Audio Description Project
Audio Description Project
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of MB Docket No.11-43
Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
Reply Comments of the American Council of the Blind
Introduction
These reply comments are provided on behalf of The American Council
of the Blind (ACB), a nonprofit organization that represents the
interests of blind and visually impaired people throughout the United
States. Based in the Washington D.C. area, ACB has tens of thousands of
members from across this country who belong to more than 70 state and
special interest affiliates. The nation’s leading blindness
organization, ACB represents members from all walks of life who display
interests in a variety of activities including business, education, the
arts, to name a few. Its special interest groups are comprised of, among
others, teachers, government employees, attorneys, students, information
technologists, and artists.
ACB and its affiliates conduct a large number of advocacy, social,
and cultural activities. Central to these are many activities such as
collaboration with the government, K-12 and higher education, the
private sector, and international entities to improve opportunities for
all blind and visually impaired people. Recent examples of such
collaboration include addressing concerns such as full access to
education for students, full access to the work environment for blind
employees, access to entertainment and educational content such as
visually displayed information at sports facilities and information
contained in videos as well as full access to the increasing array of
advanced communications options in a multitude of settings.
In 2008, ACB established the Audio Description Project (ADP) to
boost levels of description activity and disseminate information on
audio description work throughout the United States and worldwide. ACB
is committed to the development of audio description in a wide range of
formats, including content intended for broadcast via television and
other media.
Of this population, at least 6.5 million individuals are more
severely visually impaired (Packer and Kirchner, 1997). Survey data of
State Special Education staff found that over 93,000 children served
through special education (ages 0 to 21) in 1998 were visually impaired
or blind (American Foundation for the Blind, 2000). Data collected by
the American Printing House for the Blind indicates there were 55,200
legally blind children in 1999. Additional data collected by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census related to visual impairments of discrete groups
suggest that when compared to the number of African Americans in the
general population, African Americans are over represented among the
population of persons who have a visual impairment.
Perhaps the most important need addressed by audio description for
video content is the ability to bring children and adults who are blind
or have low vision into the mainstream of society. The inability
of anyone, adult or child, to participate fully in popular culture—which
has a unique power to bind us together—effectively alienates individuals
who are blind or visually impaired from his/her community.
Importantly, not all of a network's description content should be
from children's programming; efforts should consider popularity of
programs as well. It is also important that networks publicize program
selections with description in their printed and online guides and with
commercial vendors providing television listings like Zap2it or TV
Guide.
As such, description provides the keys to our culture—to the extent
that description helps people who are blind or visually impaired to be
more familiar with media (television and movies), museums, theater, and
other everyday events, thus allowing the description user to be more
engaged and engaging individuals. This makes it possible for the user of
audio description to be more socially integrated into society. The
addition of description to a soundtrack is likely to increase the size
of the audience of those who are blind or visually impaired. Description
enhances the viewing experience not only for those who need the service,
but also for those who view content with the blind or visually
impaired person.
There is no legitimate reason why a person with a disability must
also be culturally disadvantaged. The creator of any work to be publicly
accessible must consider how his/her work is enhanced by universal
access—the use of captions and audio description. An architect who
designs a building may not view the installation of ramps or lifts as
part of his/her vision. And yet how inappropriate would it be for the
museum housed in that building to ask that visitors who use wheelchairs
to “bring your own ramp” if you want to venture inside!
For all these reasons, ACB is pleased to submit these reply
comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) by the
Federal Communications Commission which establishes regulations to
implement audio description on video content intended for children and
for prime-time viewing. As the recently enacted Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the “Communications
and Video Accessibility Act” or “CVAA”), provides FCC the authority to
reinstate rules for described content, it is ACB’s intention to ensure
that the final rules reflect the current market conditions and look
forward to future times-- be flexible enough to carry description for
television into the future, and ensure that people who are blind or
visually impaired have the information they need through description to
understand and take full advantage of the content provided. ACB’s full
comments appear elsewhere as a part of this inquiry; this document
focuses on responses to the questions and concerns raised by various
commenters.
Technical concerns regarding digital transmissions
Commenters such as AT&T Services and DIRECTV indicate that the
Commission should maintain the rule that would exempt MVPDs if their
technologies were being used for “another purpose related to the
programming that would conflict with providing the video description.”
