roundtable: FCC NOI - 1 of 2
roundtable: FCC NOI - 1 of 2
FCC NOI - 1 of 2
Larry Goldberg (larry_goldberg@wgbh.org)
19 Dec 1995 16:20:39 -0500
Message-Id: <n1392733092.7969@wgbh.org>
Date: 19 Dec 1995 16:20:39 -0500
From: "Larry Goldberg" <larry_goldberg@wgbh.org>
Subject: FCC NOI - 1 of 2
To: "TPR" <roundtable@cni.org>
The FCC's Notice of Inquiry on captioning and description
is now available in electronic form. I have created a text
version in two parts. This is part one. Part two follows and
contains all the footnotes.
If you would like a formatted (.wp) version, it is
available from the FCC's web site
(http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/wp.html)
Larry Goldberg, Director
Media Access
WGBH Educational Foundation
125 Western Ave.
Boston, MA 02134
617-492-9258 (voice/TTY)
fax 617-782-2155
Internet: Larry_Goldberg@WGBH.org
-----------------------------------------
FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
NOI, In re Closed Captioning and Video Description of
Video Programming, MM Docket No. 95-176, FCC 95-484
FCC 95-484
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of )
)
Closed Captioning and Video Description ) MM Docket No.95-176
of Video Programming )
NOTICE OF INQUIRY
Adopted: December 1, 1995 Released: December 4, 1995
Comment Date: January 29, 1996
Reply Comment Date: February 14, 1996
By the Commission:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. The Public Interest Benefits of Closed Captioning and Video
Description
IV. Availability of Closed Captioning and Video Description
V. The Cost of Closed Captioning and Video Description
VI. Market Incentives for Closed Captioning and Video Description
VII. Inquiry Regarding Mandatory Captioning and Video Description
Requirements
VIII. Conclusion
IX. Administrative Matters
I. INTRODUCTION
1. There are over 23 million Americans with hearing disabilities and
over 8 million Americans with visual disabilities.0 For years these
individuals have not been able to enjoy fully television programming, a
medium that has come to play a dominant role in the nation's culture. Over
the past 15-20 years, however, two innovations have been developed to offer
greater access to this important medium for people with hearing and visual
disabilities. Closed captioning -- the visual display of program material that
is
spoken on television --makes "it possible for the deaf and hard of hearing to
see what they cannot hear."1 Video description -- a more recent innovation
that involves the insertion of narrative descriptions of a television
program's
key visual elements into natural pauses between the program's dialogue --
makes it possible for individuals who are blind or have low vision "to hear
what they cannot see."2
2. We initiate this inquiry to assess the current availability, cost, and
uses of closed captioning and video description, and to assess what further
Commission actions may be appropriate to promote these services. We also
seek comment on the appropriate means of promoting their wider use in
programming delivered by television broadcasters, cable operators, and other
video programming providers. Both Congress and the Commission have
taken steps over the years to provide persons with disabilities with greater
access to television programming.3 Indeed, there is legislation currently
pending before Congress that, if enacted, would for the first time generally
mandate the closed captioning of video programming, and which would
require the Commission to study the uses of video description and the
appropriate means of making video programming accessible to persons with
visual disabilities. This Notice of Inquiry is intended to solicit
information
regarding these important issues and to determine how to make television
programming accessible to all Americans.
II. BACKGROUND
3. Closed Captioning. Captioning is similar to subtitles in that it
displays the audio portion of a television signal as printed words on the
television screen.4 To assist viewers who are hearing disabled, captions also
identify speakers, sound effects, music, and laughter. Captions were first
used
in the early 1970s in an "open" format, transmitted with the visible video
picture so that they appeared to all viewers. To minimize objections to
captioning, the Public Broadcasting Service ("PBS") developed closed
captioning in the 1970s. Closed captioning is hidden as encoded data
transmitted within the vertical blanking interval of the television signal.5
A
viewer wishing to see the closed captioning must use a set-top decoder with
his or her television or a television with built-in decoder circuitry.
