Congress Passes Act to Lower Volume on Commercials

[We_Love_Disney]

A shame that a law had to be passed to solve this decades old problem. Even the newest TVs and sound systems have a problem "normalizing" the volume differences with some of the commercials.

None of my televisions have this mechanism. While I don't think there should be a law or that congress should be spending their time on this, I am grateful for the change. Apparently complaints to the TV stations, cable networks, and the advertisers didn't make much of an impression, so this is the next remedy. I will leave the TV on for background noise while doing other things around the house. I can not tell you how many times I have nearly jumped from the volume difference! We aren't talking slightly louder, we are talking big big difference. For example, I have my TV volume button on 11. That is good for most stations. Then an advertisement will come on, and I have to turn it down to 2 to keep the same level.

So BRAVO Congress, one good piece of legislature passed in the year. Better than last year.

 

[Golf4food]

I think some people are over-reacting about Congress spending time on this. A bill like this probably took up about 1% of the time of a few people and a few lawyers (not like there aren't more than enough lawyers running around up there). Then it sounds like everybody liked it so it probably wasn't debated much and probably just mostly rubber stamped. It's good for American people and didn't take much time. This is better than a lot of crap congress does. Good for them.

 

[Geoff_M]

Indeed, the FCC has refused to put regulations about this in place, for decades, because they determined that there was no fair way to measure compliance. Congress passing a law will not change reality. So what Congress has done, effectively, is put in place a law that the agency charged with enforcing it has already, and for decades, determined was unenforceable.

And there's your "money quote" right there. More "feel good" legislation that most likely won't accomplish anything. Like they say... "Your tax dollars at work!" Great, now howsabout something like putting together an actual federal budget for the current fiscal year!!!

 

[Geoff_M]

I think some people are over-reacting about Congress spending time on this. A bill like this probably took up about 1% of the time of a few people and a few lawyers (not like there aren't more than enough lawyers running around up there). Then it sounds like everybody liked it so it probably wasn't debated much and probably just mostly rubber stamped. It's good for American people and didn't take much time. This is better than a lot of crap congress does. Good for them.

The issue is that each law comes with a "cost of compliance". Laws don't implement or enforce themselves. It'd be nice if there was actually some hope of a measurable benefit for those efforts.

 

[tvguy]

Well the govt does regulate the airwaves.

Yes the gov't does regulate the airwaves,so your local NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX , CW and Independent over the air stations fall under this law.
But cable and Dish systems are not covered by this law. Cable and Dish companies insert some of their own commercials on the cable channels (CNN/MSNBC, A&E, TBS etc) and those commericals are not covered.

I work at a TV station, and we put equipment online in June of last year when we made the digital switch so we already comply with this law, but we get just as many complaints as we did before, so the law really won't change anything.
And believe it or not, very very very few commercials ever had an audio level higher than the highest level in programing. But as someone else posted, commercials do tend to remain at, or close to that highest level for their duration, where programming has very low lows.

 

[bicker]

None of my televisions have this mechanism.

It should also be noted that such mechanisms degrade the quality of audio. These mechanisms built into televisions get rid of the "pianissimo" and "fortissimo" portions of classical music, for example, thereby corrupting the performance.

So BRAVO Congress, one good piece of legislature passed in the year.

Don't get so excited: I'm not sure I mentioned this aspect earlier, but keep in mind that this legislation didn't actually put in place any rules. None. It simply ordered the FCC to do so.

And I believe I did mention earlier that the FCC has been saying for decades that what Congress is now demanding is actually not possible. In essence, you're applauding Congress for acting like a spoiled child, demanding a certain toy after parents have explained that the family cannot afford that toy.

 

[bicker]

But cable and Dish systems are not covered by this law.
Cable and Dish companies insert some of their own commercials on the cable channels (CNN/MSNBC, A&E, TBS etc) and those commericals are not covered.

That is not true.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe ... a regulation that ... concerns the transmission of commercial advertisements by a television broadcast station, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor.

That's directly from the text of the law, itself.

