume you're not that stupid.
Click to expand...

 
In the context presented? I don't think it's an act.


----------



## Ravi

If you idiots think the preamble is meaningless then so be it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite right.  The advertisers may be cranking up the volume on the fucking ads they sell to the broadcasters, but the broadcasters have control over the volume they send out over the airwaves.  This is why I place the blame at both of their sets of feet, but primarily at the broadcasters'.
> 
> An advertiser cannot exploit jack shit if the broadcaster decides to turn down the volume as they send out the signal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.
> 
> They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.
Click to expand...


Yer not understanding me...

It IS programmed to do that. Audio levels not to exceed XXXXdB. What yer experiencing is ALL the audio levels of a commercial at XXXXdB. The commercials are following the "letter of the law" so to speak, it just seems that they are louder. And it is purposefully done that way through compression of the audio commercial.


----------



## RadiomanATL

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1867257 said:
			
		

> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Audio dynamic range compression.
> 
> Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The broadcasters aren't doing it. It's the advertising production companies who create the commercials. They are simply exploiting the peak audio range that the broadcasters are limited to at a more constant level.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't it be possible to subject the incoming signal to volume normalization prior to forwarding it to the tv?
Click to expand...


Sure, it's already done that way. Normalization just makes sure that the peaks don't exceed a certain audio ceiling. What compression does is bring as much as possible to that peak.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.
> 
> They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly right.
Click to expand...


Except that it's exactly....wrong.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Here's the best, visual way I can put it. Here's a clip of audio at a normal, uncompressed level. This would be what normal television programs would put out. The less you compress audio, the more you can hear the nuances and subtleties. So programs want to have lows and highs. Notice that the audio does not peak above or below that thin white line running on both the top/bottom of both L/R channels. Here's the screen-shot:







Now, this would be a wav form for an in-your-face commercial. All audio has been compressed and brought up to it's full in your face potential. I purposefully made this as an extreme an example as possible, so the audio sounds like shit, but it illustrates the point well. Notice that the audio _still isn't peaking above the white line_. There's just a lot _more_ of it riding that line constantly. Here's the screen shot:






Keep in mind that this is the exact same cut of audio, one is just compressed beyond belief...but even with that it still is _within the peak levels that have been mandated_.

This is exactly how it works. No broadcaster is breaking the law, and no advertiser is breaking the law. There's no gremlin in the back room jacking up the volumes just to piss you off.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the broadcaster doesn't change the audio levels constantly during broadcasting. Especially for television. It's set at a constant level, and the processing equipment keeps the peaks at a certain level.
> 
> There's no guy in a control room saying "OK, here come the commercials...crank it NOW".
> 
> This stuff is all automated now man. The computer doesn't care about the content of what is going on the air, all it cares about is the peak levels being sent out and keeping it below a certain level to prevent over-modulation. Doesn't matter if it's Law and Order or Crazy Sams Sunglass Emporium. The advertisers use the dynamic range processing to bring ALL the audio up to the peak levels and keep it there. And the system on the broadcast end doesn't care as long as none of it is going over the peak levels. Doesn't matter how often its getting to the peaks, as long as none of it goes over.
> 
> I gotta run, but next weekend when I'm at the station, and if this thread is going on, I'll post a couple of audio examples of a non-compressed song (what you normally would hear on a CD) and a compressed song (what you would hear on a commercial if the song was used as part of the ad).
> 
> See ya next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.
> 
> They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer not understanding me...
> 
> It IS programmed to do that. Audio levels not to exceed XXXXdB. What yer experiencing is ALL the audio levels of a commercial at XXXXdB. The commercials are following the "letter of the law" so to speak, it just seems that they are louder. And it is purposefully done that way through compression of the audio commercial.
Click to expand...

The broadcaster could program the commercials to not exceed the average level of the program. And yes, they are following the letter of the law...but the end result is that the commercials are blaring. Which is why the law is about to be changed.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.
> 
> They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer not understanding me...
> 
> It IS programmed to do that. Audio levels not to exceed XXXXdB. What yer experiencing is ALL the audio levels of a commercial at XXXXdB. The commercials are following the "letter of the law" so to speak, it just seems that they are louder. And it is purposefully done that way through compression of the audio commercial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The broadcaster could program the commercials to not exceed the average level of the program. And yes, they are following the letter of the law...but the end result is that the commercials are blaring. Which is why the law is about to be changed.
Click to expand...


No way possible to mandate that. And I seriously doubt that it could be done technically either.

And I already said that I think this is "feel good" legislation. I don't see how it would be, on the technical side, feasible to really do this.


----------



## Ravi

Why couldn't you just reduce the peak volume of anything that is highly compressed? Most movies aren't highly compressed, are they?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Why can't you just be a grown up and stop begging Uncie Sammie to push the fucking button for you?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> Why couldn't you just reduce the peak volume of anything that is highly compressed? Most movies aren't highly compressed, are they?



Because there's no way that I am aware of to have the equipment detect automatically 100% of the time that has been compressed and then keep it there within the same spot/segment/promo.

What would most likely happen would be even more annoying.... audio going all the way up and then when the computer realized what was happening bringing it down again all within the same single commercial, and then the computer holding over that setting into the next commercial and then compensating partially through it to bring it back to normal.

That sounds like a good way to never get anyone to advertise on your station again if you ask me.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's just a weak excuse for what the broadcasters CHOOSE to do.
> 
> They clearly have engineers while their stations are up and running.  It would be a simple enough task to check the levels and turn the shit down.  They could PROGRAM their equipment to do that automatically if they had a mind to be civil in fact.  And they could do a check on the volume of an advertisement when they screen it for impermissible content (they do have to do that to make sure some dopey ad guys haven't inserted nudity into a commercial for example). They could declinee ads which violate their policies in that regard.  They could issue guidleines and standards to the ad compmanies informing the latter that they will not accept ads that blast the eardrums of their customers....  Their warnings can be written in geek-speak, but hte gist of it could be simple and clear.  They do none of that.  It's their fault.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it's exactly....wrong.
Click to expand...


Except that it's not wrong at all.

The volume clearly jumps when the broadcasters air commercials.  In my experience, that means MOST fucking commercials.  Since that seems quite evidently "do-able," it is just as certain that the broadcasters can make fucking damn well sure that it DOESN'T happen.

They can require the advertising geeks to "make it so," as a TERM of any contracts between the advertisers and the broadcaster.  Alternatively, we all know full well that if they were of a mind to do it themselves, the broadcasters could take simple actions to keep the volume down on the commercials.

Is this the most pressing issue of our day? Clearly not.

