Calm act

[JBeukema]

yay or nay


Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

S.2847 -- CALM Act (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)
S 2847 ES
111th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2847
AN ACT
To regulate the volume of audio on commercials.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act' or the `CALM Act'.

SEC. 2. RULEMAKING ON LOUD COMMERCIALS REQUIRED.

• (a) Rulemaking Required- Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) a regulation that is limited to incorporating by reference and making mandatory (subject to any waivers the Commission may grant) the `Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television' (A/85), and any successor thereto, approved by the Advanced Television Systems Committee, only insofar as such recommended practice concerns the transmission of commercial advertisements by a television broadcast station, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor.

• (b) Implementation-

• • (1) EFFECTIVE DATE- The Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe that the regulation adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall become effective 1 year after the date of its adoption.

• • (2) WAIVER- For any television broadcast station, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor that demonstrates that obtaining the equipment to comply with the regulation adopted pursuant to subsection (a) would result in financial hardship, the Federal Communications Commission may grant a waiver of the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) for 1 year and may renew such waiver for 1 additional year.

• • (3) Waiver authority- Nothing in this section affects the Commission's authority under section 1.3 of its rules (47 C.F.R. 1.3) to waive any rule required by this Act, or the application of any such rule, for good cause shown to a television broadcast station, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor, or to a class of such stations, operators, or distributors.

• (c) Compliance- Any broadcast television operator, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor that installs, utilizes, and maintains in a commercially reasonable manner the equipment and associated software in compliance with the regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission in accordance with subsection (a) shall be deemed to be in compliance with such regulations.

• (d) Definitions- For purposes of this section--

• • (1) the term `television broadcast station' has the meaning given such term in section 325 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325); and

• • (2) the terms `cable operator' and `multi-channel video programming distributor' have the meanings given such terms in section 602 of Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522).

Passed the Senate September 29, 2010.
Attest:
Secretary.
111th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2847
AN ACT
To regulate the volume of audio on commercials.

 

[Revere]

A new bureaucracy to monitor television volume. Fuck.

 

[Two Thumbs]

oh man

Congress actually is voting on weather or not tv stations can turn up the volume for commercials.

oh yeah, lets stop that evil noise! Maybe they should mandate that all tv come with the ability to turn the sound off. We should give it a catchy name, like; The no sound button, or the mute.

 

[JBeukema]

loud commercials are irritating, but I don't see how this is congress's business or how we need anything like this. If people are really fed up, they'll but TVs with volume normalization or look to other media (eg: internet services) where providers listen to their customers in order to make a buck.

It's a baseless growth of federal authority for no good reason.

I vote nay.

 

[shintao]

yay or nay


Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A sounding NO!!

This is just government wanting to install some device to shut off the sound on your TV, at their will and control. They could then regulate which channels in the world you can watch or not hear what is going on.

Paranoid? NO. When I was in Vietnam government did their damnedest to control what we could listen to. It elicited an entire underground radio network run off of PRC radios, who could pump acid rock to the troops.

BESIDES, they already have a device for your TV if you want it installed.

Automatic TV Sound Regulator - Gadget specifications and review - Softpedia

 

[Intense]

I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.

 

[shintao]

I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.

I am on the Do Not Call List, and that worked fine for years. Recently I changed my phone number, applied to the No Call List, and I get advertising these calls now. Quite irritating.

Phones should be set up to only receive the phone numbers you put on your receiving list, and you know who they would be, because you give them your number. The same principle for email.

I also have my phone blocked so the number doesn't show, and lot of businesses won't accept those calls. Then I get on my cell phone & they accept it.

 

[Intense]

I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.

I am on the Do Not Call List, and that worked fine for years. Recently I changed my phone number, applied to the No Call List, and I get advertising these calls now. Quite irritating.

Phones should be set up to only receive the phone numbers you put on your receiving list, and you know who they would be, because you give them your number. The same principle for email.

Many Government Related entities and, Corporate numbers even get through Anonymous Call Blocking, they have special exemption. Allot of schemes related to privacy abuse. Even personal information available on the Internet. There is definitely too much intrusion into our lives. We get desensitized by it too.

 

[shintao]

loud commercials are irritating, but I don't see how this is congress's business or how we need anything like this. If people are really fed up, they'll but TVs with volume normalization or look to other media (eg: internet services) where providers listen to their customers in order to make a buck.

It's a baseless growth of federal authority for no good reason.

I vote nay.

Couldn't you find a better icon than an ant??

