http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025823-503544.html

Obama got rid of them! Now THAT'S change you can believe in, lol. Not entirely sure what the Constitutional basis for this law is, since it goes beyond public airwaves and into cable tv... meh... what do yall think

12/15/2010 7:40:38 PM

Our forefathers intended for us to have freedom of speech, not freedom of speech with inside voices.

12/15/2010 7:55:15 PM

The "Commercials Are Too Damn Loud" Party

12/15/2010 8:04:14 PM

Interstate Commerce FTW!!!

12/15/2010 8:16:09 PM

The FCC already regulates power output in a given spectrum of the airwaves, I don't see how this is really any different than that from a conceptual standpoint.

12/15/2010 8:32:29 PM

You don't? Really?

12/16/2010 12:01:55 AM

I think it's awesome. You people always bitch about elected officials never representing those that put them in office and they finally do and they're still criticized. Sheesh. Loud commercials are the #1 complaint to the FCC and has been for decades. It's no secret that they jack up the volume because people get up during commercials to pee or get something to drink. But I am sure some on the right will call this nanny state.

12/16/2010 12:40:07 AM

You can have my louder commercials.....when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

12/16/2010 9:45:25 AM

To be fair, I believe it was the senate and the house that passed it.

Not Obama.

12/16/2010 10:47:46 AM

About time. Nothing like dozing off on the couch and getting startled awake by the ShamWOW guy.

12/16/2010 10:56:37 AM

IF THIS WERE A REAL ISSUE, THE FREE MARKET WOULD'VE SOLVED IT WITH AUTO-NORMALIZING TELEVISIONS

12/16/2010 11:35:43 AM

Quote :

"I think it's awesome. You people always bitch about elected officials never representing those that put them in office and they finally do and they're still criticized. Sheesh. Loud commercials are the #1 complaint to the FCC and has been for decades. It's no secret that they jack up the volume because people get up during commercials to pee or get something to drink. But I am sure some on the right will call this nanny state. "

And I'm sure the #2 complaint is Boobs, but that doesn't give the FCC the right or authority to regulate them (though they do anyway)

12/16/2010 12:41:56 PM

Quote :

" IF THIS WERE A REAL ISSUE, THE FREE MARKET WOULD'VE SOLVED IT WITH AUTO-NORMALIZING TELEVISIONS "

TruVolume, Dynamic volume or Dolby volume?

12/16/2010 1:18:06 PM

yea. both my tv and my cable box have normalizers and if u got a dvr you just cut out the ads. free market is ftw.

[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 2:27 PM. Reason : x]

12/16/2010 2:26:59 PM

OMG ERRYTHANG THAT OL CONGRESS PASSES MUSS BE OBAMAS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

12/16/2010 2:59:57 PM

Well, if he didn't like, he wouldn't sign it. That he does, means it is his fault.

12/16/2010 3:13:58 PM

If he didn't sign it, people would claim he was abusing executive power and we were on our path to a dictatorship.

Two sides of the same shit sandwich, i suppose.

12/16/2010 3:36:41 PM

he needs to pass something that requires all the 'fine print' at the end of commercials to be shown in a font large enough for someone with 20/15 vision and a 100" TV to be able to at least partially read some of it

12/16/2010 4:45:40 PM

Quote :

". both my tv and my cable box have normalizers"

Does it somehow detect commercials or is it acting on everything? This would be a horribly undesirable feature if it acts on everything.

12/16/2010 5:06:16 PM

Quote :

"Well, if he didn't like, he wouldn't sign it. That he does, means it is his fault."

are you a retard?

or you just trollin?

12/17/2010 10:46:06 AM

This is something that cable and satellite providers should have been self-regulating for a while now; no idea why some of them hadn't been doing it. It's a damn shame that it took long enough for the government to step in on this issue, but I don't have a problem with it, as it's something that actually needed to be done.

12/17/2010 11:48:11 AM

^ That's a dangerous position to take when it comes to government. Just because something "needs to be done" doesn't mean that the government "needs" or has the authority or right to do it. This is especially so when we're talking about something completely non-essential like TV. If you don't like it, stop buying the service, I guarantee enough people do that and the cable companies would regulate real quick. Of course, that requires people to take responsibility for their choices, something Americans are not well known for these days.

12/17/2010 1:26:04 PM

Quote :

"If you don't like it, stop buying the service, I guarantee enough people do that and the cable companies would regulate real quick."

I don't have cable or satellite in my apartment (TV is nearly obsolete thanks to the internet), but when I've stayed somewhere that does (relatives, etc), over-loud commercials were a constant annoyance. I know very few other college-age people outside of dorms that also have television subscriptions, and I'm sure companies got plenty of complaints about commercial volume from those that do subscribe. Those providers didn't really have a great excuse, aside from worrying about losing ad revenue, but frankly, advertisers are going to want to/need to market their products regardless of how loud they can crank the volume up.