Good.  Even BETTER reason to have Congress spend its time on it.  This has the useful effect of all keeping them away from doing all the dangerously stupid crap they've been doing all year.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's exactly....wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it's not wrong at all.
> 
> The volume clearly jumps when the broadcasters air commercials.  In my experience, that means MOST fucking commercials.  Since that seems quite evidently "do-able," it is just as certain that the broadcasters can make fucking damn well sure that it DOESN'T happen.
> 
> They can require the advertising geeks to "make it so," as a TERM of any contracts between the advertisers and the broadcaster.  Alternatively, we all know full well that if they were of a mind to do it themselves, the broadcasters could take simple actions to keep the volume down on the commercials.
> 
> Is this the most pressing issue of our day? Clearly not.
> 
> Good.  Even BETTER reason to have Congress spend its time on it.  This has the useful effect of all keeping them away from doing all the dangerously stupid crap they've been doing all year.
Click to expand...


Except the volume doesn't go up.

And mandating what advertisers have to do with their audio by a station is a good way not to get advertisers, cuz WUSMB down the street sure isn't making their advertisers jump through those hoops.

And I've already said that I don't quite see how it's technically possible to really pull this off effectively. No matter how much congress critters stamp their feet and pout. So it's already a waste of time from the get-go IMO.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's exactly....wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's not wrong at all.
> 
> The volume clearly jumps when the broadcasters air commercials.  In my experience, that means MOST fucking commercials.  Since that seems quite evidently "do-able," it is just as certain that the broadcasters can make fucking damn well sure that it DOESN'T happen.
> 
> They can require the advertising geeks to "make it so," as a TERM of any contracts between the advertisers and the broadcaster.  Alternatively, we all know full well that if they were of a mind to do it themselves, the broadcasters could take simple actions to keep the volume down on the commercials.
> 
> Is this the most pressing issue of our day? Clearly not.
> 
> Good.  Even BETTER reason to have Congress spend its time on it.  This has the useful effect of all keeping them away from doing all the dangerously stupid crap they've been doing all year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the volume doesn't go up.
> 
> * * * *
Click to expand...


Except it absolutely does.

It's not even a rational argument to deny it.  We all HEAR the volume jump.  So, who are we gonna believe:  Your theory or our own lying ears?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's not wrong at all.
> 
> The volume clearly jumps when the broadcasters air commercials.  In my experience, that means MOST fucking commercials.  Since that seems quite evidently "do-able," it is just as certain that the broadcasters can make fucking damn well sure that it DOESN'T happen.
> 
> They can require the advertising geeks to "make it so," as a TERM of any contracts between the advertisers and the broadcaster.  Alternatively, we all know full well that if they were of a mind to do it themselves, the broadcasters could take simple actions to keep the volume down on the commercials.
> 
> Is this the most pressing issue of our day? Clearly not.
> 
> Good.  Even BETTER reason to have Congress spend its time on it.  This has the useful effect of all keeping them away from doing all the dangerously stupid crap they've been doing all year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the volume doesn't go up.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it absolutely does.
> 
> It's not even a rational argument to deny it.  We all HEAR the volume jump.  So, who are we gonna believe:  Your theory or our own lying ears?
Click to expand...


Believe what you want. I've already explained why it sounds like it goes up.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the volume doesn't go up.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it absolutely does.
> 
> It's not even a rational argument to deny it.  We all HEAR the volume jump.  So, who are we gonna believe:  Your theory or our own lying ears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. I've already explained why it sounds like it goes up.
Click to expand...


I do believe that which I hear for myself.  Your explanation doesn't explain a single thing if the premise is a contradiction of reality.

The volume jumps during commercials.  

Your explanation sounds like scientists telling us that aerodynamic principles and scientific research confirm that bees cannot fly.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it absolutely does.
> 
> It's not even a rational argument to deny it.  We all HEAR the volume jump.  So, who are we gonna believe:  Your theory or our own lying ears?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. I've already explained why it sounds like it goes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe that which I hear for myself.  Your explanation doesn't explain a single thing if the premise is a contradiction of reality.
> 
> The volume jumps during commercials.
> 
> Your explanation sounds like scientists telling us that aerodynamic principles and scientific research confirm that bees cannot fly.
Click to expand...


Like I said, believe what you want.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. I've already explained why it sounds like it goes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that which I hear for myself.  Your explanation doesn't explain a single thing if the premise is a contradiction of reality.
> 
> The volume jumps during commercials.
> 
> Your explanation sounds like scientists telling us that aerodynamic principles and scientific research confirm that bees cannot fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, believe what you want.
Click to expand...


As I said, I do.  We all do.  Even you.  Even if what you believe is contradicted by our own senses.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that which I hear for myself.  Your explanation doesn't explain a single thing if the premise is a contradiction of reality.
> 
> The volume jumps during commercials.
> 
> Your explanation sounds like scientists telling us that aerodynamic principles and scientific research confirm that bees cannot fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, believe what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, I do.  We all do.  Even you.  Even if what you believe is contradicted by our own senses.
Click to expand...


Except common sense.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, believe what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I do.  We all do.  Even you.  Even if what you believe is contradicted by our own senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except common sense.
Click to expand...




You seem like a good guy.  But if you were working with common sense, you wouldn't be busy denying that the volume of commercial ads go up compared to the programming in which they appear.

Your argument is akin to saying that it's all just an optical (actually, it's an aural) illusion.  Well, with all due respect: Nonsense.

The reason people are reacting is NOT because of some mass hysteria.  We have not all been hyp-mo-tized.  We are reacting because the fucking sound difference between the show and the commercials is JARRING.  I don't give a crap about the highest peak volume of the show being watched.  A loud scene is just one scene.  The entire commercial advertisements, however, are BLARING at some hideously uncomfortable level.

And yes.  That CAN be easily addressed.  Not doing so is just a choice.  A piss poor choice.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I do.  We all do.  Even you.  Even if what you believe is contradicted by our own senses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except common sense.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like a good guy.  But if you were working with common sense, you wouldn't be busy denying that the volume of commercial ads go up compared to the programming in which they appear.
> 
> Your argument is akin to saying that it's all just an optical (actually, it's an aural) illusion.  Well, with all due respect: Nonsense.
> 
> The reason people are reacting is NOT because of some mass hysteria.  We have not all been hyp-mo-tized.  We are reacting because the fucking sound difference between the show and the commercials is JARRING.  I don't give a crap about the highest peak volume of the show being watched.  A loud scene is just one scene.  The entire commercial advertisements, however, are BLARING at some hideously uncomfortable level.
> 
> And yes.  That CAN be easily addressed.  Not doing so is just a choice.  A piss poor choice.
Click to expand...


