Posted on 12/16/2010 1:21:17 PM PST by Starman417
Desperate to pass something, anything, Obama signed legislation governing the volume of TV commercials yesterday. You have to wonder if it's Aprils Fools Day instead of Christmas with the title... "The CALM Act".
Whew... thank heavens! Why they've ignored such a pressing issue for so long, who can say? OK, sarcasm stops dripping now.
Yes, folks. If they can't shove thru Stimulus III via the continuining resolution, and pork up Stimulus II (the Bush tax extension) enough to their satisfaction, Congress wanted to have something to show while they're not out Christmas... er, "holiday"... shopping. Enter HR 1084, a bill introduced by Dem Representative Anna Eschoo of California in February 2009. If such a bill weren't embarrassing enough subject matter for the nation's federal government to address, she got 90 of her Democrat cohorts to sign on as co-sponsors.
The Senate's sister bill, S 2847 was introduced in the heat of the tax and spending debates on Dec 8th. Sponsor on that integral federal legislation was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, RI's Democrat Senator, and his seven Democrat cohorts.
Voting? No records kept of the voice vote. Probably because everyone is too embarrassed to waste time on such nonsense...and they should be.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Actually, this one bill, I actually support. It’s a daily-life irritant to have to suddenly shout at the chick when a commercial comes BLARING on. Yes, I have a remote. No, I don’t always hit it in time, or remember. It annoys.
While they are at it, they should also outlaw the sale or manufacture of socks in any colors other than white, black, navy blue or gray. Four colors are more than enough choices and this would save countless hours in matching and discarding mismatched socks. < / sarcasm >
While I don’t think this is much of the government’s purpose or business, I am glad something’s being done.
I should not have to grab the remote every time the commervcial comes on...I am not old, so it blasts my ears half the time.
I am sure some free market purist will come on this thread and say “these problems are better handled by pressuring the advertisers, local stations etc.”
To those folks: When has this made any difference?
I am glad they did this. It isn’t like they wasted a bunch of time on the matter...it was an easy voice vote. Hard to say they are wasting time on it like the article implies.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/smiling_bob.html
The volume isn’t altered, it’s the levels within the recording.
Modern MUSIC recordings seem louder too. The bastardized “remastered” Beatles CDs used this trick too.
Just another small intrusion by the fedgov. A little intrusion here, a little one there, and before you know it, its a serious government intrusion.
It is probably a slight regulatory overstep, but hardly a travesty of justice. It does take care of a constant irritant, I suppose. It is emblematic of excessive regulatory power ... but hardly the best example. It isn’t even the best example in the last 24 hours (the crib thing was worse).
Look at the bright side — a minute wasted on this nonsense is a minute wasted by the Pelosi Congress, and minute closer to the Boehner Congress without further catastrophic legislation.
SnakeDoc
Had television broadcasters chosen to just respect its viewers and listen to what was certainly their customers complaints going back many years, none of this “Calm Act” would have been necessary. The broadcasters have brought this regulation on themselves and given us another government intrusion into daily life..
Interesting that a few years back they outlawed the manufacture/sale of a DVR that had the option of cutting off the commercials... based on the higher volume.
Yes, I have a remote. No, I don’t always hit it in time
_____________________
Wait, you would hit it............... remotely?
Doesn’t matter to me, people hate watching TV with me since I reflexively change the channel whenever a commercial comes on.
A little tricky when watching a game but beats being subject to ads.
I used to want a law like this, but then I canceled my Cable in order to stop feeding the beast.
Now when I happen to see what currently passes for television, all I can say is:
The Stupid! It hurts! AAAUUUGGGHH!
Actually I support this. I really dont think there needs to be a law but commercial volume does annoy me.
Yeah, yeah, they've always said that. But I don't buy it.
I've had a pretty fair amount of recording production experience, and fooling around with the equalization does NOT account for the amount of volume differential I hear.
No way their not boosting the overall volume level.
Well me too. It's a pain in the lower cheeks to have the volume set and have screaming commercial blast over it. Then there is the shouter talk shows that not matter how low you set it, they override it.
Just wait until digital televisions use the same “lockout” controls when tv ads come up that are already present in webstreaming ads and in the intro materials on DVDs.
Exactly. Either control ALL content in this manner or else restrict none of it. Either the technology can be used or it cannot. To permit its use selectively on a network depending on content is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.