Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Advertising Government United States Your Rights Online

House Passes TV Commercial Volume Bill 408

eldavojohn writes "About a year ago, legislation was introduced to control the volume of TV commercials. It passed the Senate in September and has now been passed in the House as well. This problem has dated back to the 1960s, but after the president signs the bill, broadcasters will be subject to regulations of the Advanced Television Systems Committee on what is 'too loud.' Of the last 25 quarterly reports from the FCC, this has been the number one consumer complaint in 21 of them. Within a year, you should start to notice a difference, with commercials no longer forcing you to turn down the TV volume during breaks in your regular programming."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Passes TV Commercial Volume Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Doh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:48AM (#34431400) Homepage Journal
    its not only an american problem. you chance up on a video on youtube or something else around the net, and suddenly -kaboooom. your house is vibrating with some shitty american commercial. volume just ramps up like there's no tomorrow.

    that was an affliction for everyone. not only americans. ironic that not the free market, but REGULATION is what's fixing that crap.
  • I'm glad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by snookerhog ( 1835110 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:49AM (#34431422)
    glad that this is the type of important stuff that is making it to Obama's desk. I hated loud commercials back when I still watched some TV, but did this really need and act of Congress to solve? sheeesh
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:55AM (#34431522) Journal

    ironic that not the free market, but REGULATION is what's fixing that crap.

    How is that ironic? The problem with commercials providing revenue to copyrighted material in a "free market" as you call it is completely not "free market." But without getting into pedantry about how television is one of the furthest things from a free market as possible, it makes complete sense since if you want to watch some video, you must watch the commercial. You want to watch The Office on NBC.com? Well, you have to sit through a particular commercial. You can't switch to another better, quieter, more appealing commercial. If commercials were a product then your 'free market' quip might have some meaning but when they're pretty much being shoved down your throat by the idea and design of marketing, your selection choice is instantly removed. Simply put, I can't watch whatever I want and request only commercials that appeal to me. If I did, I'd only be watching Adult Swim commercials if I ever saw any. Government regulation was the only way to combat this. Television commercials have always been approaching Geocities quality with flashing marquee tags, blinking tags, dancing jesus', flying toasters and music that cranks up to eleven and plays once the page loads.

  • Re:I'm glad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:55AM (#34431532) Homepage Journal

    but did this really need and act of Congress to solve?

    Well, apparently, the "invisible hand" that magically fixes world hunger, world peace, climate change and all other troubles that ever ailed mankind has failed in this one.

    Hm, could be because you as the viewer aren't a participant in the market - the market exchange is between the TV station and the marketing company.

  • Re:I'm glad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:01PM (#34431594)
    The answer is yes, the free market wasn't solving it and I'm not sure that the FCC has the power without being given it to regulate that.

    Additionally, right now you're not likely to see much useful legislation going through as the Republicans have vowed to pretty much shut down the Federal government in a bid to derail the Democrats ability to actually get anything done so that they can claim that the Democrats didn't fix any of the problems for the 2012 Presidential race.
  • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:05PM (#34431664) Journal
    I mean, why worry about 9.6% unemployment, $1.3 trillion of deficit spending, $13 trillion in debt, a falling USD, the highest rate of troop casualties ever in Afghanistan, Congressmen ignoring the very tax laws they create, and $200 million junkets to India? We've got TEE VEE and commercials to address!
  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:07PM (#34431722)
    Fixing the economy is HARD when you spend billions on wars overseas and continue to provide unnecessary tax cuts to a minority of wealthy individuals!
  • by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:09PM (#34431764)
    You just broke my sarcasm detector.

    Bipartisanship won't happen as long as voters are rewarding the GoP for refusing to compromise and the press is hounding the Democrats to compromise even when they've been handed a mandate to govern. Compared with the Republicans being urged not to compromise even when the voters hand them a significant defeat at the ballot box.

    Given that the GoP is proudly asserting that they won't actually participate in any governing nor will they allow the Democrats to do so either, I'm not sure what if anything is going to be accomplished.
  • Re:Better solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aqualung812 ( 959532 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:14PM (#34431852)

    Sort of like MS with that damned alarm sound that goes off whenever there's an error. It doesn't seem to respect the volume setting and if you're using ear buds causes acute discomfort.

    You know, you could just go to Control Panel\Sound and change the error sound to a .wav that is quieter while you wait for Conrgess to do this for you.

  • by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:18PM (#34431908)

    They don't have much choice, seen as the Republicans have promised to hold their breath and stomp their feet until they get their way on a certain tax issue. Seems like when I was a kid, all the stupid filibuster rules only came into effect when something that was very, very important and very, very near and dear the the oppositions hearts. They should go back to forcing one person to stand up on the podium and speak endlessly for filibuster, at least then the people blocking the bill have to show that they're willing to sacrifice for it.

  • Market Failure? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thepainguy ( 1436453 ) <thepainguy@gmail.com> on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:19PM (#34431932) Homepage
    Some people seem to be putting this off as an example of a market failure when in truth it's not.

    Many TVs have features that allow you to level out the sound from programming to commercials (kind of an old school ad blocker). That is how the market has seen fit to address this problem.

    Also, the market hasn't done more than than because this is more of a minor annoyance than a real problem (and yes, I do find it annoying, especially when I have a sleeping kid in my arms and they get woken up by the commercials). It's also not like the sound is getting louder and louder and louder over the years.

    Markets work, just not always in the way that people expect.
  • by spidercoz ( 947220 ) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:26PM (#34432018) Journal
    Smith made the same mistake Marx did. He assumed people WOULDN'T be greedy, selfish, self-absorbed bastards only concerned with elevating themselves and fuck everybody else. Both of their idealized systems require idealized people to make it work. A genuine free market is the same thing as the workers' paradise, an impossible, and naive, fantasy.
  • Re:Doh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:27PM (#34432030) Homepage Journal

    Commercials? Oh yeah, those pesky things they show on TV that I don't see anymore because I stream pretty much everything I watch these days off of Netflix :-P

  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:51PM (#34434846) Journal

    Your title doesn't follow from your body text.

    Please, when you claim to know what Adam Smith would or wouldn't like, back it up with a quote from him, okay? Otherwise, you are just making shit up. You are flat out WRONG about him, and I KNOW you have not read Wealth of Nations. If you had, and you had understood and remembered any of it, you wouldn't be making the claims you are.

    Let me pass on some choice quotes for your edification.

    As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
    -Book I, Chapter VI, pg.60

    We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
    -Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.80

    No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.
    -Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.94

    Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
    -Book I, Chapter IX, pg.117

    Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workman,its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
    -Book I, Chapter x, Part II, pg.168

    With the greater part of rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eye is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves.
    -Book I, Chapter XI, Part II, pg.202

    Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality.
    -Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770

    The tolls for the maintenance of a high road, cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons.
    -Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article I, pg.786

    The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public more then that of people of some rank and fortune.
    -Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.845

    For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.
    -Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article II, p.847

    The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
    -Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.892

    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    -Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

    Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master.
    -Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.927

    Wow. Looks like the real Adam Smith disagrees with your imaginary Adam Smith in a great many particulars.

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Working...