Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Government United States

Lawmakers Offer Bill To Regulate Volume of Commercials On Streaming Services (thehill.com) 103

Posted by BeauHD from the updating-old-legislation dept.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) on Tuesday introduced a bill to regulate the volume of commercials shown on streaming platforms. The Hill reports: The bill is known as the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Modernization Act. It would modernize policies regarding ads on streaming services, saying that "the volume of commercials on streaming services cannot be louder than regular programming," according to Eshoo. It would also ramp up the Federal Communications Commission's ability to investigate and enforce violations of the original CALM Act and require a study into its effectiveness.

Eshoo added that since she and Whitehouse created the original CALM Act, streaming service providers have "recreated the problem of loud ads because the old law doesn't apply to them." "Today, we're updating the legislation for the benefit of consumers who are tired of diving for the mute button at every commercial break," Eshoo added.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawmakers Offer Bill To Regulate Volume of Commercials On Streaming Services More

Lawmakers Offer Bill To Regulate Volume of Commercials On Streaming Services

Comments Filter:
  • It like we have regressed thirty years to the endless commercial breaks for Friends on broadcast tv. On time shifting. No skipping. And Hulu is the worst because if you leave a show, the 5 minutes of commercials start over before you get back in. This is why I pay Hulu for a month when something is on, then. cancel. Thank god for App Store subscriptions. Easy to cancel. I can tolerate Tubi as it is free.

    • I use a HTPC, OTA , tuner. I use NextPVR to record. Comskip to skip commercials. My player is Jriver MC. Works pretty well.

      It will definitely cost more in hardware to setup something like that vs a streaming stick and service. It's a 1 time cost, though. You still need Internet for the EPG, as OTA EPG isn't good enough. A plex lifetime pass provides that. Unfortunately, Plex DVR has 0 power management features. Thus, must be used on a SBC to be economical. If you care about your power bill and/or the plan

      • I used to resent when my corporate overlords kicked mud in my face, bent me over for the occasional buggering, and made me pick up garbage. But then then I bought my handy Mud Guard (tm) quick-change birth control with disease prevention and long handled trash picker with easy-tie trash bags. Now life is a breeze!

      • Thus, must be used on a SBC to be economical. If you care about your power bill and/or the planet.

        There's other ways of being efficient.

        I just have several VMs on one physical server, including my MythTV. If the system isn't under heavy load, the CPU cycles down to a lower power draw.

        • And how many watts does your physical server consume 24/7 ?

          I don't keep any PC on all the time for power reasons. Mine are all pretty beefy. The NAS consumes about 100W for example, so I use WOL with it.

          • A fair amount, but it is a lot less than having lots of single-purpose things running all over. Kind of hard for my PBX to alert me of an incoming call if it's asleep.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by madbrain ( 11432 )

              Interesting. What's the list of single-purpose devices your server replaces, out of curiosity ? I have been looking at optimizing power usage, so I'm curious.

              So far, I have found that single-purpose devices usually make more sense. For the DVR specifically, the OTA connection only comes to one room, which is my home theater, where the HTPC with the tuner card is located. I would not want anything with a fan running 24/7 in that room as I listen to music in it also.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I thought it was bout the amount (volume) of commercials at first.

  • Honestly people. Is this really the kind of shit you need govt to solve for you? You REALLY want the govt to wade this far into the minutia of your lives?

    • If you don't want commercials (or loud ones) in your paid service, stop paying for a service that has commercials. Or loud ones. It really is that simple. A law is completely the wrong kind of solution. If this were schools pushing ads into lectures I would understand it, but this is entirely optional behavior. Not only this but innumerable other abuses: If you don't want corporate wang in your fudgehole just stop paying for companies to pack your fudge!

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by madbrain ( 11432 )

        Right, because as an individual, you always have your choice of TV provider, and there is always one that has no ads at all, or no loud ads. And your ISP never bundles TV service with your internet service. Corporations should have all the leverage, and citizens none.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thomn8r ( 635504 )

        If you don't want commercials (or loud ones) in your paid service, stop paying for a service that has commercials.!

        Arrr matey! I hear ye loud 'n clear!

    • I would say this content based micromanagement is unconstitutional.
      • The constitution only restricts the government. It's "congress shall make no law". Also rights are enshrined in, not granted by, the constitution.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by madbrain ( 11432 )

        The same laws were already in place for OTA channels. Was their constitutionality ever in doubt ?

        This is just the same law being updated to apply to more current technologies, ie. streaming.

    • Honestly people. Is this really the kind of shit you need govt to solve for you? You REALLY want the govt to wade this far into the minutia of your lives?

      This isn't much different than telling a neighbor to turn his music down.

      (If your neighbor is a fan of streaming then it might even be identical - you might be hearing only his adverts, not his content).