Suit yerself.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't you just reduce the peak volume of anything that is highly compressed? Most movies aren't highly compressed, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's no way that I am aware of to have the equipment detect automatically 100% of the time that has been compressed and then keep it there within the same spot/segment/promo.
> 
> What would most likely happen would be even more annoying.... audio going all the way up and then when the computer realized what was happening bringing it down again all within the same single commercial, and then the computer holding over that setting into the next commercial and then compensating partially through it to bring it back to normal.
> 
> That sounds like a good way to never get anyone to advertise on your station again if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't have the same lack of faith in audio technology that you have. No one is asking for 100% success rate. 

I suppose you could stop allowing compressed commercials...there are actually stations on both radio and television that don't have this problem.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't you just reduce the peak volume of anything that is highly compressed? Most movies aren't highly compressed, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's no way that I am aware of to have the equipment detect automatically 100% of the time that has been compressed and then keep it there within the same spot/segment/promo.
> 
> What would most likely happen would be even more annoying.... audio going all the way up and then when the computer realized what was happening bringing it down again all within the same single commercial, and then the computer holding over that setting into the next commercial and then compensating partially through it to bring it back to normal.
> 
> That sounds like a good way to never get anyone to advertise on your station again if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I don't have the same lack of faith in audio technology that you have. No one is asking for 100% success rate.
> 
> I suppose you could stop allowing compressed commercials...there are actually stations on both radio and television that don't have this problem.
Click to expand...


If it's not 100%, barring a breakdown in equipment, then it makes the station sound like crap. And therefore no station would agree to it.

And I don't know of a station, either radio or tv, that does not have the potential for this issue.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like a good guy.  But if you were working with common sense, you wouldn't be busy denying that the volume of commercial ads go up compared to the programming in which they appear.
> 
> Your argument is akin to saying that it's all just an optical (actually, it's an aural) illusion.  Well, with all due respect: Nonsense.
> 
> The reason people are reacting is NOT because of some mass hysteria.  We have not all been hyp-mo-tized.  We are reacting because the fucking sound difference between the show and the commercials is JARRING.  I don't give a crap about the highest peak volume of the show being watched.  A loud scene is just one scene.  The entire commercial advertisements, however, are BLARING at some hideously uncomfortable level.
> 
> And yes.  That CAN be easily addressed.  Not doing so is just a choice.  A piss poor choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suit yerself.
Click to expand...


I do.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like a good guy.  But if you were working with common sense, you wouldn't be busy denying that the volume of commercial ads go up compared to the programming in which they appear.
> 
> Your argument is akin to saying that it's all just an optical (actually, it's an aural) illusion.  Well, with all due respect: Nonsense.
> 
> The reason people are reacting is NOT because of some mass hysteria.  We have not all been hyp-mo-tized.  We are reacting because the fucking sound difference between the show and the commercials is JARRING.  I don't give a crap about the highest peak volume of the show being watched.  A loud scene is just one scene.  The entire commercial advertisements, however, are BLARING at some hideously uncomfortable level.
> 
> And yes.  That CAN be easily addressed.  Not doing so is just a choice.  A piss poor choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suit yerself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
Click to expand...


As long as it's not yer birthday suit.

Don't want to get the Bass all excited.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's no way that I am aware of to have the equipment detect automatically 100% of the time that has been compressed and then keep it there within the same spot/segment/promo.
> 
> What would most likely happen would be even more annoying.... audio going all the way up and then when the computer realized what was happening bringing it down again all within the same single commercial, and then the computer holding over that setting into the next commercial and then compensating partially through it to bring it back to normal.
> 
> That sounds like a good way to never get anyone to advertise on your station again if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't have the same lack of faith in audio technology that you have. No one is asking for 100% success rate.
> 
> I suppose you could stop allowing compressed commercials...there are actually stations on both radio and television that don't have this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not 100%, barring a breakdown in equipment, then it makes the station sound like crap. And therefore no station would agree to it.
> 
> And I don't know of a station, either radio or tv, that does not have the potential for this issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding your point. It is possible for stations to comply by rules on commercial volume, and it is understandable that human error will sometimes cause the stations to fail. 

Are you trying to say that anything less than a 100% success rate means we should just give up and allow the broadcasters/advertisers have their way with us?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> I'm not understanding your point. It is possible for stations to comply by rules on commercial volume, and it is understandable that human error will sometimes cause the stations to fail.
> 
> Are you trying to say that anything less than a 100% success rate means we should just give up and allow the broadcasters/advertisers have their way with us?



Except we weren't talking about human error. We were talking about computer processing the audio automatically. Humans "jocking" the board would probably have a better success rate than a computer at this point.

And the stations _are_ currently abiding by the rules on commercial volume. So yer not going to find a station that is going to put someone in place solely to jock the pot during commercial breaks. 

Having their way with you? Did yer television suddenly go all ski-mask 3D and burst into yer house?


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not understanding your point. It is possible for stations to comply by rules on commercial volume, and it is understandable that human error will sometimes cause the stations to fail.
> 
> Are you trying to say that anything less than a 100% success rate means we should just give up and allow the broadcasters/advertisers have their way with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except we weren't talking about human error. We were talking about computer processing the audio automatically. Humans "jocking" the board would probably have a better success rate than a computer at this point.
> 
> And the stations _are_ currently abiding by the rules on commercial volume. So yer not going to find a station that is going to put someone in place solely to jock the pot during commercial breaks.
> 
> Having their way with you? Did yer television suddenly go all ski-mask 3D and burst into yer house?
Click to expand...

 Listen...it is doable. So your entire argument is moot.

If you want to argue that it is silly, that's fine. But it is doable.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not understanding your point. It is possible for stations to comply by rules on commercial volume, and it is understandable that human error will sometimes cause the stations to fail.
> 
> Are you trying to say that anything less than a 100% success rate means we should just give up and allow the broadcasters/advertisers have their way with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except we weren't talking about human error. We were talking about computer processing the audio automatically. Humans "jocking" the board would probably have a better success rate than a computer at this point.
> 
> And the stations _are_ currently abiding by the rules on commercial volume. So yer not going to find a station that is going to put someone in place solely to jock the pot during commercial breaks.
> 
> Having their way with you? Did yer television suddenly go all ski-mask 3D and burst into yer house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen...it is doable. So your entire argument is moot.
> 
> If you want to argue that it is silly, that's fine. But it is doable.
Click to expand...


How is the entire argument moot? It's doable with a human, sure. It's only partially and craptastically doable with a computer, but OK. Economically feasible for the stations? Not at all.