A sexy girl icon? Sponge Bob? I really hate ants, bugs in general, and rightwinged parasites.

 

[JBeukema]

1) Its a bullet ant. Draw your own conclusions.

2) I don't give half a fuck what you think

3) If you think I'm right wing, you're not just far left-wing, you're standing outside the building screaming at the pigeons to overthrow their human oppressors while the authorities wonder how the fuck you escaped the asyulum

 

[shintao]

I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.

I am on the Do Not Call List, and that worked fine for years. Recently I changed my phone number, applied to the No Call List, and I get advertising these calls now. Quite irritating.

Phones should be set up to only receive the phone numbers you put on your receiving list, and you know who they would be, because you give them your number. The same principle for email.

Many Government Related entities and, Corporate numbers even get through Anonymous Call Blocking, they have special exemption. Allot of schemes related to privacy abuse. Even personal information available on the Internet. There is definitely too much intrusion into our lives. We get desensitized by it too.

I agree. You would think one of these hackers who write viruses and such could write a program that would send a virus back to certain email addresses with a warning to desist.

Or a program to bounce back any sender mail not on a private list you maintain, and end junk mail.

Or a virus sent out that destroys viruses. I think the gov. could do that, if not for capitalism & a need to give people jobs.

 

[shintao]

1) Its a bullet ant. Draw your own conclusions.

2) I don't give half a fuck what you think

3) If you think I'm right wing, you're not just far left-wing, you're standing outside the building screaming at the pigeons to overthrow their human oppressors while the authorities wonder how the fuck you escaped the asyulum

I go with door #2. LMAO!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yay or nay


Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Your search has timed out, search results are for 30 minutes only.

 

[Synthaholic]

yay or nay


Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A sounding NO!!

This is just government wanting to install some device to shut off the sound on your TV, at their will and control. They could then regulate which channels in the world you can watch or not hear what is going on.

Paranoid? NO. When I was in Vietnam government did their damnedest to control what we could listen to. It elicited an entire underground radio network run off of PRC radios, who could pump acid rock to the troops.

BESIDES, they already have a device for your TV if you want it installed.

Automatic TV Sound Regulator - Gadget specifications and review - Softpedia

Uh...no.

It requires the provider (Comcast, DirectTV, etc.) to put a Limiter on the maximum volume on the content they deliver..

In professional audio, Compressor/Limiters are used. They are overly used on FM radio stations. It takes very quiet passages and raises the volume (compression) while bringing down the loudest passages to a lower ceiling (limiting).

I've been wanting television manufacturers to install a simple Limiter in the circuitry for years. I think a few of them have. But on the whole, private industry has not done the job on this. The government (the people) own the airwaves, and we do not need to be aurally abused in our own homes every time there is a commercial break.

I, of course, voted yay.

 

[Ravi]

Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.

And there in is why you have one brain cell. Dumb fuck, just because one CAN do something does not making the right thing, the correct thing or the prudent thing to do. Or are you to stupid to understand the concept? The question itself does not claim the Government can NOT do it, nor from my reading does the OP make such a claim. So how about you answer the question with a little intelligence and let us know why you think just cause the Government can do something it should?

 

[Ravi]

How sweet, RGS is dying to know my opinion!

The tv and radio stations that use something that belongs to all of us are the logical ones to put the burden on. And no, it isn't a free speech issue.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How sweet, RGS is dying to know my opinion!

The tv and radio stations that use something that belongs to all of us are the logical ones to put the burden on. And no, it isn't a free speech issue.

Never said it was, braindead. The op said it was a waste of time and money. He did not say anything else. You posted that the Government could and so that was your only reason given. You are STILL saying that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually Ravi isn't saying anything since she did not even vote in the poll. As usual she has no valid opinion worth sharing. I will be sure to remind her when the Conservatives start passing laws she disagrees with that she said that as long as the Government could do it they should.

 

[Paulie]

Actually Ravi isn't saying anything since she did not even vote in the poll. As usual she has no valid opinion worth sharing. I will be sure to remind her when the Conservatives start passing laws she disagrees with that she said that as long as the Government could do it they should.

I'll bet the reason she justified it that way was because we had a huge debate on this subject about a year ago and that was one of the big points in the debate.

This time around I guess she's just throwing it out there to preempt anyone who might want to argue it.

It's still a ridiculous reason to justify congress wasting time and money. Right now congress ought to be working on solutions to problems that benefit EVERYONE, not just someone's personal issue with couch potato inconveniences.