      There's laws for getting neighbors to turn their music down so why not for this?

    • Re:A government solution for every petty gripe ima (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aristos Mazer ( 181252 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2022 @02:20AM (#62522108)

      The government is *us*, and if we want collectively to live in an environment of a given quality, then, yes, we should use our government to create that environment. Regulation of sound and others' privileges for making excess sound is a well-trod area of government regulation. Most people do not have the technical expertise to put sound regulators into their personal speaker systems. We use government to compensate when overly powerful members or collectives within our society abuse the imbalance of power, and corporations that provide services qualify.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Do I want the government to prevent corporations abusing my equipment and my ears with excessively loud commercials?

      Yes, yes I do. The government works for me and I don't like super loud commercials.

    • Dude the government has already done this on other mediums. It’s worked out great.

    • No, I want them to ban commercial advertising.

      I'll settle for them making the commercials (and bumpers!) not dramatically louder than the content.

      There's no reason why commercials should be allowed to do hearing damage, and every reason why they should not.

    • Right now there is a critical shortage of baby formula in the US. Lawmakers could help solve it by lowering tariffs for imported formula, or relaxing labelling laws to permit the legal importation and sale of European formula.

      But, no, THIS is what is critical right now. How loud commercials are. Pass THIS law.

    • Honestly people. Is this really the kind of shit you need govt to solve for you? You REALLY want the govt to wade this far into the minutia of your lives?

      Yes. Next question.

      You may be too young to remember how volume compression made commercials ever louder and louder, and how Dolby's ever increasing push for wider dynamic range made you turn your TV volume further and further up.

      The ad industry does not have your best interests at heart, or your ears. The government exists to solve problems where self regulation has failed or where companies act against the best interests of people.

      I would like to revise my answer. Instead of yes, let me say FUCK YES.

  • I got your 'bill' right here: (Score:4)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday May 10, 2022 @09:41PM (#62521732) Journal
    How about this: You pay for some 'streaming' service, you get ZERO commercials of any kind, mmkay?

    • Go tell that to the cable TV/satellite TV operators. They have been double dipping on subscription and ad revenue for decades.

      Or use an OTA, DVR, and comskip. Never pay for content or see a commercial again.

      • I know; that's why streaming should be forced to change that behavior.
        Also I've been a TiVo owner since the Series 2 came out, and I have 30-second skip turned on and rarely see commercials at all due to that. If I couldn't have TiVo or something just like it, I think I'd stop watching TV entirely. Also I'm exclusively OTA and don't use streaming at all nor would I, I don't believe in 'pay TV' mainly because (1) it's a trap like cable and satellite, and (2) if there's commercials, and I'm paying for the se

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      The volume of commercials has generally been an issue. For broadcast cable, whatever. Likewise many were shocked when they paid for cable and still got commercials. It is a learning curve.
      • Remembering when cable TV became a thing in this country: originally it was just the ability to get clear strong reliable signals from local OTA broadcast without having an antenna on your roof back in the days when analog was all there was; we still had an all-vacuum tube TV the first time we got cable. The only 'pay TV' was HBO and Cinemax, and we didn't pay for it (I removed the filter from the box in the street, little pirate I was). My point here being that OTA broadcast was funded by commercials and c

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fermion ( 181285 )
          Or getting TV in very rural areas. While socialists forced us all to pay so everyone could have a phone, tv was not an essential service.
          • Back in the day having a TV wasn't an 'essential service', radio was more essential since anyone could afford a basic radio receiver, AM broadcast was still relevant, AM signals radiated everywhere, and if there was an emergency, AM stations would do their duty to the public and broadcast emergency information. Telephone was at least as important. Back in those days you could get along just fine without TV, and frankly you can today too.
    • Sounds reasonable to me. If viewers are paying the broadcaster/content creator directly, wtf are ads for? If I pay directly, I'm the customer, not some advertiser.

      It's been working for HBO for decades.

    • You pay for some 'streaming' service

      What if you don't pay? Your bill doesn't solve the issue of volume. Or do you suggest I spend $10/m so that Spotify doesn't deafen me every 30min?

  • Wasn't disappointed. Unbelievable how corporatist this place has become.

    • I'll take "corporatist" over "populist vermin" anytime. Fucking ad streaming on streaming services, yeah real important glad they're really doing the hard hitting work.

      • You’re right. We’ll get right on passing that public healthcare option and we’ll have your support.

    • Corporatism is a structure for centrally managing an economy by taking taking labor and management from all companies in an industry, and putting them in a room with a government agent who tells them how it's going to be. Mussolini came up with it to manage Italy's economy, and it is the opposite of corporations being in charge of anything, including their own operation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by madbrain ( 11432 )

        I used the word "corporatist", for which Google gives me the following definition :

        a person who advocates for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

  • What you guys in America should do is all call your MP (or whatever it is you have over there) and tell them you want proper taxpayer funded healthcare, like civilised countries have.
    Let me know how you get on.