Silly? Yup. All the way around.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's not wrong at all.
> 
> The volume clearly jumps when the broadcasters air commercials.  In my experience, that means MOST fucking commercials.  Since that seems quite evidently "do-able," it is just as certain that the broadcasters can make fucking damn well sure that it DOESN'T happen.
> 
> They can require the advertising geeks to "make it so," as a TERM of any contracts between the advertisers and the broadcaster.  Alternatively, we all know full well that if they were of a mind to do it themselves, the broadcasters could take simple actions to keep the volume down on the commercials.
> 
> Is this the most pressing issue of our day? Clearly not.
> 
> Good.  Even BETTER reason to have Congress spend its time on it.  This has the useful effect of all keeping them away from doing all the dangerously stupid crap they've been doing all year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the volume doesn't go up.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it absolutely does.
> 
> It's not even a rational argument to deny it.  We all HEAR the volume jump.  So, who are we gonna believe:  Your theory or our own lying ears?
Click to expand...

Radio explained the science behind it all.

If you're too stupid to understand, you should just keep your mouth shut and stop making an idiot of yourself.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Liability said:


> Your argument is akin to saying that it's all just an optical (actually, it's an aural) illusion.  Well, with all due respect: Nonsense.



Did you mean auditory, retard?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Which one is louder?

Commercial - Emer Gen C.mp3 

Commercial - Autozone.mp3


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Dammit, radio... you had to use rapidshare?


----------



## RadiomanATL

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886894 said:
			
		

> Dammit, radio... you had to use rapidshare?



Only one that came to mind. You have a better site? I'll be glad to do it there.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Free File Hosting Made Simple - MediaFire

Click the green button

please


----------



## RadiomanATL

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886917 said:
			
		

> Free File Hosting Made Simple - MediaFire
> 
> Click the green button
> 
> please



Ok, here ya go:

Autozone.MP3

Emer Gen C.MP3


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Honestly? They sound the same to me.

The EmergenC commercial is more softly spoken, though


----------



## RadiomanATL

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886949 said:
			
		

> Honestly? They sound the same to me.



Emer Gen C is louder by about 5%.

The Autozone spot is pretty damn "busy", so even though it is actually lower in volume and uncompressed just like the Emer Gen C spot, it sounds louder. I wish I had a better spot on hand than the Emer Gen C one to illustrate it....the OnStar spots woulda been perfect...but oh well. I think it makes the point.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886865 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is akin to saying that it's all just an optical (actually, it's an aural) illusion.  Well, with all due respect: Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean auditory, retard?
Click to expand...


No, moron.  I meant what I wrote.

Your abundant ignorance is on parade, ya nitwit assmonkey.

Sorry your education was so deeply flawed and your arrogance is so boundless.


----------



## Paulie

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't you just reduce the peak volume of anything that is highly compressed? Most movies aren't highly compressed, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's no way that I am aware of to have the equipment detect automatically 100% of the time that has been compressed and then keep it there within the same spot/segment/promo.
> 
> What would most likely happen would be even more annoying.... audio going all the way up and then when the computer realized what was happening bringing it down again all within the same single commercial, and then the computer holding over that setting into the next commercial and then compensating partially through it to bring it back to normal.
> 
> That sounds like a good way to never get anyone to advertise on your station again if you ask me.
Click to expand...


When I was first learning audio processing, I'd do normalizing and limiting on my final mix-downs, just playing around with it to get a feel, and a lot of times the end result would sound EXACTLY like that.

You would hear the whole track rise and lower in volume as the peaks were being limited, and the lows were being brought up in the mix.

Forcing advertisers to have to comply with this type of mandate is almost certainly going to cause them to spend more money on their ads.

I HOPE this ends up happening and advertisers leave and revenue flows dry up.  The shit storm that will eventually ensue all becuase people couldn't press their own damn remote control volume buttons will be more than worth it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Paulie said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't you just reduce the peak volume of anything that is highly compressed? Most movies aren't highly compressed, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's no way that I am aware of to have the equipment detect automatically 100% of the time that has been compressed and then keep it there within the same spot/segment/promo.
> 
> What would most likely happen would be even more annoying.... audio going all the way up and then when the computer realized what was happening bringing it down again all within the same single commercial, and then the computer holding over that setting into the next commercial and then compensating partially through it to bring it back to normal.
> 
> That sounds like a good way to never get anyone to advertise on your station again if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was first learning audio processing, I'd do normalizing and limiting on my final mix-downs, just playing around with it to get a feel, and a lot of times the end result would sound EXACTLY like that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's pretty tricky to do it with tunes. Luckily with what I work with I don't have to worry about that.


----------



## Ravi

Um, the broadcasters can quit accepting highly compressed ads.

The Brits passed similar laws last year and I've heard nothing about the total collapse of the broadcasting and/or commercial industry.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> Um, the broadcasters can quit accepting highly compressed ads.
> 
> The Brits passed similar laws last year and I've heard nothing about the total collapse of the broadcasting and/or commercial industry.



They can, but they won't.

Why shoot yourself in the foot when a competitor down the street is more than willing to accept the money for an ad?

And Britain's law is really no more than "pretty please?" It has no teeth, and is too subjective to enforce effectively. Just like what this would be. A "feel good" law.


----------



## feudal22

totally waste of time!


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Forcing advertisers to have to comply with this type of mandate is almost certainly going to cause them to spend more money on their ads.
> 
> I HOPE this ends up happening and advertisers leave and revenue flows dry up.  The shit storm that will eventually ensue all becuase people couldn't press their own damn remote control volume buttons will be more than worth it.


If people stop watching TV because the ads are jolting them out of their seats and blasting their eardrums revenue might dry up anyway.

But if it happens your way, Paulie, I can just imagine you wagging your finger at us saying, "I told you this would happen!! I told you there would be no more TV!  I told you the television industry would go bust because you whined too much!!""



If only we had listened to Saint Paulie.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing advertisers to have to comply with this type of mandate is almost certainly going to cause them to spend more money on their ads.
> 
> I HOPE this ends up happening and advertisers leave and revenue flows dry up.  The shit storm that will eventually ensue all becuase people couldn't press their own damn remote control volume buttons will be more than worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> If people stop watching TV because the ads are jolting them out of their seats and blasting their eardrums revenue might dry up anyway.
> 
> But if it happens your way, Paulie, I can just imagine you wagging your finger at us saying, "I told you this would happen!! I told you there would be no more TV!  I told you the television industry would go bust because you whined too much!!""
> 
> 
> 
> If only we had listened to Saint Paulie.
Click to expand...