4. The Commission has long sought to promote closed captioning
technology. In the 1970s, the Commission granted PBS a number of
authorizations to conduct experimental transmissions using closed
captioning, and in 1976, adopted rules that provide that line 21 of the
vertical
blanking interval is to be primarily used for the transmission of closed
captioning.6 To implement the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990
("TDCA"),7 the Commission adopted regulations requiring all television
broadcast receivers with screen sizes 13 inches or larger that were
manufactured or imported on or after July 1, 1993 to be capable of receiving
and displaying closed captions.8 These rules specify technical standards for
the reception and display of such captioning.9 The Commission has also
adopted technical standards for the cable carriage of closed captioning data
that accompanies programming carried on cable systems.10
5. In addition to these efforts to promote closed captioning technology,
in 1976, the Commission adopted a rule requiring television licensees to
transmit emergency messages in a visual format.11 In 1992, Congress passed
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") which requires all federally
funded public service announcements to be closed captioned.12 Aside from
these requirements, however, neither Congress nor the Commission has
mandated captioning of television programming. Instead, Congress and the
Commission have relied on the voluntary efforts of program producers and
providers to make television programming accessible to persons with hearing
disabilities. As far back as 1970, the Commission has urged broadcast
television licensees to undertake these voluntary efforts.13 We have also
"strongly encourage[d] cable operators to carry more closed-captioned video
programming."14 With our prompting has come the admonition that we
would consider requiring specific action if voluntary efforts proved
unsuccessful.15
6. Video Description. Video description is a more recent innovation.
It provides audio descriptions of a program's key visual elements that are
inserted during the natural pauses in the program's dialogue. It was first
used in theatrical performances in the early 1980s, and since that time has
been developed for television programming by WGBH and others.16 The
video description of a television program is transmitted via the Second
Audio Program channel. This ancillary service is permitted under the
Commission's rules so long as it causes no observable degradation to any
portion of the visual or aural broadcast signal.17 To receive the service, the
audience member must have a stereo television or a video cassette recorder
("VCR") that is capable of receiving the Second Audio Program channel, or a
television adapter for this channel. There are presently no FCC requirements
regarding video description.
7. Pending Legislation. Both the Senate and the House of
Representatives have passed bills, which, if enacted, would require the
Commission to adopt regulations to ensure that video programming is
accessible to persons with hearing disabilities through the provision of
closed
captioning, including requiring "video programming providers or owners" to
maximize the accessibility of previously published or exhibited programs by
adding closed captioning.18 Both bills would allow the Commission to
exempt programs from these requirements in certain circumstances,
including circumstances where the closed captioning would impose an
unreasonable financial burden.19 The House bill would require the
Commission to conduct an inquiry into the current extent of closed
captioning as well as other issues.20
8. In addition, both bills would require the Commission to study the
use of video description.21 The House bill further provides that the
Commission "may adopt regulation it deems necessary to promote the
accessibility of video programming to persons with visual impairments."22
III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST BENEFITS OF
CLOSED CAPTIONING AND VIDEO DESCRIPTION
9. Providing persons with disabilities access to the "tremendously
powerful television medium" serves an important public interest.23 A
recent study attests to the dominant role television plays in our society. It
reports that nine in ten Americans watch television on a regular basis.24
American households spend an average of over seven hours every day
watching television as a means of entertainment and relaxation and as a
source of news and information.25 Most Americans depend on television to
get their news: 72 percent of Americans list it as their primary news
source.26
10. Closed captioning allows persons with hearing disabilities to enjoy
fully the world of television. Indeed, the Commission on the Education of
the Deaf has stated that "captioning of TV . . . is the most significant
technological development for persons who are deaf."27 In enacting the
TDCA, Congress found that "closed-captioned television transmissions have
made it possible for thousands of deaf and hearing-impaired people to gain
access to the television medium, thus significantly improving the quality of
their lives."28 Video description similarly provides access to persons with
vision disabilities, and also furthers the national goal, as stated in the
ADA,
"to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living,
and
economic self-sufficiency" for individuals with disabilities.29 Closed
captioning and video description can thus offer great benefits to Americans
with hearing and vision disabilities.
