The Sound of...Less Loudness.

[foxglovehp.livejournal.com]

My audiologist posted something recently about a new law being signed to limit the volume of television commercials.  I wear hearing aids, so I am not interested in debating with anyone here whether or not TV commercials are too loud.  I have to turn my HAs down whenever commercials come on, so I know they are.  Everyone knows they are too loud.  Mad Magazine even knew they were too loud in the '70's when I used to read it as a kid.  I know this because they made jokes about it even back then.

Titled CALM (Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation), the law requires the FCC to tell broadcasters to turn the fraking volume down on commercials.  Really?  no shit?  Couldn't someone in the Federal government, which controls the Federal Communications Commission just tell them to do it?  Did we really need congressional action for this?  It offends my delicate libertarian sensibilities to know that this was really required.  Also, is this the best acronym our tax dollars can buy?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

First of all, you're wrong because the broadcasters are using the airwaves on loan from the public, which owns it, and second of all, you're wrong because even though no money passes between the viewer and the broadcaster, the interstate commerce still effects the viewer.

The commerce effects the viewer, but the commerce is not with the viewer - the Congress has no rights on that end.

As for the broadcast airwaves, we've covered that, and now knowing that no commerce happens in the broadcast, it's rather moot.

Yeah, ok. They serve customers in 39 states and DC, and they're based in Philadelphia.

Yes, but, again, the commerce is not happening across state lines.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The commerce effects the viewer, but the commerce is not with the viewer - the Congress has no rights on that end.

I disagree, and so does Congress. So, there you are.

Yes, but, again, the commerce is not happening across state lines.

For christ's sake. You're in NH, Comcast is in PA, and you're paying Comcast for service, and you're suggesting that's not interstate commerce because they have a customer service office in NH? That's... more ridiculous than usual.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I disagree, and so does Congress. So, there you are.

I disagree factually, though. You just say so.

For christ's sake. You're in NH, Comcast is in PA, and you're paying Comcast for service, and you're suggesting that's not interstate commerce because they have a customer service office in NH? That's... more ridiculous than usual.

Comcast is a national company, sure. So is CVS. Are you really going to say that, when I go down the street and buy a soda at the CVS, I'm personally engaging in interstate commerce? That's absurd.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

those are fundamentally different kinds of transactions, but several CVS stores are hold-over franchises anyway.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't see the fundamental difference outside of the transaction always being commerce. You're still talking about a local transaction for the customer of probable interstate goods.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

and since those goods are interstate, they are regulated by the federal government.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The commerce between CVS and the distributor, sure. Not between me and CVS.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

you keep saying that, I'm sure you'll convince yourself someday.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How am I wrong? How is me buying a soda down the street interstate commerce?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's part of the entire transaction chain from supplier to customer.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Congress, however, only has the ability to regulate the transaction that is interstate.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

and it continues to be not analogous to paying for cable service from a national corporation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Paying for cable service locally from a national corporation is not the same as paying for cola service locally from a national corporation.

Uh, okay.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, it's not the same.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because...?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Because it's different. One is an always on service. One is a single drink.

It is ok to realize that different things are different.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But how is the transaction different? That's the part that matters.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

asked and already answered. And let's just skip the whole part where you say "nuh-uh" and I say "yes-huh."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you have no actual answer. Gotcha.