In their arguments, the commenters appear to conflate programming and
technical issues. We believe that the “other program-related service”
exception was designed for program content considerations and was not
designed so that MVPDs could use it as a potential technical
restriction.
Without providing too many specific details regarding costs for
upgrades, MVPDs have outlined bandwidth as a major factor for having
significant difficulty in delivering audio description as a separate,
independent channel. In particular, AT&T argues that, if the
Commission did not make an “other program-related service” exemption, if
would be ultimately forced to ship millions of digital boxes capable of
managing the required audio description. We cannot agree with AT&T that
this will be the case. Even if new digital equipment is required, ACB
may support the idea that the equipment be distributed to the company’s
blind and visually impaired customers if appropriate steps are taken to
advertise. More over, arguments for what “may” technically occur are
insufficient to maintain a program restriction.
Other commenters such as the Association of Public
Broadcasters have asked that the deadline for stations for passing
through audio description be moved to 2013 as little more than half of
public television stations do not have the technical capacity to pass
through audio description. If the FCC is unable to change the
implementation date, the commenters argue, it should provide a blanket
exemption for public television networks. ACB recognizes the
contributions made by various public television networks in being early
adopters of audio described television. Moreover ACB can sympathize with
the Association about difficulties in obtaining funding for building out
their network. We find these reasons to be insufficient for either
moving the implementation deadline to a year after the proposed date or
providing a blanket exemption. As the Association points out, nearly
half of the television stations are capable of passing through
description. There is no reason why these stations cannot pass on
description in the time that technical build up occurs. Rather than
granting a blanket exemption, we recommend that the Association seek a
more positive approach.
On January 1, 2012, stations should be ready to broadcast
description not try to broadcast description. A period of 60 days prior
to the January 1, 2012 date of testing pass-through capacity of stations
will allow stations like ABC and NBC, with little experience with
description and will need some coordinated opportunities, to receive and
then pass-through the description signal. This testing should be two-way
involving broadcasters and the audience segment wishing to receive the
signal.
In addition to seeking implementation date changes, the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) asks the FCC to only apply
audio description pass through rules to stations that are technically
capable of doing so. We are quite surprised at this suggestion as it not
only appears to violate the spirit of CVAA but also the letter of the
law. Suggesting that stations only capable of passing through audio
description do so at the implementation date and the rest of the
stations not is akin to implying that only stations currently
capable of passing through audio description do so. No future progress
would occur as stations would have no incentive to do so. We
strongly oppose such an action by the FCC.
Other than the distinct consideration given to stations that do not
have the technical capacity because of undue burden, there should be no
other reason as to why stations, cable networks, satellite networks, or
other delivery networks are unable to pass through described content.
Technical infeasibility should be considered on a case by case basis.
ACB strongly urges the FCC to consider pass-through as it relates to
content delivered via internet. So long as the content is described,
there should be no reason why it cannot be made available through the
network’s site or through a partner’s site. Broadcast and non-broadcast
networks should be required to carry audio description for content in
any digital form, whether it is delivered through the station network or
via other delivery methods.
MVPDs, video providers, and flexibility
Commenters have expressed that, due to inherent challenges in
creating audio described content for video that they do not own, the
implementation deadlines should be kept flexible until they can be
assured that their carriage agreements provide for the delivery of such
content. ACB recognizes the challenges in obtaining copyright
permissions and producing audio description for programs. ACB further
recognizes that, in some cases, MVPDs may have to revert to carriage
agreements in order to obtain audio described content from video
providers. However this sole possibility should not be used as an
understanding to delay the implementation of video description. If
needed during a complaint, MVPDs will have the opportunity to provide
evidence that they were unable to obtain audio described content from
their top 5 providers. We are certainly aware of several providers who
automatically pass on audio description when available. It may simply be
the case that MVPDs will need to make the request of their video
providers.
In addition, MVPDs argue that the FCC should provide sufficient
flexibility that they have time to not only reevaluate carriage
agreements but that there is time to implement such agreement after
redetermination of top five non-broadcast networks. In ACB’s original
comments, we argued that the Commission should make it clear that once a
network is deemed to be one that must comply with audio description
rules, it cannot lose that status even if a top five redetermination
finds that a non-broadcast network is no longer in the top five
position. Further, once MVPDs have begun carrying audio described
content from a provider, they should not be permitted to stopped as the
technical capabilities and the infrastructure for creating audio
description will already exist.