People won't ever stop watching tv no matter how loud the ads or if they have to push a button to silence them.  People will bitch till the cows come home but they are spuds to the core and nothing will keep them from their couches.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing advertisers to have to comply with this type of mandate is almost certainly going to cause them to spend more money on their ads.
> 
> I HOPE this ends up happening and advertisers leave and revenue flows dry up.  The shit storm that will eventually ensue all becuase people couldn't press their own damn remote control volume buttons will be more than worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> If people stop watching TV because the ads are jolting them out of their seats and blasting their eardrums revenue might dry up anyway.
> 
> But if it happens your way, Paulie, I can just imagine you wagging your finger at us saying, "I told you this would happen!! I told you there would be no more TV!  I told you the television industry would go bust because you whined too much!!""
> 
> 
> 
> If only we had listened to Saint Paulie.
Click to expand...


Ang, if people stopped watching TV because of it the advertisers would have no other CHOICE but to control their ads volumes sufficiently.

Either way you could probably get them to change their ads, only my way doesn't have to involve the government.  That's all I'm asking for, is for people to try to get it done on their own first, before running right to the government for the fix.

That's the easy way out, and I just happen to think there's more important things for the government to be spending their time on these days.

Like recognizing Rush Limbaugh's accomplishments, or intervening in the sports world, for instance


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing advertisers to have to comply with this type of mandate is almost certainly going to cause them to spend more money on their ads.
> 
> I HOPE this ends up happening and advertisers leave and revenue flows dry up.  The shit storm that will eventually ensue all becuase people couldn't press their own damn remote control volume buttons will be more than worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> If people stop watching TV because the ads are jolting them out of their seats and blasting their eardrums revenue might dry up anyway.
> 
> But if it happens your way, Paulie, I can just imagine you wagging your finger at us saying, "I told you this would happen!! I told you there would be no more TV!  I told you the television industry would go bust because you whined too much!!""
> 
> 
> 
> If only we had listened to Saint Paulie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ang, if people stopped watching TV because of it the advertisers would have no other CHOICE but to control their ads volumes sufficiently.
> 
> Either way you could probably get them to change their ads, only my way doesn't have to involve the government.  That's all I'm asking for, is for people to try to get it done on their own first, before running right to the government for the fix.
> 
> That's the easy way out, and I just happen to think there's more important things for the government to be spending their time on these days.
> 
> Like recognizing Rush Limbaugh's accomplishments, or intervening in the sports world, for instance
Click to expand...

How do you know people didn't already try to get them to stop on their own?


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people stop watching TV because the ads are jolting them out of their seats and blasting their eardrums revenue might dry up anyway.
> 
> But if it happens your way, Paulie, I can just imagine you wagging your finger at us saying, "I told you this would happen!! I told you there would be no more TV!  I told you the television industry would go bust because you whined too much!!""
> 
> 
> 
> If only we had listened to Saint Paulie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ang, if people stopped watching TV because of it the advertisers would have no other CHOICE but to control their ads volumes sufficiently.
> 
> Either way you could probably get them to change their ads, only my way doesn't have to involve the government.  That's all I'm asking for, is for people to try to get it done on their own first, before running right to the government for the fix.
> 
> That's the easy way out, and I just happen to think there's more important things for the government to be spending their time on these days.
> 
> Like recognizing Rush Limbaugh's accomplishments, or intervening in the sports world, for instance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know people didn't already try to get them to stop on their own?
Click to expand...

Because busines has one main priority, and that's profit.  If the business is losing money because people are specifically telling them they won't buy their products until they stop running loud commercials, the business has no other choice but to listen.  You don't intentionally lose revenue for the sake of running a loud commercial.

Isn't the point of running the loud commercial to get your attention?  You don't run a commercial to LOSE money, you run it in the hopes of MAKING money.  If the commercial is losing you money, you change it.

This doesn't mean I'm saying people aren't trying, but obviously not enough ultimately are.  Be a leader, start a movement.  Rally the public together and get them to demand those advertisers quiet their commercials or they will lose money.

It's not like that's any harder than rallying the people to demand the government do it FOR them.  Either way, all you're asking for is their time and devotion to an issue.  This country's biggest problem is a LACK of that.


----------



## Fayebelle

I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.    


Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?


----------



## California Girl

Fayebelle said:


> I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.
> 
> 
> Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?



Only if you're a liberal.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> Um, the broadcasters can quit accepting highly compressed ads.
> 
> The Brits passed similar laws last year and I've heard nothing about the total collapse of the broadcasting and/or commercial industry.



We haven't required the Brits to tell us how to live since 1776. 

And, for the record, if you think the Brit ads are any better, they aren't.... the sound on commercials in the UK is pretty bad too but they have this button on their remotes to help them control their own lives. Makes a change for the Brits, they usually like the Nanny State to control shit for them.


----------



## Ravi

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the broadcasters can quit accepting highly compressed ads.
> 
> The Brits passed similar laws last year and I've heard nothing about the total collapse of the broadcasting and/or commercial industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't required the Brits to tell us how to live since 1776.
> 
> And, for the record, if you think the Brit ads are any better, they aren't.... the sound on commercials in the UK is pretty bad too but they have this button on their remotes to help them control their own lives. Makes a change for the Brits, they usually like the Nanny State to control shit for them.
Click to expand...

Yuh...actually I read up on it and the Brits haven't enforced it...but they are starting to get a lot of pressure over it. Maybe the Brit taxpayers own their airwaves, too.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the broadcasters can quit accepting highly compressed ads.
> 
> The Brits passed similar laws last year and I've heard nothing about the total collapse of the broadcasting and/or commercial industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't required the Brits to tell us how to live since 1776.
> 
> And, for the record, if you think the Brit ads are any better, they aren't.... the sound on commercials in the UK is pretty bad too but they have this button on their remotes to help them control their own lives. Makes a change for the Brits, they usually like the Nanny State to control shit for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yuh...actually I read up on it and the Brits haven't enforced it...but they are starting to get a lot of pressure over it. Maybe the Brit taxpayers own their airwaves, too.
Click to expand...


No, the Brits are just lazy. They like the government having control of their lives. We are not British, Ravi, we are Americans. We are not supposed to follow them.... we are supposed to be leaders, not followers.


----------



## Ravi

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't required the Brits to tell us how to live since 1776.
> 
> And, for the record, if you think the Brit ads are any better, they aren't.... the sound on commercials in the UK is pretty bad too but they have this button on their remotes to help them control their own lives. Makes a change for the Brits, they usually like the Nanny State to control shit for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh...actually I read up on it and the Brits haven't enforced it...but they are starting to get a lot of pressure over it. Maybe the Brit taxpayers own their airwaves, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Brits are just lazy. They like the government having control of their lives. We are not British, Ravi, we are Americans. We are not supposed to follow them.... we are supposed to be leaders, not followers.
Click to expand...

