Markup Planned For Commercial Loudness Bill

Lee Stewart · 10-05-2009, 03:05 PM

Goal is to insure that the volume of ads isn't too loud or louder than the surrounding programming

Quote:

It is unclear whether the broadcast and cable industries can avoid a legislative fix to the issue of commercial volume (that's loudness, not amount), even as they complete a self-regulatory standard to regularize the volume of ads relative to programming content.

The good news is that even if it is set in regulatory stone, the remedy may be the one favored by industry, according to sources.

According to sources, the House Energy & Commerce Committee is scheduling a markup this Thursday (Oct. 8) on the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), would require the FCC to adopt the commercial volume standard being worked on by the TV industry with the backing of advertisers and agencies.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...dness_Bill.php

bicker · 10-07-2009, 06:59 AM

I'm sure it'll be great fun trying to enforce such a law. :rotfl:

Lee Stewart · 10-07-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

I'm sure it'll be great fun trying to enforce such a law. :rotfl:

The FCC enforces profanity on the airwaves - have done an excellent job.

The FCC enforces standards for power use for OTA broadcast - have done an admireable job.

Why should loudness be any different? easiest thing in the world to monitor.

bicker · 10-07-2009, 12:50 PM

The problem is evident in the wording of the article itself. In one portion, it talks about loudness. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Loudness, a subjective measure, is often confused with objective measures of sound pressure such as decibels or sound intensity.

If they really define the law in terms of "loudness" then it could end up unenforceable. If they define it in terms of decibels, then it may not have any impact. It is essential that they get to the point where they establish hard limits on both average and instantaneous sound intensity. If it doesn't get to that level of detail, then it provides an open loophole for essentially doing what they're currently doing.

And you can be sure that advertising lobbyists are going to be working very hard to ensure that at least one of these loopholes are left open. The politicians will be able to say that they addressed the problem, when in reality nothing will really change.

Lee Stewart · 10-07-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

The problem is evident in the wording of the article itself. In one portion, it talks about loudness. From Wikipedia:If they really define the law in terms of "loudness" then it could end up unenforceable. If they define it in terms of decibels, then it may not have any impact. It is essential that they get to the point where they establish hard limits on both average and instantaneous sound intensity. If it doesn't get to that level of detail, then it provides an open loophole for essentially doing what they're currently doing.

And you can be sure that advertising lobbyists are going to be working very hard to ensure that at least one of these loopholes are left open. The politicians will be able to say that they addressed the problem, when in reality nothing will really change.

The issue at hand . . .

To stop the increase in sound volume (loudness) that occurs when a commerical (ad) appears during a break in the scheduled programming - which is at a lower sound volume than the ad.

Goal - to have the sound volume the same for programming and commericals.

bicker · 10-07-2009, 04:28 PM

Lee: I don't think you understood my message. However, I'm not sure how to better explain it. It suffices to say that a rule that says (nothing more than) that commercials must be the same "volume" or "loudness" as the main program would not have any effect. If the result of this effort is a rule expressed in those terms, then we can conclude that this effort was a failure -- that the broadcasting industry successfully avoided any significant regulation in this regard.

Lee Stewart · 10-09-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Lee: I don't think you understood my message. However, I'm not sure how to better explain it. It suffices to say that a rule that says (nothing more than) that commercials must be the same "volume" or "loudness" as the main program would not have any effect. If the result of this effort is a rule expressed in those terms, then we can conclude that this effort was a failure -- that the broadcasting industry successfully avoided any significant regulation in this regard.

Here is the Bill:

http://www.aice.org/pdf/CALM%20Act.pdf

bicker · 10-09-2009, 11:42 AM

Yup, that's the Act. Completely unenforceable. The FCC will have to pass regulations based on the Act, that puts measurement methods behind words like "strident". That'll make all the difference.

Lee Stewart · 10-09-2009, 03:26 PM

From ther OP link:

Quote:

In fact, according to a source, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, which has set various TV-related standards including the digital TV transmission standard, has gotten a general sign-off and is now down to the tweaking stage on the "recommended practice" standard, targeting November for the official unveiling. Advertisers and agencies are said to be OK with the move.

So what is to enforce? Sounds like they will fall in line with the new requirement.

bicker · 10-09-2009, 07:09 PM

So I guess there was no need for the Act, after all.

Lee Stewart · 10-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

So I guess there was no need for the Act, after all.

Just to make sure they do.