For these reasons, the Commission should firmly establish a "no
backsliding" rule to assure that once a DMA has been subject to the top
25 or top 60 rule, broadcasters in that area will continue to provide
described programs as they have done so during the previous period.
Stations in DMAs that slip below the top 25 or top 60 markets should not
have a problem maintaining their minimum requirements as they would have
been providing the service for an extended period, have been equipped to
do so, and have maintained its affiliate relationship with one of the
four covered networks. In addition, MVPDs and top five non-broadcasting
networks should be subject to the same rules.
Live and near-live programming
A.
“live programming”
While the CVAA does provide exemptions for providing descriptions
for content that is being broadcast live, audio content for live
programming is not an unknown phenomenon. For instance, the live
broadcast of the historic 2009 inauguration after President Obama was
elected provided audio description. The process for such description
differs; it is, however, certainly doable. As such, the contention by
ESPN that it should be given a blanket exemption based on the fact that
it broadcasts live and near-live programming lacks merit. Even if the
necessities of the live programming exemption were to be counted, there
certainly is prime programming that ESPN produces that does not fall
under the given rules and should not be exempted.
As the CVAA considers live programming as a categorical exemption,
it must be included in the regulations. There are, nonetheless, certain
factors that must be considered when applying this exemption:
B.
“near-live programming”
As the Commission recognizes in its commentary when discussing the
definition of “near-live programming,” many factors make up what could
be consider near-live programs. Similar to live programming, it is most
certainly feasible to create audio descriptions for near-live
programming. The same factors discussed in the previous paragraph apply
to near-live programming. Because of these reasons the 7–day period
sought by NAB for near-live programming is overly broad. Technologies
and processes not only show that a transformation is taking place in how
video programming is produced but how rapidly it is produced. To provide
a 7-day period exemption as consideration for near-live programming
suggests that we return to the 1990’s for seeking models of production.
Broadcasters have the choice of contracting with their program providers
to ensure that audio description is delivered at the time of program
delivery. For optimal delivery of audio description, we believe that,
when the video is delivered for broadcasting, it should be fully
described. For near-live programming, ACB believes that the following
considerations should be made in addition to the ones made for live
programming:
Quality Standards
The FCC is right to raise the question of quality standards when
contemplating its new video description rules. The history of its closed
captioning requirements points to the unfortunate situation that, absent
a firm FCC requirement for caption quality, the accuracy, timing,
stylistic approaches, and overall usefulness of closed captioning has
fallen dramatically over the past decade. Given this decline in quality,
it is quite surprising to ACB that industry commenters almost
universally take a negative approach to a quality standard. The reasons
cited for this opposition are vague and ultimately equate to nothing
more than “quality standards are bad.” As audio description is a mature
process, many practices have been codified and have been determined to
be optimal when providing audio description
The FCC has a number of video description best practices to rely
upon for crafting a quality standard for its new rules and without such
guidance from the FCC, description quality is in fact likely to decline.
The cited, objective, examples from the present NPRM are valuable
parameters to consider:
Samples of available best practices documents include:
Through it's Audio Description Project, ACB has published Audio
Description Guidelines and Best Practices, v. 3.0.
Apart from ACB’s interest that video description be
incorporated into content in an aesthetically pleasing and appropriate
manner, we are also very interested in the overall
quality of the sound that is delivered
when video description is included in the broadcast. We
understand that the addition of a video description track introduces
challenges and that broadcasters may be reluctant to devote the
additional bandwidth that is necessary to deliver video-described
content in the same full surround sound that they provide for content
lacking video description. However, broadcasting such content in
mono or stereo format can compromise the audio experience of the blind
or visually impaired audience and is, therefore,
undesirable.
Sound is obviously vital to our community. Beyond being
an important source of our information, sound is a source of special
satisfaction and pleasure. We ask that the quality of the content
delivered to us matches the quality of that delivered to the sighted
audience – especially in the dimension of sound.
We understand that in Europe this issue has already been addressed
and that the broadcast industry there has succeeded in ensuring that the
blind and visually impaired community experiences the same
quality of sound as the sighted audience. We therefore ask that
the FCC investigate the handling of this issue in Europe.
Respectfully submitted
Eric Bridges
Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs
American Council of the Blind
2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 650
Arlington, VA 22201
202-467-5081
ebridges@acb.org
/1/ American Foundation for the Blind, 2008
http://afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&TopicID=413&DocumentID=4900