I work at a TV station, and we put equipment online in June of last year when we made the digital switch so we already comply with this law, but we get just as many complaints as we did before, so the law really won't change anything.

I know Geoff credited me with the "money quote" earlier, but I think this one qualifies as well. Everyone happy about this law should read what tvguy has said here.

 

[stevenpensacola]

I'm sure all the people out of work will appreciate the hard work Congress spent passing this landmark decision.

(note: if you're comedically impaired...the above statement is dripping with sarcasm).

Congress should be doing important work, such as our Governor here in Florida...

He's working to get Jim Morrison, of The Doors fame, who happens to be DEAD, cleared of an indecent exposure conviction in 1969!

unbelievable...

 

[mrodgers]

THIS is what Congress is spending it's time doing??? Wow.

It sure is. It is good time spent for them because they can sit and debate about it. This group will pass if they get this and that group will pass if they get that.

9 times out of 10, the issue on the table isn't what is being debated at all, but the issues the different groups want in order to get their vote for what is on the table is what is debated.

 

[luvmy3]

I'm so glad to see my tax dollars being used to tackle the real problems in America. This is a day that will go down in history, no longer will the American people be subjected to loud annoying commercials while trying to relax during their favorite TV show. I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there when they passed that law, its a day this proud America will never forget

 

[DarthKTrava]

It's about time. Too bad it takes An Act Of Congress to get this done....

Now if we can get ALL channels on the SAME VOLUME LEVEL...

 

[tvguy]

That is not true.
[.

Interesting about cable spots. Wonder how they will enforce that, if the audio leaves the cable system correctly, but gets bumped up by one of the hub amplifiers, is that a violation?

 

[Imzadi]

My step dad is an advertising agent. He told me that the commercials are not necessarily higher volume, but rather that they maximize the use of the range of frequencies a TV plays. TV shows do not do this, and so some of the sound from the show you are watching is lost in the recording and rebroadcasting. I have to wonder if this legislation will really do anything.

That's technical semantics. If it comes out of the TV speakers as LOUDER, (shouting intended - but not at the OP, ) then it's louder. I don't think it takes a recording analyst to figure that out. I can drive my car without knowing what a carburetor does. Just that it works correctly.

See my next response.

I will leave the TV on for background noise while doing other things around the house. I can not tell you how many times I have nearly jumped from the volume difference! We aren't talking slightly louder, we are talking big big difference. For example, I have my TV volume button on 11. That is good for most stations. Then an advertisement will come on, and I have to turn it down to 2 to keep the same level.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about above. If a person needs to turn down the TV levels to a 2 to get an equivalent sound level, whatever the cause or reason, then it is LOUDER.

AMC has this situation going on right now. Miracle on 34th Street, is playing at a level of 35 on my TV. When ALL the commercial come on, I have to turn down the sound to 17 to get an equivalent level.

Thank God for rechargable batteries. Otherwise there would be too many dead batteries clogging up the landfills, just from my one TV remote. I wonder how many people have burnt out the Mute button on theirs?

It's about time. Too bad it takes An Act Of Congress to get this done....

Now if we can get ALL channels on the SAME VOLUME LEVEL...

That's the next Act Of Congress.

 

[bambii]

no maybe a can put the remote down for a while..

 

[bicker]

Interesting about cable spots. Wonder how they will enforce that, if the audio leaves the cable system correctly, but gets bumped up by one of the hub amplifiers, is that a violation?

The requisite balancing must take place after commercials are inserted.

 

[bicker]

That's technical semantics. If it comes out of the TV speakers as LOUDER, (shouting intended - but not at the OP, ) then it's louder. I don't think it takes a recording analyst to figure that out.

It actually does. As pp mentioned, some stations have been in compliance with the new law's provisions for a while, yet still get as many complaints as before, because people complain based on not liking something, rather than it being against the rules.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about above. If a person needs to turn down the TV levels to a 2 to get an equivalent sound level, whatever the cause or reason, then it is LOUDER.