Ideally, I'd prefer it if the government had no stake in television entertainment at all, but it's a fact of the world that we live in that they do. Given that, I see it as a failure of cable/satellite providers to take responsibility for themselves and their own business by not responding to customer complaints much sooner (in short form, it's their fault for letting themselves get regulated). As I said, it's a damn shame that this issue didn't get resolved for such a long time that the government stepped in and resolved it for them (because really, it takes our government a long time to even get basic shit done -- the fact that they regulated this particular issue is simply shameful on the part of television providers). Yes, giving government power over things they shouldn't have power over can set a bad precedent, but on a case-by-case basis, regulation can be justified and warranted when corporations fail to respond to the needs of consumers.

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2010 4:11:52 PM

Quote :

"If you don't like it, stop buying the service, I guarantee enough people do that and the cable companies would regulate real quick. Of course, that requires people to take responsibility for their choices, something Americans are not well known for these days."

What about the over-the-air networks utilizing the airwaves that are owned by the people of the United States?

12/17/2010 4:15:10 PM

umbrellaman wins

12/17/2010 4:37:01 PM

Quote :

"Yes, giving government power over things they shouldn't have power over can set a bad precedent, but on a case-by-case basis, regulation can be justified and warranted when corporations fail to respond to the needs of consumers."

And what "need" was fulfilled here? TV is a luxury, commercials are a luxury, neither one is a necessity for life or liberty and loud commercials are avoided just as easily as offensive content.

Quote :

"What about the over-the-air networks utilizing the airwaves that are owned by the people of the United States? "

What about them? Who's forcing you to watch TV?

12/18/2010 9:44:40 AM

This is where my pragmatism kicks in over my idealism: Have taxpayers not subsidized the building out of cable networks enough that we can direct our government to establish a regulation that literally harms no one and benefits many?

I'm just as wary as the ever growing government as the next libertarian leaning guy, but I find no redeeming value to society for having commercials blasting out much louder than the loudest passages of a given segment of a broadcast.

12/18/2010 10:21:11 AM

Quote :

"Have taxpayers not subsidized the building out of cable networks enough that we can direct our government to establish a regulation that literally harms no one and benefits many?"

The answer of course is to stop subsidizing the building of private property, not passign more regulations with good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

12/18/2010 10:34:56 AM

We can't go back and unwind the subsidies. Seeing as how a portion of the productive efforts of all Americans are in those lines, I don't see it draconian or government largesse in the least to insist they turn the volume down on the damn commercials.

12/18/2010 10:49:08 AM

No we can't, but neither are we obligated to continue the consequences of those subsidies. We could simply write them off as mistakes and lessons learned, and stop subsidizing in the future, rather than taking the position that since we have subsidized in the past, we should implement regulation that is predicated on the idea that we continue subsidizing.

Further, that a law "harms no one" is not reason enough to implement a law. There has to be an actual need, and there has to be actual authority, neither of which appears to be present. And when we're talking about government influence and power, everything is a valid slippery slope, as every regulation is used to justify the next step in regulation. Even here, our regulation of the content of TV via the FCC, which is arguably flawed at best ad unconstitutional at worst, is used to justify regulating the volume of the content. Further regulations will be justified on the ground that we already regulate content and volume, so whatever they want to regulate next is conceptually no different.

12/18/2010 11:42:43 AM

Quote :

"IF THIS WERE A REAL ISSUE, THE FREE MARKET WOULD'VE SOLVED IT WITH AUTO-NORMALIZING TELEVISIONS"

DVR

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 12:52 PM. Reason : oh yeah]

12/18/2010 12:51:46 PM

Quote :

" What about them? Who's forcing you to watch TV?"

so you are saying the government doesn't have the authority to implement regulations for what can and cannot be broadcast over the airwaves the government owns? Talk about a confused political ideology.

12/19/2010 2:17:29 PM

regulation of content by the FCC is one of the most heinous violations of the first ammendment.

12/19/2010 2:25:57 PM

I can't wait to read this one

12/19/2010 2:29:05 PM

my brother is a master controller at one of your friendly triangle-area broadcast network affiliates. i don't know if this is the same thing he was talking about a month or two ago, but from what i understood, he said the wording of this was pretty terrible. i'm no expert, but i think he was complaining about the fact that there's no way a regular consumer could judge if the volume of the commercials fell outside of the acceptable range with any certainty. not to mention, shows have different volume levels and local commercials especially are quite bad at having consistent volume levels.

anyway, i might be wrong about this stuff, but the person who i know with the most knowledge about this sort of thing, thought this sort of a regulation could have been done much better. perhaps there have been improvements in it since i spoke to him about it though.

