FCC did something right ...yaay

[Lanyap]

To combat this, they will start making commercials super bright. So instead of going def you'll go blind.

That and they will start fast flashing. I have an Ashley furniture homestore near me and it has a big, bright, fast flashing digital sign near a main intersection and if you are anywhere near there it makes you tend to look at it even when you know it's there and you don't want to look at it.

 

[werepossum]

Weird. I am totally against government doing such stupid, invasive things and assuming that Americans can't even do something so basic as muting a television, but a small part of me is thrilled.

On a related front, if companies can't figure out that a loud and/or annoying commercial isn't going to be watched, screw 'em.

 

[Balt]

I'm pretty sure the government either directly or indirectly made the commercials excessively loud. If they didn't, I also know that some people had devices that could reduce excessive loudness so the market already has worked around it. Put in earplugs when the volume gets too high. It's only during commercials, right?

Not enough people complained to their cable companies I guess. The first cable company that made commercials the same amount of db would get the most business if it bothered people that badly.

I don't want the FCC personally. All it does is control content.

lol'd

 

[feralkid]

I'm pretty sure the government either directly or indirectly made the commercials excessively loud.

I'm pretty sure you're a Gorn.

 

[momeNt]

Okay fine, im convinced market failure, negative externality, unregulated monopoly blah blah. But can we also include this on trailers on DVD/blu-ray content? I won't be happy with the dollar the FCC stole from me until I get that. I also want a program where we can send our DVD and Blu-Rays in to get remixed.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm pretty sure you're a Gorn.

Lol. It all makes sense now.

 

[Craig234]

You are under no obligation to watch any part of the show that you don't want to watch the networks/advertisers know this going in.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the part where I said that or disagreeing with the part that I said there's a good faith agreement you watch some advertising as the price.

 

[Craig234]

Dominion, you're just losing me here with the injection of ideological dogma like trying to fit the word 'natural' in to dominate your position.

So, I don't see much room to respond. I laid out my position - there's a simple bargain where people spend money to create and air entertainment for viewers; to pay for that entertainment, viewers watch a reasonable amount of advertising that pays for the costs of the entertainment, and if so inclined, buy some advertised products. Generally the advertising has sold enough product for this to work.

To take the entertainment and bypass the advertising is to take something the producers and transmitters paid for under this business model and not pay anything (and I'm not talking about direct money which they don't ask for, but the advertising viewing that is part of the business model). I'm talking morally, not legally.

Now, you might say you don't want to watch advertising; I'd ask you how you pay for the costs. If everyone did what you're doing, there would be no tv.

That's ok, if you decide not to watch the shows. But to get the entertainment and not pay has a problem.

Again, this is one area I don't do as much as I say people should since I skip ads - despite partial mitigation by making a point to watch some.

When you try to separate a "dick move" from what's "moral" - we're probably at some definition debate about moral I doubt will be useful.

I'll make points about bad things about tv at all (e.g., reduces 'community', harming our democracy in away, etc.), about some shows, quite a bit about some advertising, and more, and also some good points about it (it enhances our democracy in ways, for example exposing some wrongs on shows like Jon Stewarts', Frontline, etc.)

Bottom line here though is that there is an inequity between entertainment provided in a 'free with advertising' model, and then not 'paying' the price - sort of like buying the less expensive Amazon Kindle subsidized by ads and then hacking it to remove the ads. Maybe we need to move to an 'advertising in programs' model or a 'subscription only' model where you don't get ads and pay money for shows, given that technology has allowed breaking the advertising way of funding entertainment.

The moral issue is in taking the product offered in a fair exchange and not 'paying' for it.

I'll defend the starving person who steals bread to eat from those who have more in a society lacking social justice - this is not that sort of 'stealing'.

 

[Modelworks]

This is closing a loophole in the laws that already existed, the previous laws set the volume levels but had a major flaw, the flaw was that they set volume levels based on the db level of the signal. Advertisers soon learned they could make louder commercials without breaking the rules by peaking the signal for 'what you hear' . For example, you can make a commercial much louder by emphasizing the frequencies that people hear really well, 2khz, 4khz, and minimize 60hz, 100hz , making the sound really loud to people but not producing very much on the db scale. Consumer equipment couldn't control the volume on these easily because it worked on the same db scale idea, not of what a person hears, which requires a much more complicated method to determine.

The rules now state that broadcasters have to use a new metering method that takes the 'what you hear' aspect into account.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the part where I said that or disagreeing with the part that I said there's a good faith agreement you watch some advertising as the price.

What is the purpose of advertising? How do advertisers get money?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the part where I said that or disagreeing with the part that I said there's a good faith agreement you watch some advertising as the price.

I don't agree that there is a good faith agreement to watch any part of television programming.

 

[actuarial]

I have never signed any agreement to watch television commercials, and I will continue to skip every commercial possible for every first run show with my DVR. It cuts down on the 25% of the time slot that is not dedicated to the show.

The best case scenario for me, personally, would be for the whole advertising in TV thing to completely break down. Either TV would become more expensive (doubtful), or they would cut out the 75% of the content that no one fucking watches.

