backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Dec 6 at 5:58 PM


Now if we can just get Congress to ban annoying commercials...
Obama is expected to sign bill into law

One of the things that many people hate the most about commercials on TV is that the volume of those commercials is often much higher than the volume of the show being watched. That means that TV watchers end up having to have the remote in hands to adjust the volume constantly and depending on the show and the number of commercials that constant adjustment can quickly get annoying.

Congress has passed a new act that is headed to Obama's desk called the CALM Act that will force commercial makers to regulate the volume of their commercials so that the commercials are no louder than the accompanying programming. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law. CALM stands for Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation. The act has been in the works for a while and was approved by the House and Senate this week clearing the way for Obama to sign it into law.

The
Wall Street Journal quotes Rep. Anna Eshoo, the sponsor of the House bill, saying, "Consumers have been asking for a solution to this problem for decades, and today they finally have it. [The bill] gives consumers peace of mind, because it puts them in control of the sound in their homes."

The FCC has received complaints about the volume of ads for years and has historically told users to simply mute the volume. Eshoo said, "Consumers will no longer have to experience being blasted at. It’s a simple fix to a huge nuisance."

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse stated, "While this is far from the biggest issue we face, it will mean one less daily annoyance in our lives."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This would be.....
By theapparition on 12/3/2010 10:38:36 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Frankly I think the lawmakers just said "screw it" and agreed to this because they have better things to worry about. I mean could you see anyone filibustering this nonsense?

Or more likely, this legislation had earmarks for 2 mil for Wisconsin dairy famers, 100 mil for inner city developement, 35 mil for study of mating ritual of Californian fruit flys, and 220 mil for promotion of "green" energy.

That's the only way it would have gotten through so easily.


RE: This would be.....
By The Raven on 12/3/2010 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow that is right on the money I bet.

Funny how Obama thinks outlawing earmarks is less of a noble cause than this. He is actually pro-earmark. He completely changed his stance in the first year in office. What a d-bag. At least with Dubya it was ignorance/stupidity that explained his actions. Obama seems like his is mentally capable to handle these matters and yet consciously chooses againt better judgement.

Well unfortunately for him, I will be voting against him in the next election, and unfortunately for me and other level headed free thinkers who vote libertarian, the majority will vote for Obama or Palin lol.

We are doomed.


RE: This would be.....
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 12:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
I thought I was the only one who voted for Bob Barr.


RE: This would be.....
By JakLee on 12/3/2010 4:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
I will continue to vote for Chuck Norris as a write in candidate until someone better comes along.


RE: This would be.....
By ZaethDekar on 12/6/2010 2:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
At least there were three votes for Mr. Norris that I know of.


RE: This would be.....
By The Raven on 12/6/2010 11:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Chuck Norris doesn't ask for your votes: he takes them.

Chuck is a die-hard republican (which means Christian conservative these days) from what I understand. I would still vote for him as an honest person though as he seems like quite the boy scout from all the interviews and stories I have heard.

And, no, Chuck is not forcing me to say that ;-)


RE: This would be.....
By foolsgambit11 on 12/3/2010 4:17:46 PM , Rating: 3
The full text (identical in the House and Senate versions) is only a page long, and simply compels the FCC to mandate the usage of the ATSC A/85 recommendation (or its successor) for controlling loudness on digital television (A/85 a 70-page document on technical standards for achieving normalized digital audio). The term digital television includes OTA, cable, and satellite broadcasters. The FCC has a year to write its regulation, then TV stations could apply for waivers of up to two years if they would face financial hardship from obtaining the necessary equipment. So in 3 years, all stations should have adopted this policy.

No funding of any sort (including to the TV companies who will be paying the expense of complying with this law) is authorized in this bill. But nice cynicism.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki