This Time I Agree With The Democrats

That's right, I agree with the Democrats. Strange huh? Here’s the what and why. Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill to require the FCC to prohibit commercials from being shockingly loud, and I support that. Get off my lawn you damn kids!!!

Nobody likes loud commercials. . . nobody. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t complained about them at some point or another. People I know clutch their remotes waiting to mute the commercials. Others complain repeatedly to their cable companies and the networks, but to no avail. This is more than a minor annoyance.


The networks are aware of this. I’ve seen a dozen interviews in which network executives felt compelled to address the sheer volume of complaints they received on this topic. Most lied. I recall an executive for the Sci-Fi Channel (aka NBC, aka USA Network, aka AMC, aka Bravo, etc.) once ludicrously claiming that they had no control over the volume of the commercials. Like helpless sheep they could only play what they were given. Pathetic.

So with the networks refusing to address this issue and with vast armies of people nearing riot stage, Congress stepped in last year with the Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM). What this law did was to limit the loudness of commercials to a maximum of the loudest part of the program during which they were shown. But this didn’t work. If the show included a gun shot, a falling plate, or a shriek, the commercials still could be jarringly loud. Advertisers also found ways to cheat by compressing the sound, which gives greater volume without violating the upper limit.

So Congress is stepping in again. Rep. Eshoo (. . . gesundheit) will hold hearings with the intent of giving the FTC the power to prohibit commercials from being “excessively noisy or strident.” Good.

But wait, the industry says, they’ll fix the problem. Yeah sure. According to Mark Richer, president of the Advanced Television Systems Committee, a “nonprofit” (aka “lobbying organization”) whose members include broadcast networks and cable operators, ATSC is working to develop “voluntary standards” to fix this problem:

“We’ve been working for over two years to help broadcasters, cable operators, and others to come up with a uniform strategy so we can minimize the subjective perception of the volume change during commercials.”

Well, if you put it that way, what were we thinking? Clearly, it takes more than two years and the threat of Congressional action to write the following phrase on a napkin: “Let’s not turn up the volume on the commercials”! (Assuming it even needs an agreement. . . or a napkin.)

Sorry Mark, no one’s buying your el toro kaka. Why you ask? Because I can translate lobbying-whore speak into English, and here’s what you said:

“After ignoring this 'problem' for years, we were horrified when Congress started to act. So we created a fake industry group to pretend to create a solution to the problem, in the hopes that Congress wouldn’t act and we could keep doing exactly what we had been doing. But Congress acted anyways.

Fortunately for us, Congress blew it and we found glorious, glorious loopholes. But now they want to plug those loopholes. So we again ask that you not act. Trust us to fix this problem. . . a problem that we not only failed to address for twenty years, but that we lied about and that even now we won’t admit exists.”

That’s what Mark would have said if he wasn’t lacking the shame gene. Oh, and be sure to note his description of the problem as a “subjective perception.” That’s legal speak for “something that stupid people claim to believe in, but we all know isn’t a real problem, wink wink.”

So should we trust the same people who created this problem, have allowed it to grow unchecked for twenty years, and profit from it? Should we trust them to fix that same problem with voluntary standards? Don’t make me laugh.

But I’m a conservative with libertarian leanings. Should I really support regulation? Actually, there’s no inconsistency here. Here’s why:

In a functioning market environment, new companies will move into a market to satisfy consumer demand if the companies in the market fail or refuse. This is called market discipline. But when companies are insulated from competition, there is no market discipline. What you get is called market failure.

Market failure alone does not necessarily warrant regulation, though it should be a prerequisite. But when the market failure is caused by an oligopoly market (like the television industry), regulation becomes much more warranted. And in this instance, there is one more factor that pushes this over the top -- the oligopoly was created by the government.

The government created these oligopolies by rationing bandwidth, by allowing consolidation to the point of oligopoly, and by regulating what channels can (and must) appear on provider networks. This prevents competitors from appearing and allows the existing companies to hide behind the protections of government regulation.

When an oligopoly exists because of government action, then I have zero heartburn with regulating that oligopoly if it is non-responsive to consumer needs. If you want to make your living hiding behind government regulation, then we have the right to tell you what to do.