Government demands CALM
Rep Anna Eshoo, D-CA, must really be trying to look busy — witness her repeated introduction of another worthless government mandate. Her goal is to force broadcasters to control loudness.
Eshoo has, for the second time, introduced legislation titled “CALM”. Her bill, H.R. 1084 “Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation, or CALM, (don’t you hate such ridiculous acronyms?) would require the FCC to prescribe a regulation prohibiting advertisements from:
• being excessively noisy or strident;
• having modulation levels substantially higher than the accompanying program; and
• having an average maximum loudness substantially higher than that of the accompanying program.
Eshoo said her proposed legislation is designed “to make the volume of commercials and programming uniform so that spikes in volume do not affect the consumer’s ability to control sound.” Even worse, she claims commercials’ volume spikes have “endangered hearing for decades.”
Not satisfied with her own opinion, she claimed that fellow legislative spouses have been urging husbands or wives to sign onto her bill as co-sponsors. “I think they are all tired of getting blasted out of their easy chairs or off their exercise equipment due to these ridiculously loud commercials.”
Wow! I was unaware that audio volume could blast a person out of a chair or off the tread mill. Let me look into that.
Like many, if not most, elected officials, Eshoo is never satisfied with an industry’s own solution. It makes no difference to her that ATSC is expected to release a proposed operating standard on loudness next month.
“I wish that we could trust everyone to voluntarily comply, but the industry’s track record has not been so great in this regard,” she said.
Remember, government IS the solution. As of now, the bill has 82 co-sponsors, only one of which is a Republican. Uh, Rep. Eshoo, could you give me one specific example of the broadcast industry’s poor “track record” on compliance?
Oh, you can’t?
Broadcasters can solve any perceived loudness issue without your intrusion, thank you Rep. Eshoo. May I encourage you to GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA AND BE QUIET!
You may now return the volume to normal.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
There are critical health and disibility issues at stake in HR 1084. Once the volume on a home TV set is established at a “tolerable” level, it can be an unhealthful trigger for an individual with a neurological disorder and impaired sensory integration when the volume suddenly is raised. If you have not been personally affected by one of these disorders, you may not understand.
I am a neuroscientist and advocate and am quite familiar with the cause and effect of sensory integration dysfunction. The practice where one’s TV set volume is substantially and suddenly raised clearly is a a trigger of medical and behavioral sequela in these individuals.
It affects a range of neurological disorders from post TBI, post concussion, migraine, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, PTSD, post tumor, developmental disorders, and hydrocephalus, to name a few. This is real. It would appear a major portion of those affected are unaware of the TV set cause and affect.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
And who would Rep. Eshoo have to judge “excessively” or “substantially”? Would we need a new federal stridency board? Or maybe a new “loudness czar”?
The assertion that commercials have “endangered hearing for decades” would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly devoid of scientific reality. Until the last decade or so very few TV sets had audio systems capable of that range of SPLs in any normal configuration.
I don’t like overly loud commercials either, and having been a TV Chief Engineer I agree it’s a problem. But anyone with a scintilla of common sense understands it’s in a station or network’s best interest to keep that under control. A viewer reaching for the remote control to turn the volume down may just reach for the channel change button instead. As mentioned, ATSC is coming out with a new standard and equipment manufacturers are working on new loudness controllers.
With all due respect to the doctor, I used to have migraines too. Turned out it was coffee that caused mine, not loud TV. And if I did get one I certainly wouldn’t be watching TV at all. But I agree the present situation does frequently result in EAR-itation (sic), and I trust my fellow engineers will help cure this before another bureaucracy imposes itself on us all.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Yes, there are a lot of other important issues, but this:
“could you give me one specific example of the broadcast industry’s poor “track record” on compliance? Oh, you can’t?”
is pure condensed canal water. My elderly mother, who is hearing impaired, must turn up the volume to hear the dialog of programs, but gets blown out of her seat when the commercials come on. She has difficulty manipulating the remote and constantly trying to turn the volume up and down is absurd.
Currently, broadcasters have abused the rule which allows them to air commercials at the maximum peak volume of the programming. So, if there’s a single gunshot on the show, the commercials are blasted out at this peak volume.
Since too many commercials are designed to be as annoying and jarring as possible to attract attention, the result is a cacophony during the ever expanding period of commercial breaks. Broadcasters have done nothing to comply with reasonable expectations of viewers.
A more appropriate rule would be that commercials may be no louder and sounds no more compressed and exaggerated than the average for the programming. Peaks for commercials may be no higher than the peaks for the programming.
Leave a Comment
About
Advertisement
Categories
Recent Posts
Archives
Your Account
Subscribe