Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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]

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.

What a nitwit.

 

[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???

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

 

[Anguille]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Liability]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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,

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

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

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.