    • like civilised countries have.

      The for-profit healthcare industry is a massive employer. Socialized healthcare also would have to be administered in states run by a majority of conservative politicians, who would rather see it crash and burn than succeed, and those politicians will make every effort to sabotage such a system if given the opportunity. Also, this country appears to be rapidly sliding backwards from "civilized" status, for other reasons that don't bear repeating.

      Slightly less loud ads just requires a minor tweak to the st

      • Slightly less loud ads just requires a minor tweak to the streaming client software. Care to guess which is easier to implement?

        Good point.
        As for the rest, I'm sorry. That all sounds like a stupid way to run a country.

  • If you don't fucking like it, don't watch. Don't pay (if it's a pay service) or watch (for pure ad supported) if they do this shit and it annoys you. This isn't something the government needs to pass a law so some scumbag politicians can say "see, we're doing stuff, we're doing stuff!".

    But no. Oh no, people want to watch their shitty programming _and_ be able to not hear the annoying loud ads because they are "entitled" to.

    • Yep. Because streaming services NEED to have the adverts louder. Their empires will crumble if they don't do it that way.

  • I wont visit youtube anymore, google has ruined youtube with advertising

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zdzichu ( 100333 )

      It's only a problem on Youtube app in TV. There are no ads when viewed on computer.
      And for for TV, you can pay Google $18 a month to have ads gone.

      • There's no ads when viewed on a computer - If you have an adblocker in place.

        There's also no ads if you have an adblocker on your tablet or whatever. It's just that it is more difficult to install adblockers onto those dedicated devices.

    • Ads started 1 year after Youtube was founded. Google bought it shortly after.

  • Ads should have some flag so clients can reduce volume or better have 2 volume levels customers can fix - for ads & for content.

    Obviously everything that makes ads less intrusive is just gonna end up making ads less effective and so advertisers will pay less and streaming cos will play MORE ads

    Maybe we should make the ad volume much higher ? And also flash the screen . And use that cam to do it only when u seem to be paying the most attention to the scene. Win win

  • Also, why is Netflix dying if we don't like Ads ??
    Maybe bcoz they have shitty content from the strangest countries with ever changing clickbait thumbnails & descriptions; Maybe others like Disney etc can be successful with non-advt subscriptions

  • The great thing about getting TV & films through file sharing is that users usually take out the advertising. As a result, it turns out a 90-minute episode is actually 50-60 minutes, a 60-minute episode = 45 minutes, & a 30-minute episode = 20 minutes (more or less). When you add that up, how many hours per week do you save? Then there's the fact that the underlying persuasive mechanism underlying most advertising is to make people feel inadequate in order to create demand for their products & s

  • I read about the problem of noisy ads years ago. The ads, and the announcers, were louder than the music. One response to that was for music producers to apply the same type of volume compression that ad producers used. The result is often totally flat dynamics. You get artefacts, where the pumped up drums and bass choke off the rest of the band on peaks. You can see this when you display the waveform. Forget about low distortion digital sound, you can see (and hear) gross clipping.

    I have a fondness for cla

    • Ligeti's Concerto for Cello and Orchestra is said to have a dynamic marking of pppp pppp (8 contiguous p triggers the ASCII art filter) at one point. Years ago I was fortunate to hear the late Lynn Harrell play this with Los Angeles. Recordings of the piece exist, but I feel that a recording so far has not conveyed a subjectively faithful experience. On the other end of the volume knob: aptly named organist E. Power Biggs.

      • The pipe organ is as far as I know the most powerful bass instrument that uses purely acoustic means of sound production. Some organ builders, or their patrons, just don't know when to stop. Sidney Town Hall has a rank of full-length reeds at 64 foot pitch. Installing these pipes required installing the air feed to the pipes in the basement. The lowest frequency is about 8 Hz. Musically, this is not a note, but fairly brisk drumming. One technical problem is the time delay in the build-up of oscillations. T

  • Some home audio solutions have a feature that normalizes the sound eq so you don't get wildly dynamic swings in volume. This feature on the soundbar that I use has eliminated those really loud commercials. I turn it off for movies or music, when I want the sound to be richer...but for basic TV watchery the volume normalizer is a dream.
  • They need to just outlaw commercials all together and send all the marketers straight to hell where they belong.

  • I don't mean they just do things we don't like. They are genuinely evil. Every moment of peace. Every bit of free time. Every lull in action. Every clear view. They are all seen as something that needs to be filled with the latest gadget you absolute must buy this moment. If they could inject advertisements into our dreams, don't think they would hesitate to do it for a moment.

    And when that happens, I will go on a killing spree.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close