Can't wait for SPEED to adjust their sound levels DOWN on their ads.

airickess · 10-09-2009, 09:54 PM

I'm not sure one can measure "loudness", really, unless they are somehow going to cap RMS average at a certain number. The commercials can be the same peak DB as the programming, but it is really the dynamic range (or lack of it) that can affect perceived loudness. So for commercials they can compress the crap out of it, then boost the make-up gain and can still be under a peak DB measurement yet the perceived loudness will be a lot greater than the programming.
It's the same thing they've been doing for a number of years in the recorded pop music industry.
It appears that, in the bill, section 2, subsection A, part 3 states that
the average maximum loudness of such advertisements shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany.
To me that reads that commercials can be louder, but what is "substantially"? And how does the advertiser know the average maximum loudness of the program material that his ad accompanies? Programming volumes vary greatly. Large advertisers generally block-book ad space.

bicker · 10-10-2009, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airickess

I'm not sure one can measure "loudness", really, unless they are somehow going to cap RMS average at a certain number.

These are the aspects I was referring to. I do think that the purpose of the Act was to have the FCC actually put in place measurable metrics along these lines. As far as I can tell, they haven't done so yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airickess

The commercials can be the same peak DB as the programming, but it is really the dynamic range (or lack of it) that can affect perceived loudness.

Precisely, and haven't rules regarding peak dB have been around for a while? Yet, they yield the results that we see today.

Different (additional) regulations are necessary. Just saying that "things should be loud" is not going to have any impact, by itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airickess

It appears that, in the bill, section 2, subsection A, part 3 states that
the average maximum loudness of such advertisements shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany.
To me that reads that commercials can be louder, but what is "substantially"? And how does the advertiser know the average maximum loudness of the program material that his ad accompanies? Programming volumes vary greatly. Large advertisers generally block-book ad space.

Right on-target.

10-09-2009, 09:54 PM	#12
airickess High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 30	I'm not sure one can measure "loudness", really, unless they are somehow going to cap RMS average at a certain number. The commercials can be the same peak DB as the programming, but it is really the dynamic range (or lack of it) that can affect perceived loudness. So for commercials they can compress the crap out of it, then boost the make-up gain and can still be under a peak DB measurement yet the perceived loudness will be a lot greater than the programming. It's the same thing they've been doing for a number of years in the recorded pop music industry. It appears that, in the bill, section 2, subsection A, part 3 states that the average maximum loudness of such advertisements shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany. To me that reads that commercials can be louder, but what is "substantially"? And how does the advertiser know the average maximum loudness of the program material that his ad accompanies? Programming volumes vary greatly. Large advertisers generally block-book ad space. Last edited by airickess; 10-09-2009 at 10:01 PM.

Similar Threads to Markup Planned For Commercial Loudness Bill
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Changed from cablevision to Fios- Bill is too HIgh	kyilmaz	Verizon FiOS	7	11-06-2008 08:16 AM
Disney Sets 'Kill Bill' Blu-ray Specs, Adds Bundle	anythingwt	High Definition Media	10	08-13-2008 02:48 PM
billing really sucks...i can't access my bill AT ALL!	akron05	Verizon FiOS	10	09-12-2007 02:21 PM
R.I.P. Coach Bill Walsh	dabig25	Sports Forum	8	08-07-2007 11:20 PM
webcast of Bill Gates' keynote at the 2006 International Consumer Electronics Show	maicaw	High Definition News & Informative Articles	0	01-12-2006 07:35 PM

10-07-2009, 06:59 AM	#2
bicker High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burlington, MA Posts: 1,532	I'm sure it'll be great fun trying to enforce such a law. :rotfl:

10-07-2009, 04:28 PM	#6
bicker High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burlington, MA Posts: 1,532	Lee: I don't think you understood my message. However, I'm not sure how to better explain it. It suffices to say that a rule that says (nothing more than) that commercials must be the same "volume" or "loudness" as the main program would not have any effect. If the result of this effort is a rule expressed in those terms, then we can conclude that this effort was a failure -- that the broadcasting industry successfully avoided any significant regulation in this regard.

10-09-2009, 11:42 AM	#8
bicker High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burlington, MA Posts: 1,532	Yup, that's the Act. Completely unenforceable. The FCC will have to pass regulations based on the Act, that puts measurement methods behind words like "strident". That'll make all the difference.

10-09-2009, 07:09 PM	#10
bicker High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burlington, MA Posts: 1,532	So I guess there was no need for the Act, after all.