11. We ask parties to elaborate on the importance and nature of these
benefits. We also ask parties to submit information regarding the number of
individuals in this country who can benefit from these innovations,
including the basis for such estimates. According to data compiled by the
U.S.
Census Bureau, there are over 23 million persons with hearing disabilities
and over 8 million persons with vision disabilities in this country, although
we have seen estimates claiming a larger number of individuals with these
disabilities.30 We assume the Census Bureau figures reflect an accurate
estimate of these populations, but seek comment in this regard. Does the
Census Bureau use a narrow definition of vision or hearing disability such
that there may be an additional number of Americans with some form of
hearing or vision disability who can benefit from closed captioning or video
description yet are not included in the Census Bureau figures? Are the
number of persons with hearing and vision disabilities expected to grow in
the coming years, particularly due to the aging of the population? What
proportion of the persons with such disabilities require closed captioning or
video description to enjoy television programming, and what proportion
currently utilize these technologies? In addition, we seek comment on the
number of children with hearing and vision disabilities that can benefit from
either closed captioning or video description, and the nature of these
benefits.
12. Closed captioning and video description can offer other benefits.
Closed captioning can be an effective tool in teaching literacy skills for
young
children as well as for the estimated 23-27 million American adults who are
functionally illiterate.31 It also provides a useful learning aid for the
approximately 3-4 million Americans learning English as a second
language.32 Video description may similarly benefit individuals with
learning or cognitive disabilities.33 Finally, closed captioning and video
description may provide a convenient feature for all viewers; closed
captioning, for example, can be activated when the mute button on the
television receiver is depressed or when noise levels in the viewing
environment impede normal hearing (e.g., airport terminals, hotel lobbies,
waiting rooms). We seek comment on the nature and extent of each of these
potential benefits, including the most up-to-date data on the number of
individuals who would utilize closed captioning and video description for
these purposes.
IV. AVAILABILITY OF CLOSED CAPTIONING AND VIDEO DESCRIPTION
13. Closed Captioning. The information available to us indicates that
approximately 70 percent of broadcast network programming is closed
captioned, including nearly 100 percent of broadcast network prime-time
programming.34 Nearly 100 percent of nationally broadcast public television
programming is closed captioned.35 Cable programming appears to have far
less closed captioning. Only about 4 percent of basic cable programming and
35 percent of premium cable programming is captioned.36
14. We ask commenters to provide data regarding the current
availability of closed captioning of television video programming. Has the
amount of closed captioning been increasing in recent years, or has it reached
a plateau? We are particularly interested in data on availability and any
discernible trends regarding the following categories:
#161# Program Source. What is the current availability of closed captioning
according to the source of the programming -- broadcast network, basic cable
and premium cable networks, syndicated programming, locally-produced
programming, local and nationally produced public television programming?
What explains the difference in the amount of closed captioning of cable
programming as opposed to broadcast programming? We assume that the
statistics described in the preceding paragraph regarding the amount of closed
captioning of basic cable and premium cable programming excludes the
captioned broadcast programming that is carried by cable systems. What is the
percentage of cable programming that is captioned when such broadcast
programming is included, including the broadcast programming cable
systems provide their subscribers under their must carry obligations?37 In
addition, for comparative purposes, we seek comment on the percentage of
home videos that carry closed captioning.
#161# Other Delivery Systems. Viewers can receive television video
programming from a variety of non-broadcast, non-cable services, including
wireless cable, satellite master antenna ("SMATV") systems, direct-to-home
satellite services (including direct broadcast satellite), and local exchange
carriers/video dialtone services.38 Much of the programming delivered by
these providers currently is obtained from broadcasters, cable networks, and
other program producers and distributors. Do these non-broadcast, non-cable
providers transmit intact the closed captioning they receive with
programming they obtain from outside sources? Is there a need for technical
standards for these services to ensure that this is the case, similar to the
standards the Commission has adopted for cable systems?39 To the extent
these alternative providers produce their own programming, what amount
of such programming is closed captioned?
#161# Program Type. To what extent are each of the following types of
programs closed captioned (on the media within the scope of FCC
jurisdiction): entertainment programs, local and national news,
documentaries, public affairs programming, children's educational
programming, other types of children's programming, sports, movies, cable
public access programming, and live vs. pre-recorded programming?
#161# Previously Published Programming. We solicit comment on the
extent of closed captioning of previously published or exhibited programs,
such as reruns and movies, that will be shown to television audiences again.
Are there particular types of previously published or exhibited programs that
are more or less likely to be closed captioned? Is there a particular point
during the past 10-15 years when closed captioning of such programs
generally became more prevalent?
#161# Market Size and Other Factors. We also request comment on the
degree to which closed captioning varies by the size (measured in terms of
revenue and any other relevant factors) of the video programming provider
or producer. In addition, we seek comment on whether providers in smaller
television markets are less likely to caption locally originated programming
or contribute to the captioning of other types of programming. Finally, what
is the relative amount of captioning on independent television stations and
cable systems not affiliated with a multiple system operator?
15. Video Description. Video description is available on a number of
PBS programs, including Mystery!, Nature, The American Experience,
National Geographic specials, and some episodes of Mister Rogers'
Neighborhood.40 According to the May 1994 Congressional testimony of one
disabilities expert, this service is transmitted via the Second Audio Program
channel by nearly 100 noncommercial television stations in 29 states covering
64 percent of U.S. television households.41 In addition, the Narrated
Television Network ("NTN") is a cable network that broadcasts
approximately 20 hours of video described movies each week to over 1000
outlets covering over 25 million households.42
16. We seek comment on the current availability of video description,
including its availability within each of the categories described in our
discussion of the availability of closed captioning. Is this service confined
to
certain PBS programs and movies carried on NTN? Are there efforts by other
video programming providers and producers to provide video description or
at least experiment with this service? Are there particular program types
that
are more likely to carry video description, and, if so, why? To what extent
are
live programs video described?43 We also request comment on the estimated
number of U.S. households that have stereo television receivers, a VCR, or
television adaptor capable of receiving the Second Audio Program channel,
and thus are able to receive video description when it is available.
17. The Impact of Digital Television. We also ask parties to comment
on the impact that implementation of Advanced Television ("ATV"), and
the use of digital technology, may have on the provision of closed captioning
and video description on video programming carried by broadcasters and
other program providers. Can this new technology facilitate the transmission
of closed captioning or video description? Will it be possible to transmit
over
a digital signal closed captioning or video description data that is encoded
in
programming intended for the current analog transmission system? Can
digital technology allow broadcasters and other program providers to
transmit other types of services that can particularly benefit individuals
with
vision or hearing disabilities? We seek comment on these and other relevant
issues raised by the implementation of digital technology. We note that there
is a comprehensive proceeding currently pending before the Commission
concerning broadcast ATV.44 We have previously stated in that proceeding
that the TDCA "and Congressional intent underlying that statute require that
closed captioning services continue to be available during the transition from
NTSC to ATV and beyond."45 We have consequently directed the ATV
Advisory Committee, "in recommending an ATV standard, to take proper
account of Decoder Act requirements, both as to closed captioning of
simulcast or other HDTV program transmissions, and to the general closed
captioning capability of ATV receivers."46 As we have stated previously,
once "an ATV system is selected, we plan to initiate a proceeding to adopt
appropriate changes to our closed captioning rules."47
V. THE COST OF CLOSED CAPTIONING AND VIDEO DESCRIPTION
18. Cost Issues. According to the legislative history of the TDCA, in
1990, it cost roughly $2,500 and required 20-30 person-hours to close caption
a
one hour program.48 More recent testimony before Congress indicates that
the cost of video description runs from $2,000 to $5,000 per hour of
programming depending on a variety of factors such as program type.49 We
ask parties to provide information on the current costs of providing closed
captioning and video description of new as well as previously published or
exhibited television programming. What is the cost of the computer
hardware and software, as well encoding and other equipment, necessary for
these services? What are the current rates for closed captioning and video
description services for both prerecorded and live, "real-time" programming?
