Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[☭proletarian☭]

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?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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?

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.

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

 

[The T]

The airwaves must be regulated for fair use at the behest of the people.

Glad you finally get it

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

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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]

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.

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

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

: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]

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]

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

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.

 

[Liability]

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.")

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 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.