 

[BoberFett]

Nice to see our good friend Boberfett in a full fledged meltdown, all the while complaining that people take commercial volume too seriously.

Never change, boberfett, you're perfect the way you are.

*yawn*

 

[Craig234]

I don't agree that there is a good faith agreement to watch any part of television programming.

I agree with the option to not watch any programming. The good faith agreement is to watch a reasonable amount of ads IF you watch the entertainment.

I don't think you have a lack of understanding of the economic issues like some here where the providers are just out to lose money in a charity for you.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with the option to not watch any programming. The good faith agreement is to watch a reasonable amount of ads IF you watch the entertainment.

I don't think you have a lack of understanding of the economic issues like some here where the providers are just out to lose money in a charity for you.

I don't think they are a charity, I just think there is an implicit acceptance that people can turn the TV on and off whenever they wish as well as pay as much or as little attention to the programming or advertisements as they wish.

 

[actuarial]

I agree with the option to not watch any programming. The good faith agreement is to watch a reasonable amount of ads IF you watch the entertainment.

I don't think you have a lack of understanding of the economic issues like some here where the providers are just out to lose money in a charity for you.

What good faith agreement? I pay for access to my cable company's programming, full stop. If they want to require me to watch ads, then they should tell me that. Do I break the agreement if I pay for cable tv and never turn it on, and thus never see an ad?

I only every purchase the King deal at Burger King. Have I broken some kind of good faith agreement with them?

 

[Jeffg010]

Well I have one station in Pittsburgh that annoys the fuck out of me. The station is ROOT in Pittsburgh they play the locale sports games like hockey and baseball and college. What they do is lower the volume of the channel so when you get to that station it much lower then every other channel and so you have to jack the volume up just to hear the show that is playing. When the commercial comes on it is now getting blasted because it is being played at what the law says it should be played at but there is no law that says they have to play the show at the same volume as the commercial.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is great!

 

[DominionSeraph]

Dominion, you're just losing me here with the injection of ideological dogma like trying to fit the word 'natural' in to dominate your position.

My philosophy differentiates between things that relate to core human requirements and things that are fluff. The assignment of morality to fluff, which then assigns a moral imperative relating to it, irks me. There can't be said to be a natural imperative to be highly fit with regards to fluff.
Basically, in some realms, failure is perfectly acceptable. Failure need not be fought as though it is life or death.

I laid out my position - there's a simple bargain where people spend money to create and air entertainment for viewers; to pay for that entertainment, viewers watch a reasonable amount of advertising that pays for the costs of the entertainment, and if so inclined, buy some advertised products. Generally the advertising has sold enough product for this to work.

The difference is that I wouldn't call it a bargain. It's an opening left open in human psychology which advertisers have used, but there is no natural obligation for it to be open.
It's like if I push on a swing, and then gravity pushes the swing back to me, and then I use this to create enjoyment as it enables me to push again. Does gravity have an obligation to keep pushing the swing back? If I were to push on a swing in microgravity and it just looped around and hit me in the head, is the universe acting immorally? Did it violate the "bargain"?

The ad revenue- driven entertainment scheme is a nice thing to have. Throwing a monkey wrench into the works by skipping ads and thus leading the way to depriving the entire population of such a thing is a dick move. But you're not killing anybody -- you're not breaking any actual promises.
It's not immoral, you're just raining on the parade. When that rain turns into a downpour and everyone has to go home all sulkily, it's not a happy thing, but let's keep things in perspective -- it's not the result of an overbearing demon of evil.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think they are a charity, I just think there is an implicit acceptance that people can turn the TV on and off whenever they wish as well as pay as much or as little attention to the programming or advertisements as they wish.

The funding for the advertising channels comes from the advertisers. You can turn the tv on and off when you want.

But having a technology that can completely cancel the ads, if everyone had it, would remove all value to the advertisers, and end all funding from them for the shows.

That's not 'ok'. If you're going to watch the shows paid for by advertising, the model only works if enough peopel watch enough ads for it to be profitable.

By totally cancelling the ads, you are paying NOTHING to the providers - the cable bill is a separate service and bill. Only a few channels like HBO charge you instead of using ads.

By only some people having DVR's, it's only shifting the costs onto the rest of the viewers - and is reducing the budgets for the shows.

Why do you think you should get a product for free? I don't mean the phony 'free', where you don't pay money but the advertising covers the cost - I mean not even the ads?

It worked out ok to have an informal arrangement when most people watched enough ads. DVR's aren't like 'going to the bathroom during commercials'. They totally zero any revenue.

You can certainly do that, as long as they keep putting the shows on (while others watch the ads for you). But it's not a fair deal on your part.

It'll eventually kill the model - replacing it with others, yet to be identified - such as subscriptions (HBO), in-show advertising, and low-budget crap.

I know there's no way to fix this by just announcing the problem - as I said even I skip ads - but it's still worh understanding the problem that will kill this model.

 

[fskimospy]

The funding for the advertising channels comes from the advertisers. You can turn the tv on and off when you want.

But having a technology that can completely cancel the ads, if everyone had it, would remove all value to the advertisers, and end all funding from them for the shows.