12/19/2010 2:33:02 PM

Quote :

"I can't wait to read this one "

Might I suggest you start here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

Specifically:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

12/19/2010 3:42:24 PM

Quote :

"we should implement regulation that is predicated on the idea that we continue subsidizing"

No, that isn't what I said.

Quote :

"Further, that a law "harms no one" is not reason enough to implement a law. "

It's a good thing that this

Quote :

"There has to be an actual need"

exists.

Quote :

"and there has to be actual authority"

Huh? We as a nation gave the authority to regulate the airwaves. If we decide it's a draconian measure to not have commercials that wake the babies, scare the dogs from their slumbers too, blow the speakers, and annoy the piss out of everyone when a lower volume commercial accomplishes the exact same end, then we can vote to overturn that authority/legislation.

Quote :

"And when we're talking about government influence and power, everything is a valid slippery slope"

And when the government starts slipping down that slope, we can start pushing them back up it.

Quote :

"as every regulation is used to justify the next step in regulation"

Yes, just ask the finance industry how well...wait...things were DEREGULATED there, you can't ask them.

12/19/2010 4:07:22 PM

Quote :

"It's a good thing that this ... exists"

And what need is that? TV is a luxury.

Quote :

"then we can vote to overturn that authority/legislation. ... And when the government starts slipping down that slope, we can start pushing them back up it. "

Out of curiosity, what part of human history suggests to you it is easier to push government back than it is to not let it have the ground in the first place?

12/19/2010 4:12:49 PM

Quote :

"And what need is that? TV is a luxury."

You can't argue that this is bad regulation from fully libertarian ideals. We already have the authority and the air waves are already regulated. If this wasn't the case, then we couldn't and wouldn't even be having this discussion. That TV is a luxury (or not be that as it may) makes no difference one bit to the rest of America.

Quote :

" Out of curiosity, what part of human history suggests to you it is easier to push government back than it is to not let it have the ground in the first place?"

I never said it was easy. But I'm not exactly concerned that this legislation is just another little brick in the wall.

12/19/2010 4:19:00 PM

Quote :

"Might I suggest you start here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ Specifically: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment "

What part of government ownership of the airwaves don't you understand? The Government owns the airwaves the over-the-air networks lease for use.

12/19/2010 4:29:14 PM

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the constitution that granted the government exclusive ownership of the airwaves.

12/19/2010 4:38:50 PM

it's right next to the part where they talk about drivers licenses and airplanes

12/19/2010 5:23:21 PM

It's part of being a sovereign nation.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 5:23:46 PM

^^ Drivers licenses are a state issue, and aviation while certainly something up for debate, it's easy to argue that interstate commercial flight falls under "interstate commerce".

^ And as a sovereign nation, we developed a foundation of government which clearly outlined the specific things the government could do. Regulating speech was not one of them.

12/19/2010 6:47:31 PM

lol

12/19/2010 7:01:34 PM

^^It doesn't regulate speech. It regulates the licenses holders who hold license to the public airwaves. That is why the FCC obscenity regulations only apply to UHF, VHF and not cable television.

You can't just ignore facts when it pleases you.

12/19/2010 7:12:05 PM

The FCCs regulation (if they even be allowed to regulate) should be limited to operational regulations. Frequency reservations, transmission power regulation, protocol standard definitions, etc...

Content is completely seperate from transport. If they started censoring the internet (which you claim the FCC has the right to do) would you be fine with that? I mean commie it up all you want but lets be honest about it. You're an authoritarian.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 10:26 PM. Reason : a]

12/19/2010 10:25:47 PM

Quote :

" Content is completely seperate from transport. If they started censoring the internet (which you claim the FCC has the right to do) would you be fine with that? I mean commie it up all you want but lets be honest about it. You're an authoritarian."

I'm not claiming the FCC has the right to filter or censor the internet. Please be honest. The FCC, as the regulatory body sanctioned by congress, has the lawful right and obligation to impose the obscenity rules in regards to broadcast television and terrestrial radio, since it is part of the contract those companies agreed to when they entered into the leasing agreement with the United States' government for those frequencies. If they don't like it, then they don't have to lease those frequencies. They are more than free to go into cable television and satellite radio.

12/19/2010 10:38:43 PM

Quote :

"The FCC, as the regulatory body sanctioned by congress, has the lawful right and obligation to impose the obscenity rules in regards to broadcast television and terrestrial radio"

This is of course the point up for debate.

12/19/2010 11:06:54 PM

It's not up for debate; because it is a fact.

The public owns the airwaves. The public (government) gets to make the rules that licensees have to abide by and agree to when they get a license for those public airwaves.

No one is forcing them to use the public airwaves. If they don't like it they can go the cable/satellite route.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 11:11:35 PM