Are these rates uniform throughout the country? Do the rates vary by
program type, the type of delivery system, or other factors? What is the
overall cost of providing closed captioning or video description of different
types of programs? In addition, we solicit comment on the impact the
implementation of digital television may have on the cost of closed
captioning and video description.
19. Supply of Closed Captioning and Video Description Services. We
also seek comment on the adequacy of the supply of closed captioning and
video description services. There are presently a number of captioning
providers, including WGBH's Caption Center, Captions, Inc., Real-Time
Captions, Inc., Vitac/Caption America, and the National Captioning
Institute.50 One report indicates that with the TDCA having taken effect,
there are now about 60 companies throughout the country that provide
captioning services.51 There are fewer suppliers of video description
services,
with WGBH's Descriptive Video Service appearing to be the primary
provider of this service.
20. Funding of Closed Captioning and Video Description. Captioning
and video description are funded by a number of sources, including the
federal government, program producers, program providers such as the
broadcast networks, PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ("CPB"),
foundations, advertisers, private corporations, and individual contributors.52
We seek comment on the current degree of funding from these and other
sources of this funding. We also solicit comment on proposals regarding new
funding sources Congress may wish to consider to promote these services,
such as matching grant programs, tax incentives, or the use of spectrum
auction revenues.
21. In addition, we request parties to provide information on the
current and projected future levels of federal funding. Historically, there
appears to have been a heavy reliance on federal funding of closed captioning
and video description, particularly through U.S. Department of Education
grants. The TDCA's legislative history states that "the federal government
provides about 40 percent of the funding for captioning programs."53
According to information we have obtained from the Department of
Education, in 1995, the Department is providing $7.9 million in federal grants
for closed captioning of television programming and $1.5 million in federal
grants for video description of television programming. What impact will
any potential federal budget cut-backs have on this funding? In addition,
what impact will any potential cut-backs in federal funding of public
television and the CPB have on the provision of closed captioning and video
description of television programming? Who are the recipients of this
federal funding? Information concerning these issues will help us assess the
amount of closed captioning and video description that may be available in
the future as well as the burden any mandatory requirements in this area may
impose.
VI. MARKET INCENTIVES FOR CLOSED CAPTIONING AND VIDEO
DESCRIPTION
22. Closed Captioning. The large number of individuals with hearing
disabilities would appear to create a considerable market demand for closed
captioned programming. This suggests that in the increasingly competitive
television industry, providers and producers of both advertising-supported
and subscriber-based video programming would have an incentive to
provide this service as a means of attracting audiences. Indeed, in enacting
the TDCA, Congress found that "the availability of decoder-equipped
television sets will significantly increase the audience that can be served by
closed-captioning television, and such increased market will be an incentive
to the television medium to provide more captioned programming."54
Now, two years after the TDCA's requirements became effective, there are
reportedly about 30 million decoder-equipped television receivers that have
been purchased in this country, with another 1.5 million sold every month.55
23. We seek comment on the role free-market forces have played and
can play in promoting the provision of closed captioning of video
programming. For example, are advertisers actively seeking to market to
individuals with hearing impairments, which could in turn encourage closed
captioning of television programming? How does the audience size of a
particular program influence the likelihood that the program will be closed
captioned? Are there presently a sufficient number of decoder-equipped
television receivers in the market to provide the hoped-for incentive for the
television industry to provide closed captioning? We welcome comment,
including empirical and economic analyses, on these and any other issues
concerning the market forces at work.
24. Video Description. As with closed captioning, we solicit comment
on the role market-based incentives can play in fostering this service. We
would be particularly interested in NTN's experience in providing video
description. Is NTN offered on a non-basic cable tier, and has it attracted
new
subscribers that would not otherwise subscribe to cable service? Does its
experience indicate a market demand that would support the video
description of a greater number of programs on a greater number of
distribution outlets?
[end part one of FCC NOI]
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)