That's not 'ok'. If you're going to watch the shows paid for by advertising, the model only works if enough peopel watch enough ads for it to be profitable.

By totally cancelling the ads, you are paying NOTHING to the providers - the cable bill is a separate service and bill. Only a few channels like HBO charge you instead of using ads.

By only some people having DVR's, it's only shifting the costs onto the rest of the viewers - and is reducing the budgets for the shows.

Why do you think you should get a product for free? I don't mean the phony 'free', where you don't pay money but the advertising covers the cost - I mean not even the ads?

It worked out ok to have an informal arrangement when most people watched enough ads. DVR's aren't like 'going to the bathroom during commercials'. They totally zero any revenue.

You can certainly do that, as long as they keep putting the shows on (while others watch the ads for you). But it's not a fair deal on your part.

It'll eventually kill the model - replacing it with others, yet to be identified - such as subscriptions (HBO), in-show advertising, and low-budget crap.

I know there's no way to fix this by just announcing the problem - as I said even I skip ads - but it's still worh understanding the problem that will kill this model.

Actually a lot of channels charge the cable company to carry them, ESPN for example. (not all do though)

I definitely understand the business model and the risks to it if nobody watches the ads. That is an argument that the business model may no longer be viable in the coming years however, not an argument for any personal obligation to watch commercials if I want to watch a TV show.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Has anyone actually experienced ear damage because of excessively loud commercials?

 

[Craig234]

Actually a lot of channels charge the cable company to carry them, ESPN for example. (not all do though)

I definitely understand the business model and the risks to it if nobody watches the ads. That is an argument that the business model may no longer be viable in the coming years however, not an argument for any personal obligation to watch commercials if I want to watch a TV show.

I don't buy that.

First, on cable company payments to the channels: common sense speculation is that that does not replace the ad revenue. They still have the ads for a reason.

It's kind of like saying 'the city gave the movie theatre tax breaks to get them to open it, so it's ok for me to sneak in and not buy a ticket'.

No, it's not ok. The analogy is imperfect on the difference you are legally required to buy the ticket but the point is the same, it's an irrelevant distinction to the issue.

Second, saying 'the business model may no longer be viable' is a euphamism. It's correct, but hides the rest of the issue.

It's like pirating a game whose publisher goes out of business and saying 'I didn't do anything wrong. Their business model was not viable because piracy is easy.'

It's like organizing a flash mob to run into a store and shoplift and run out fast and then saying 'oh, tha put them out of business? The business model didn't deal with it.'

Yes, again, that's technically true - if a business model can't deal with behaviors that make it unprofitable, then that business is not going to be there.

That does not negate the point that the people choosing a behavior are making a choice that can be unfair, morally indefensible, and threaten a business.

Those analogies are also imperfect in dealing with criminal behavior. Let's pick one that's not, because while it's not the issue, why not get rid of it.

Let's say your local car cruising group has a couple hundred cars, and you decide your idea of fun is to go to a local fast food place that only has a drive through open, and for hours you all get in line, get to the microphone, and say you decided not to get anything, ha ha. That this prevent any legitimate sales. Assume this is legal.

Now, that's somewhat similar, in everything except the motive being 'preferring to avoid commercials' versus 'finding it amusing to do'. Not an important difference.

It's a behavior people CAN choose - but one which is unfair to choose, violates a good faith agreement (they're there to sell you food - while it's not ILLEGAL for you to intentionally drive up, take up some time, and then not order anything, there's a good faith expectation that you are at least considering ordering when you pull up and take up time.) It's not a moral choice to do that. When the business shuts down over it, it's not the whole story to say 'their business model was inadequate is the problem.'

No one is saying you can't go get a snack during commercials, or you can't go to the drive through to see if anything looks good and not buy anything.

Wholesale totally killing your part of the payment for what you get is another matter.

They offer entertainment paid for by ads for you to watch, which have a chance - no requirement - to get you to buy things. You are making that a one-way deal where they spend money for you to get entertained and you give them nothing in return, which is not right to them and if everyone does it shuts down the business. The fact not everyone has a DVR doesn't make it ok for those who do.

 

[fskimospy]

Those analogies aren't good either. Your fast food analogy has my friends and I denying the use of the business to other people so I am actively preventing them from making money from paying customers. My skipping commercials does nothing of the sort.

Sorry man, there's simply no agreement between the TV companies and myself, explicit or implicit, that says I am going to 'pay' them for their programming by watching their commercials. I have a chance - no requirement - to watch those ads. There's just no way around that. I don't owe them any more than I owe a street performer who comes up and puts on a show.

 

[dmcowen674]

Well I have one station in Pittsburgh that annoys the fuck out of me. The station is ROOT in Pittsburgh they play the locale sports games like hockey and baseball and college. What they do is lower the volume of the channel so when you get to that station it much lower then every other channel and so you have to jack the volume up just to hear the show that is playing. When the commercial comes on it is now getting blasted because it is being played at what the law says it should be played at but there is no law that says they have to play the show at the same volume as the commercial.

Hopefully this time next year they get the smack down but I doubt it.