 I posted that because Radioboy seems to think it is impossible to make the broadcasters comply.

And of course, you are free to think of it as a nanny state issue...but it isn't. We are welcome to regulate what we own as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

California Girl said:


> Fayebelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.
> 
> 
> Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're a liberal.
Click to expand...

Hence neocons like liarbilly supporting it while several of  us liberals have been in opposition to it 

What was that? You're a partisan retard and didn't think before you posted that? Well, that certainly explains it.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ang, if people stopped watching TV because of it the advertisers would have no other CHOICE but to control their ads volumes sufficiently.
> 
> Either way you could probably get them to change their ads, only my way doesn't have to involve the government.  That's all I'm asking for, is for people to try to get it done on their own first, before running right to the government for the fix.
> 
> That's the easy way out, and I just happen to think there's more important things for the government to be spending their time on these days.
> 
> Like recognizing Rush Limbaugh's accomplishments, or intervening in the sports world, for instance
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know people didn't already try to get them to stop on their own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because busines has one main priority, and that's profit.  If the business is losing money because people are specifically telling them they won't buy their products until they stop running loud commercials, the business has no other choice but to listen.  You don't intentionally lose revenue for the sake of running a loud commercial.
> 
> Isn't the point of running the loud commercial to get your attention?  You don't run a commercial to LOSE money, you run it in the hopes of MAKING money.  If the commercial is losing you money, you change it.
> 
> This doesn't mean I'm saying people aren't trying, but obviously not enough ultimately are.  Be a leader, start a movement.  Rally the public together and get them to demand those advertisers quiet their commercials or they will lose money.
> 
> It's not like that's any harder than rallying the people to demand the government do it FOR them.  Either way, all you're asking for is their time and devotion to an issue.  This country's biggest problem is a LACK of that.
Click to expand...

Get a clue, Paulie. (I know I did say you have one or two but you need another) I'm sure this effort started as a grassroots thing anyway. At a certain point when public outrage is strong enough the government takes over. This is why the government is our advocate.


----------



## Anguille

Fayebelle said:


> I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.
> 
> 
> Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?


Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?


----------



## Fayebelle

Anguille said:


> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?



Excellent point- and why I added the bathroom break option


----------



## Anguille

Fayebelle said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point- and why I added the bathroom break option
Click to expand...

Not everybody has indoor plumbing.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Anguille said:


> Fayebelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.
> 
> 
> Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?
Click to expand...



Get off your ass.

Or get one of these







Now available, The Value Finglonger! For all you really cheap bitches who just won't shut the fuck up!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Anguille said:


> Fayebelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point- and why I added the bathroom break option
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everybody has indoor plumbing.
Click to expand...

Then stop being a whiny little bitch crying for the government teat. Maybe you can use your newfound free time after you turn the tv off and shut the fuck up to open a book and become less ignorant.


----------



## Anguille

Why don't you go crawl under a slab of cement.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know people didn't already try to get them to stop on their own?
> 
> 
> 
> Because busines has one main priority, and that's profit.  If the business is losing money because people are specifically telling them they won't buy their products until they stop running loud commercials, the business has no other choice but to listen.  You don't intentionally lose revenue for the sake of running a loud commercial.
> 
> Isn't the point of running the loud commercial to get your attention?  You don't run a commercial to LOSE money, you run it in the hopes of MAKING money.  If the commercial is losing you money, you change it.
> 
> This doesn't mean I'm saying people aren't trying, but obviously not enough ultimately are.  Be a leader, start a movement.  Rally the public together and get them to demand those advertisers quiet their commercials or they will lose money.
> 
> It's not like that's any harder than rallying the people to demand the government do it FOR them.  Either way, all you're asking for is their time and devotion to an issue.  This country's biggest problem is a LACK of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a clue, Paulie. (I know I did say you have one or two but you need another) I'm sure this effort started as a grassroots thing anyway. At a certain point when public outrage is strong enough the government takes over. This is why the government is our advocate.
Click to expand...


You are beyond naive if you think the government is your advocate.  Sure, they advocate for the public, but only when they have no other choice because of unavoidable public pressure that might threaten congressional seats.

Like I've said numerous times in this thread so far, if the public makes enough of an effort that they can win their case, more power to them.

Regardless of what you think, I'm not a typical big business-_first_ style conservative.  I just happen to think there's more free market solutions than you do.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Fayebelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.
> 
> 
> Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me?  First of all, no one made an absolute statement that "EVERYONE" has a remote, except for you.

But the _majority_ of TV owners?  I'm not sure you could possibly argue against _that_.

My job requires me to be inside people's homes.  I've probably been inside more homes than most people here.  I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it.  This is America, Ang.  That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.


----------



## Zoom-boing

I frequently use my kids as a remote, especially when the remote is _all the way down the other end of the sofa_.


----------



## manifold

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fayebelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the mute button option.  There's also the bathroom break option.   The Tivo option.
> 
> 
> Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  First of all, no one made an absolute statement that "EVERYONE" has a remote, except for you.
> 
> But the _majority_ of TV owners?  I'm not sure you could possibly argue against _that_.
> 
> My job requires me to be inside people's homes.  I've probably been inside more homes than most people here.  I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it.  This is America, Ang.  That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.
Click to expand...



Paulie,

This is simply one of those times when reality clashes with ideals.  I understand your point on this subject completely and in a perfect world I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.  Unfortunately, when corporations abuse a particular freedom, they run the risk of having that freedom curtailed.  There is no excuse for blasting the shit out of people to try to get their attention like that.  It's fucking lame.  And it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that all everyone has to do is stop watching tv and it will correct itself.  We both know that's not going to happen.  This is hardly a financial imposition on business.  Considering what I know about your political views, I find it odd that you'd pick *this particular* matter offensive enough to rail against.


----------



## naomibee

all i can say is (ITS ABOUT TIME!!!)....


----------



## Paulie

manifold said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  First of all, no one made an absolute statement that "EVERYONE" has a remote, except for you.
> 
> But the _majority_ of TV owners?  I'm not sure you could possibly argue against _that_.
> 
> My job requires me to be inside people's homes.  I've probably been inside more homes than most people here.  I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it.  This is America, Ang.  That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie,
> 
> This is simply one of those times when reality clashes with ideals.  I understand your point on this subject completely and in a perfect world I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.  Unfortunately, when corporations abuse a particular freedom, they run the risk of having that freedom curtailed.  There is no excuse for blasting the shit out of people to try to get their attention like that.  It's fucking lame.  And it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that all everyone has to do is stop watching tv and it will correct itself.  We both know that's not going to happen.  This is hardly a financial imposition on business.  Considering what I know about your political views, I find it odd that you'd pick *this particular* matter offensive enough to rail against.
Click to expand...