Sorry but that's ridiculous: A person will decide whether they personally need to turn the sound down or not based on their own personal, subjective perceptions. It is irrational to judge others (in this case, a television station) based on the subjective judgment of every individual viewer. Instead, there needs to be a regulation that specifies what is too loud, and how to measure it, so that the intention can be applied fairly and consistently.

The problem is that (according to the FCC) loudness cannot be measured fairly and consistently (and they've been trying to figure out a way for decades.

It is clear people want some resolution to this. It is also clear that not everyone (and perhaps only a few people) will consider this new law a resolution, simply because there is likely no resolution to be had, that is fair and consistent.

I think Congress really snowed the American people over with this law. They should have had the honor to take on the challenge of defining what is loudness and how to measure it rather than simply whining like a child to the FCC: "You do! You do!"

 

[Carly_Roach]

Sorry but that's ridiculous: A person will decide whether they personally need to turn the sound down or not based on their own personal, subjective perceptions. It is irrational to judge others (in this case, a television station) based on the subjective judgment of every individual viewer. Instead, there needs to be a regulation that specifies what is too loud, and how to measure it, so that the intention can be applied fairly and consistently.

The problem is that (according to the FCC) loudness cannot be measured fairly and consistently (and they've been trying to figure out a way for decades.

All that's really needed is a decibel meter spaced X amount of distance away from a control receiver. For instance: I can't really hear the living room TV in my kitchen...until a commercial comes on. If I had a decibel meter in my kitchen, I'd be able to prove that the sound was 0 decibels before, was X decibels when the commercial was on, and was 0 decibels when the program came back on.

Obviously the experiment would have to include a great many different television sets and would be a bit more complicated than my example, but it could be done.

Personally, I gave up network TV because of all the commercial hooey back in the late 80's, so this law doesn't really affect me all that much. In fact, the only reason I've even seen commercials in the past few years was because I married DH and he likes to watch sports and other network shows.

 

[Imzadi]

All that's really needed is a decibel meter spaced X amount of distance away from a control receiver. For instance: I can't really hear the living room TV in my kitchen...until a commercial comes on. If I had a decibel meter in my kitchen, I'd be able to prove that the sound was 0 decibels before, was X decibels when the commercial was on, and was 0 decibels when the program came back on.

Obviously the experiment would have to include a great many different television sets and would be a bit more complicated than my example, but it could be done.

THANK YOU. That was precisely my point. But, I'm not surprised that Bicker with his need to fairly and consistently put other people down with pseudo-superior intelligence, by overly complicating things with techno-babble, couldn't understand that was what I was saying.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I sometimes do sound work while producing videos. I'm not sure how they'll make this work. "Volume" isn't as simple as most people think it is. For example, let's say that the regulate peak volume to be a signal at 0db. If I want my commercial to stand out, I'll compress the dynamic range (the difference between the quietest and loudest parts) and increase the gain on the entire thing. It won't have any parts louder than the TV show you were just watching, but it will seem louder because the entire thing will be about as loud as the loudest parts of the TV show.

We have a simple solution at our house. We never watch anything when it is broadcast. Then we skip all of the commercials during playback. I'm always amazed that the commercial system still functions because I would have thought everyone would be doing this by now. I guess a lot of people aren't as bothered by commercials.

 

[bicker]

All that's really needed is a decibel meter spaced X amount of distance away from a control receiver.

You can turn up or down the volume of the audio system to affect that. Also, the audio system circuitry itself can result in greater or lesser dynamic range (either deliberately so, as reflection of a premium feature; or as a reflection of poor design).

Regardless, as pp indicated, the commercials that probably annoy you today already comply with the standard that their peak volume must not be greater than the peak volume of the surrounding programming. Yet you're still annoyed, showing that the simple approach you outlined will be of no use in addressing your concerns.

Obviously the experiment would have to include a great many different television sets and would be a bit more complicated than my example, but it could be done.

Sorry, but no. The FCC has been trying to find a way to fairly and consistently measure this, and concluded it cannot be done. They are no obligated to do something which they've already determined was impossible, so expect the end-result to be pointless at best, damaging to programming at worst.

Please do not get your hopes up with regard to the implementation of this law. That'll almost surely lead to disappointment.