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

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's happening between the advertiser and the broadcaster.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then there's nothing to mandate on the volume level, since that's not what this is about.

Also, can you prove that all the advertising purchases are done on an interstate level?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Please. The networks are engaging in interstate commerce with the local broadcasters as well as advertisers AND with the population of the US, which OWNS the airwaves, and are on loan to the broadcasters.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right, that's commerce from the local broadcasters to the networks, not the ads. Doesn't count.

The mistake in how we handle ownership of the airwaves is a different situation entirely.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Right, that's commerce from the local broadcasters to the networks, not the ads. Doesn't count.

I disagree. It's all related, and it's all regulated by the Congress.

The mistake in how we handle ownership of the airwaves is a different situation entirely.

I can only imagine what it would be like if the airwaves were actually owned by the corporations. "You're free to use stations broadcasting on a different spectrum."

Funny how someone who insists that he stands for individual rights is so often on the side of those who trample them left and right.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I disagree. It's all related, and it's all regulated by the Congress.


With limited validity, sure. But you can't really disagree with the facts of this one - the ads are a form of commerce from the advertisers to the networks, NOT to the local broadcasters (except, of course, for local broadcast ads).

Funny how someone who insists that he stands for individual rights is so often on the side of those who trample them left and right.

You'll notice I'm generally against the government.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

With limited validity, sure. But you can't really disagree with the facts of this one - the ads are a form of commerce from the advertisers to the networks, NOT to the local broadcasters (except, of course, for local broadcast ads).

Which doesn't make it not interstate commerce.

You'll notice I'm generally against the government.

Even when doing so violates the Constitution.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which doesn't make it not interstate commerce.

But it doesn't make it interstate commerce. Or, if it does, you still haven't shown it so.

Even when doing so violates the Constitution.

Such as?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Or, if it does, you still haven't shown it so.

Good christ. I don't have exhaustive list, so I'm sure you'll decide that this is irrelevant, but, for example, United is based in Chicago, and advertises on NBC, which is based in either California or New York, I can't remember which. That's interstate commerce. There are thousands of other examples.

And since Congress has explicit authority to regulate such commerce, for you to suggest that they shouldn't breaks your "allegiance" to all things Constitutional.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good christ. I don't have exhaustive list, so I'm sure you'll decide that this is irrelevant, but, for example, United is based in Chicago, and advertises on NBC, which is based in either California or New York, I can't remember which. That's interstate commerce. There are thousands of other examples.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that United doesn't do their ad sales out of New York, that still doesn't explain how that sale equals interstate commerce on the local broadcaster -> broadcast consumer transaction.

And since Congress has explicit authority to regulate such commerce, for you to suggest that they shouldn't breaks your "allegiance" to all things Constitutional.

They have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, yes. Putting aside the idea that they must use the power, they have the right, which I have no complaint with. My complaint is your assumption that all advertising on television is interstate commerce.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

interstate commerce on the local broadcaster -> broadcast consumer transaction.

Many channels are receivable across state lines. Most Chicago stations. Most New York stations. In addition, several broadcast stations are available over cable; I can get Comcast Sports Network California, for example, in Chicago.

My complaint is your assumption that all advertising on television is interstate commerce.

I didn't make that assumption; you did. However, much of it is, and I don't believe it's reasonable to make the regulation so granular as to differentiate.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Many channels are receivable across state lines. Most Chicago stations. Most New York stations. In addition, several broadcast stations are available over cable; I can get Comcast Sports Network California, for example, in Chicago.

Which, again, is a transaction from network to broadcaster, not necessarily your provider -> you.

I didn't make that assumption; you did. However, much of it is, and I don't believe it's reasonable to make the regulation so granular as to differentiate.

Yet Congress cannot regulate all commerce, only interstate.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Which, again, is a transaction from network to broadcaster, not necessarily your provider -> you.

No. WMAQ, in Chicago, is receivable in southern WI, and NW Indiana. That makes EVERYTHING on it interstate.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No. WMAQ, in Chicago, is receivable in southern WI, and NW Indiana. That makes EVERYTHING on it interstate.

Well, the broadcasts into Wisconsin and Indiana, yes. And, for the umpteenth time, the transaction from WMAQ -> provider, yes. From WMAQ -> viewer, no (except for the 5% or so without cable)

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I don't give a crap what the percentage is. WMAQ continues to use the public airwaves, and they transmit across state lines. That makes it interstate, and therefore regulated by congress.

Never mind the fact that Comcast is interstate for the vast majority of the population anyway, just like AT&T, or RoadRunner, or TimeWarner or most other cable providers.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't give a crap what the percentage is. WMAQ continues to use the public airwaves, and they transmit across state lines. That makes it interstate, and therefore regulated by congress.

The commerce is interstate. In fact, you've made a valid point - the broadcast over the airwaves into the homes straight into antennas isn't commerce at all, so Congress doesn't really have the right to hit the user end of that, either.

Never mind the fact that Comcast is interstate for the vast majority of the population anyway, just like AT&T, or RoadRunner, or TimeWarner or most other cable providers.

How so? When I had Comcast in New Hampshire, I paid my bill in New Hampshire, got my service through New Hampshire, etc. Cable is very local.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The commerce is interstate. In fact, you've made a valid point - the broadcast over the airwaves into the homes straight into antennas isn't commerce at all, so Congress doesn't really have the right to hit the user end of that, either.

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.

How so? When I had Comcast in New Hampshire, I paid my bill in New Hampshire, got my service through New Hampshire, etc. Cable is very local.

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

http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/pressroom/corporateoverview/corporateoverview.html

[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.