My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this.  My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.  

And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial.  As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.

Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our _entire national debt_ looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.

But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative _peace_.  

You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking _ridiculous_.


----------



## manifold

I forgive you.


----------



## Paulie

manifold said:


> I forgive you.



Thanks!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Paulie said:


> My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this.  My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.
> 
> And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial.  As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.
> 
> Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our _entire national debt_ looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.
> 
> But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative _peace_.
> 
> You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking _ridiculous_.



You know what paulie is right.  Even if i find loud commercials very annoying when i have to watch them.  The government has way to much that it can't handle already on its plate to try and deal with this.


----------



## Care4all

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this.  My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.
> 
> And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial.  As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.
> 
> Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our _entire national debt_ looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.
> 
> But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative _peace_.
> 
> You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking _ridiculous_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what paulie is right.  Even if i find loud commercials very annoying when i have to watch them.  The government has way to much that it can't handle already on its plate to try and deal with this.
Click to expand...


That would be fine IF THE GVT were not already involved....but they are the ones who ALREADY gave permission via LAW, for the commercials to be as loud as the loudest part of a normal program....all that is being asked is to "right" the "wrong" that the government already regulated imo.


----------



## Paulie

oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it.  This is America, Ang.  That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.


Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.


----------



## Care4all

Paulie said:


> oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!



so now you are in to lying with a whine in there, to support your stance?  why be so intellectually dishonest paul?

(IS it really for only 60 seconds (a day implied) or is it about 2-3 minutes of commercials for every 7 minutes of program?)  

The government IS ALREADY involved with regulating this....yes, already involved.

NO ONE is asking them to get involved in an area they have not already been....to imply such is simply dishonest....at least if i read correctly that they already regulate the volume of commercials and a cap of the highest volume in the previous program is in regulations now.

Asking them to revise this ALREADY regulated volume level is not in any way getting the gvt to do something NEW for you or GROWING gvt control....they already have the control with regulations in place.


----------



## Paulie

Care4all said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so now you are in to lying with a whine in there, to support your stance?  why be so intellectually dishonest paul?
> 
> (IS it really for only 60 seconds (a day implied) or is it about 2-3 minutes of commercials for every 7 minutes of program?)
> 
> The government IS ALREADY involved with regulating this....yes, already involved.
> 
> NO ONE is asking them to get involved in an area they have not already been....to imply such is simply dishonest....at least if i read correctly that they already regulate the volume of commercials and a cap of the highest volume in the previous program is in regulations now.
> 
> Asking them to revise this ALREADY regulated volume level is not in any way getting the gvt to do something NEW for you or GROWING gvt control....they already have the control with regulations in place.
Click to expand...


Care I don't know what channels you're watching, but on my TV it's not every single commercial that does this.

Every once in a while there's a commercial that gets REALLY loud, but the vast majority of them are not guilty of this.  

So yes, it's a random occasional 60 seconds that you have to put up with.


----------



## Paulie

Mrs. Kravitz said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it.  This is America, Ang.  That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.
Click to expand...


Sure Ang, I believe you.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Mrs. Kravitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it.  This is America, Ang.  That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Ang, I believe you.
Click to expand...

Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.

Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes. 

Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.

Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
 I'm all for it!!


----------



## manifold

The FCC already regulates television, including commercial volume levels.

Arguing against this bill on the basis that "Government shouldn't be wasting it's time like this" is akin to arguing that the FCC (a government agency) should not be subject to congressional oversight.

And that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> The FCC already regulates television, including commercial volume levels.
> 
> Arguing against this bill on the basis that "Government shouldn't be wasting it's time like this" is akin to arguing that the FCC (a government agency) should not be subject to congressional oversight.
> 
> And that's just ridiculous.



That analogy doesn't make any sense.  It's more like arguing that the FCC shouldn't exist at all.


----------



## Paulie

Mrs. Kravitz said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Kravitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Ang, I believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.
> 
> Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.
> 
> Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.
> 
> Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
> I'm all for it!!
Click to expand...


All that when you could have just said "I think that people who pay to have their houses painted can afford a TV remote"?  

That probably makes sense to you on the surface Ang, but I've painted many-a-place that in no way revolved around the inhabitants of the units having some kind of significant amount of disposable income.

I've painted some pretty poor ass places, Ang.  One, for instance, was an apartment complex that was riddled with cock roaches.  I can't even begin to describ the filth.  We were simply there to clean the place up for other subsequent renovations.

TV's still had remotes though.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this.  My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.
> 
> And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial.  As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.
> 
> Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our _entire national debt_ looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.
> 
> But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative _peace_.
> 
> You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking _ridiculous_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what paulie is right.  Even if i find loud commercials very annoying when i have to watch them.  The government has way to much that it can't handle already on its plate to try and deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be fine IF THE GVT were not already involved....but they are the ones who ALREADY gave permission via LAW, for the commercials to be as loud as the loudest part of a normal program....all that is being asked is to "right" the "wrong" that the government already regulated imo.
Click to expand...


Tell em to fire all the people in charge of that department and get their hands out of it then.

Probably save us millions every year if they did....and those millions could go toward providing health care to all americans while not raising taxes on union health care plans and workers like me who make 5-figure salaries.


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Mrs. Kravitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Ang, I believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.
> 
> Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.
> 
> Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.
> 
> Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
> I'm all for it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that when you could have just said "I think that people who pay to have their houses painted can afford a TV remote"?
> 
> That probably makes sense to you on the surface Ang, but I've painted many-a-place that in no way revolved around the inhabitants of the units having some kind of significant amount of disposable income.
> 
> I've painted some pretty poor ass places, Ang.  One, for instance, was an apartment complex that was riddled with cock roaches.  I can't even begin to describ the filth.  We were simply there to clean the place up for other subsequent renovations.
> 
> TV's still had remotes though.
Click to expand...

You're still an elitist, Paulie, on the question of denying government protection of the eardrums of the least fortunate.


----------



## Paulie

Mrs. Kravitz said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Kravitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.
> 
> Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.
> 
> Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.
> 
> Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
> I'm all for it!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that when you could have just said "I think that people who pay to have their houses painted can afford a TV remote"?
> 
> That probably makes sense to you on the surface Ang, but I've painted many-a-place that in no way revolved around the inhabitants of the units having some kind of significant amount of disposable income.
> 
> I've painted some pretty poor ass places, Ang.  One, for instance, was an apartment complex that was riddled with cock roaches.  I can't even begin to describ the filth.  We were simply there to clean the place up for other subsequent renovations.
> 
> TV's still had remotes though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still an elitist, Paulie, on the question of denying government protection of the eardrums of the least fortunate.
Click to expand...

