Broadcasters Say Bill to Ban Loud TV Ads Not Needed

“I can assure you that the industry is motivated to act,” Starzynski said. Congressional interest, including HR- 1084 by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., helped the industry concentrate on the matter, he said. The Advanced Television Systems Committee has taken the lead on developing a new digital standard that can eliminate variations in loudness between programming and commercials, he said. Although ATSC standards generally apply only to over-the-air broadcasters, the technologies used by cable, satellite and telco operators are closely related, Starzynski said. A standard is expected to be in final form by September, he said.

The ATSC-recommended audio practice under development “can become the roadmap for all TV professionals, no matter what segment of the industry they work in or their level of technical sophistication,” Starzynski said. Measuring the volume of TV audio has long been a complex challenge, said David Donovan, president of the Association for Maximum Service Television. But the industry is making progress. Legislation now would be “counterproductive,” he said.

The bill, which would require the FCC to monitor the volume of ads and determine acceptable levels, is popular with lawmakers weary of complaints over the 40-year-old problem. “If passed, I suspect this bill will become as popular as the Do-Not-Call Act,” which limits calls from telemarketers, said Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher of Virginia. Ranking member Cliff Stearns of Florida said the measure may be changed to give the industry a deadline for solving the problem before the FCC would act.

The bill would “go a long way towards preventing advertisements from screaming at consumers in their own living rooms,” said Policy Analyst Joel Kelsey of Consumers Union. The group suggested that the FCC study the differences in compressed audio levels of TV shows and commercials. “While the audio of a television show usually matches natural sound more closely, the audio of a commercial has less distinction between loud and soft sounds, resulting in everything seeming louder.” He said the International Telecommunications Union has adopted standards that offer guidance in measuring how loud programs are.

Consumers Union thinks the measure offers an “elegant and common sense solution,” Kelsey said. Its requirement for the FCC to regulate the loudness of commercials could help consumers, especially those who own older sets without sophisticated controls.

The subcommittee also considered HR-1147, which would allow additional low-power FM stations by dropping third- adjacent channel requirements. Sponsored by Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., the bill has the support of the FCC, which believes there’s little risk of interference to existing stations or translators. “The potential for interference would be limited to areas immediately adjacent to LPFM sites,” said Peter Doyle, the FCC Media Bureau’s Audio Division Chief. The commission has twice asked Congress to lift LPFM third- adjacent channel spacing requirements. Doyle said he “wholeheartedly” supports that request.

Boucher asked the FCC to explain in detail how the Doyle bill would “coexist” with current FCC rules to prevent interference. Boucher said a translator station in his district is worried about interference if a LPFM station starts broadcasting. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., a former broadcaster, said he shares broadcasters’ qualms. LPFM stations are intended to deliver local community programming, he said, saying he hopes the FCC is exercising oversight to ensure that the stations don’t take part in commercial ventures.

Full-power and low-power FM stations can co-exist, said Caroline Beasley, a broadcaster who testified for the NAB. But elimination of third adjacent channel protection should “carefully balance interference risk” to both services, she said. Even with third adjacent protections, she said, there are examples of harmful interference. “Enforcement remains an issue.”

The subcommittee also considered HR-1133, which would require long-distance fees on prison payphones to be reduced. Sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., the bill prompted a backlash from sheriffs and an inmate telecommunications service vendor who said rate caps proposed could hinder competition and decrease availability of phone service for inmates. But lawyers representing prisoners and families said phone companies with exclusive access charge inmates some of the highest long-distance rates in the country. The American Bar Association has endorsed HR-1133, said Frank Krough, a lawyer representing a national group favoring an overhaul of the prison system.