You're REALLY going to play that card?

Dude, how fucking loud do you have your TV turned up??  _Protecting eardrums_??  I'm not sure how else to respond to that other than to just laugh, because I've never once heard a commercial be so loud that it actually caused my eardrums _pain_.

You're REALLLLLLY reaching, Ang.  Like _REAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY_.


----------



## Paulie

We're going from "inconvenience" because "we shouldn't have to listen to it" ... to "protecting eardrums".

This gets better everyday


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> We're going from "inconvenience" because "we shouldn't have to listen to it" ... to "protecting eardrums".
> 
> This gets better everyday


I took my cue to exaggerate from you, Paulie. 



Paulie said:


> oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC already regulates television, including commercial volume levels.
> 
> Arguing against this bill on the basis that "Government shouldn't be wasting it's time like this" is akin to arguing that the FCC (a government agency) should not be subject to congressional oversight.
> 
> And that's just ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't make any sense.  It's more like arguing that the FCC shouldn't exist at all.
Click to expand...


I thought we were keeping the discussion within the constraints of pragmatic reality.

My bad!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

manifold said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC already regulates television, including commercial volume levels.
> 
> Arguing against this bill on the basis that "Government shouldn't be wasting it's time like this" is akin to arguing that the FCC (a government agency) should not be subject to congressional oversight.
> 
> And that's just ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't make any sense.  It's more like arguing that the FCC shouldn't exist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we were keeping the discussion within the constraints of pragmatic reality.
> 
> My bad!
Click to expand...


If that were the case I'd have no reason to post anything, because the pragmatic reality is that the government is going to grow and do whatever it wants whenever it wants.


----------



## Paulie

Mrs. Kravitz said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going from "inconvenience" because "we shouldn't have to listen to it" ... to "protecting eardrums".
> 
> This gets better everyday
> 
> 
> 
> I took my cue to exaggerate from you, Paulie.
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Based on that post from me that you quoted, what was an exaggeration? 

The average commercial from a major company lasts about 60 seconds, and many last even less than that.

It's YOU guys who are exaggerating, trying to claim that there's more than an occasional commercial with that much extra volume.  The majority of commercials are not that loud, Ang.

I could almost see your point if they were, but they simply aren't.


----------



## tigerbob

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.
> 
> "In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com
> 
> Unconstitutional waste of time.
Click to expand...


Fuck the constitution.


----------



## manifold

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't make any sense.  It's more like arguing that the FCC shouldn't exist at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were keeping the discussion within the constraints of pragmatic reality.
> 
> My bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were the case I'd have no reason to post anything, because the pragmatic reality is that the government is going to grow and do whatever it wants whenever it wants.
Click to expand...


Touché!


----------



## RadiomanATL

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the broadcasters can quit accepting highly compressed ads.
> 
> The Brits passed similar laws last year and I've heard nothing about the total collapse of the broadcasting and/or commercial industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't required the Brits to tell us how to live since 1776.
> 
> And, for the record, if you think the Brit ads are any better, they aren't....
Click to expand...


Thats 'cuz its pretty much an unenforceable "law". Totally subjective, and hence unenforceable.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh...actually I read up on it and the Brits haven't enforced it...but they are starting to get a lot of pressure over it. Maybe the Brit taxpayers own their airwaves, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Brits are just lazy. They like the government having control of their lives. We are not British, Ravi, we are Americans. We are not supposed to follow them.... we are supposed to be leaders, not followers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted that because Radioboy seems to think it is impossible to make the broadcasters comply.
Click to expand...


They are complying with the law is what I have been saying. And what I have posted examples of at least twice.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Brits are just lazy. They like the government having control of their lives. We are not British, Ravi, we are Americans. We are not supposed to follow them.... we are supposed to be leaders, not followers.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted that because Radioboy seems to think it is impossible to make the broadcasters comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are complying with the law is what I have been saying. And what I have posted examples of at least twice.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are complying with the law as it is currently written. Which is why the law is being changed...because it was poorly written to begin with.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted that because Radioboy seems to think it is impossible to make the broadcasters comply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are complying with the law is what I have been saying. And what I have posted examples of at least twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are complying with the law as it is currently written. Which is why the law is being changed...because it was poorly written to begin with.
Click to expand...


You forgot to add: And it's being written in such a way as to be effectively unenforceable, like the UK version.

Like I said, this is nothing but a feelgood, ineffective, look-at-me-and-reelect-me piece of junk legislation.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are complying with the law is what I have been saying. And what I have posted examples of at least twice.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are complying with the law as it is currently written. Which is why the law is being changed...because it was poorly written to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to add: And it's being written in such a way as to be effectively unenforceable, like the UK version.
> 
> Like I said, this is nothing but a feelgood, ineffective, look-at-me-and-reelect-me piece of junk legislation.
Click to expand...

The UK law is enforceable...they just haven't bothered enforcing it.


----------



## Modbert

Fuck, this thread is still going?


----------



## Anguille

RadiomanATL said:


> You forgot to add: And it's being written in such a way as to be effectively unenforceable, like the UK version.
> 
> Like I said, this is nothing but a feelgood, ineffective, look-at-me-and-reelect-me piece of junk legislation.


I think you will be proved wrong about that, but time will tell.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Anguille said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add: And it's being written in such a way as to be effectively unenforceable, like the UK version.
> 
> Like I said, this is nothing but a feelgood, ineffective, look-at-me-and-reelect-me piece of junk legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will be proved wrong about that, but time will tell.
Click to expand...


We'll see then.


----------



## Anguille

RadiomanATL said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add: And it's being written in such a way as to be effectively unenforceable, like the UK version.
> 
> Like I said, this is nothing but a feelgood, ineffective, look-at-me-and-reelect-me piece of junk legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will be proved wrong about that, but time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see then.
Click to expand...

Just curious, will you be glad if it does work?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Anguille said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will be proved wrong about that, but time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, will you be glad if it does work?
Click to expand...


Don't care if it does. I DVR everything and skip through most of the commercials. I'm just sayin' it won't work.


----------



## Anguille

RadiomanATL said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see then.
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, will you be glad if it does work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care if it does. I DVR everything and skip through most of the commercials. I'm just sayin' it won't work.
Click to expand...

Well be glad for my sake then, if it does work. I don't have fancy equipment.


----------

