TDI Conference: TV Captioning Issues – Part 1 <\/p>\n
By Lise Hamlin <\/p>\n
One of the sessions that packed in the audience at the TDI Conference
\nin San Mateo was a panel discussion of TV captioning issues. Cheryl
\nHeppner moderated this discussion. She introduced the panel, then
\nlaunched into a description of the state of captioning for emergency
\nbroadcasts. <\/p>\n
Visual Information in Emergencies <\/p>\n
Cheryl told us that in August of 2006, the FCC issued a clarification
\nthat wasn’t clear to most consumers. That notice permitted captions to
\nbe absent if critical information was visually provided some other way
\nand allowed TV stations to provide visual information some other way
\nif the failure was “reasonable” without defining “reasonable.”
\nConsumers viewed this “clarification” as rule change – but without a
\npublic notice to allow consumers the opportunity to comment. <\/p>\n
After consumers raised their concerns with the FCC, in December 29,
\n2006, there was a public notice to clarify the clarification notice
\nthey had issued. This notice was an important advancement because for
\nthe first time it provided the types of steps that could be taken by
\nstations to obtain closed captioning quickly that would be considered
\nreasonable. <\/p>\n
Cheryl concluded her remarks with a discussion about some continuing
\nissues in getting visual information in emergencies: <\/p>\n
1) The FCC has created a Catch 22: when you send a complaint to the
\nFCC about not having visual information in an emergency, you have to
\ntell them what information is missing. However, if consumers knew
\nthat, we wouldn’t be complaining in the first place. <\/p>\n
2) People who have submitted complaints find that they often have no
\nidea what happens to that complaint. <\/p>\n
3) Broadcasters in the less populous areas are not required to
\nprovide realtime captioning. <\/p>\n
Caption Quality Petition <\/p>\n
Cheryl introduced Rosaline Crawford, the director of the Law and
\nAdvocacy Center for the National Association of the Deaf (NAD).
\nRosaline was there to provide the consumer perspective on closed
\ncaptioning rule making. <\/p>\n
Rosaline spoke first about a petition that was filed in 2004
\nrequesting the Federal ommunications Commission (FCC) make changes to
\nthe closed captioning rules. That petition was filed by TDI and joined
\nby the NAD, Hearing Loss Association of America, Association of
\nLate-Deafened Adults and the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer
\nAdvocacy Network. <\/p>\n
The petition was filed to: <\/p>\n
1) establish additional enforcement mechanisms to ensure closed
\ncaptioning rules were implemented fully, to increase accountability
\nof distributors of programming, and to ensure that technical problems
\nidentified would be rectified quickly; and <\/p>\n
2) establish quality standards for captioning. <\/p>\n
The petition gave the FCC a number of different recommendations: <\/p>\n
* To have a database of video distributors contact information so
\nconsumers could contact them directly when there was a problem. <\/p>\n
* To create an easier way for consumers to file complaints with the
\nFCC. <\/p>\n
* To require responses to complaints to be within 30 days <\/p>\n
* To require programmers to continue reporting their level of
\ncompliance. <\/p>\n
* To require the FCC to provide compliance audits. <\/p>\n
* To establish some penalties for noncompliance. <\/p>\n
* To require continuous monitoring of captioning by programmers. <\/p>\n
* To require distributors to reformat captioned programming that has
\nbeen edited or compressed. <\/p>\n
* To extend the prohibition of counting as captions live programming
\nusing the electronic news room (ENR) technique. <\/p>\n
* To adopt some non-technical quality standards for captioning. <\/p>\n
That petition was filed in 2004. The FCC issued a proposed rule
\nmaking process in 2005. The response and reply periods have ended.
\nPetitioners would like to see a response to that rule making request.<\/p>\n
Exemptions from Closed Captioning: the Consumer Perspective <\/p>\n
Rosaline noted that currently, 100% of all new English programming
\n(produced after 1998) that is not exempt should be captioned.
\nAutomatic exemptions include: programming broadcast during late night
\nhours (2-6 am local time); primarily textual programs; musical
\nprograms with no lyrics. <\/p>\n
One special exemption is undue burden. To qualify for this exemption,
\nprogrammers must show the FCC that providing captions will be such a
\nsignificant difficulty and expense that they cannot do it. FCC
\nreviews these applications and they post them on public notice for
\ncomment. After the comment period is completed, the FCC determines
\nwhether the undue burden exemption applies. <\/p>\n
During a six-year period from 1999 to 2005, a total of 67 programs
\nrequested an exemption. Of those 67, the FCC denied 50 of them. And
\nit only granted three of them, and granted the exemption to those
\nthree for only a short period of time. <\/p>\n
By 2006, 100% of non-exempt programming is required to be captioned.
\nSuddenly, by August of 2006 there were 99 petitions posted on public
\nnotice. In response, the FCC posted a decision on two petitions. One
\nof the programs was “Anglers for Christ.” The FCC granted these two
\nprograms exemptions from ever being closed captioned. With this
\naction, the FCC granted permanent exemptions for the first time in
\nthe history of TV captioning, <\/p>\n
In addition to that, the FCC essentially created a new category. For
\nnonprofit organizations that do not get paid for producing their
\nprograms and that claim that in order to provide captioning they may
\nhave to reduce or stop their TV programming, or may have to take
\nresources away from other activities that are important to them, the
\nFCC would be inclined favorably to grant an exemption. <\/p>\n
And then the FCC did just that. The agency granted over 200 programs
\nexemptions, without even making those petitions available for the
\npublic to comment on them. <\/p>\n
NAD, TDI, and others objected and requested a review and rescission
\nof that order. The consumer organizations let the FCC know that they
\nhad not followed their own procedures. There was enough pressure put
\non by people from Congress, and by hundreds and hundreds of consumers
\nwho wrote in saying, “You’ve got to be kidding!” that the FCC decided
\nto suspend their decision. Then they posted for public notice 494
\nprograms that requested exemption. <\/p>\n
TDI, NAD, several other consumer organizations, volunteers, put in
\nhundreds of hours and read each one of these petitions, evaluate
\nthem, write responses, and make recommendations as to what they
\nthought should happen with each and every single one of these 494
\npetitions. In 2007, there have been 100 more petitions posted and
\nanswered by consumer organizations, who are waiting for the FCC to
\nactually decide on all these petitions. <\/p>\n
Consumer organizations have reiterated again and again that they want
\ncancellation of that September 12th “Anglers” order that created that
\nnew category of exempt programs. As Rosaline said, “Let’s go back to
\nthe way the rules are. They are already there, let’s just follow the
\nrules as they’re written.” <\/p>\n
~~~~~ <\/p>\n
(c)2007 by Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of
\nHearing Persons (NVRC), 3951 Pender Drive, Suite 130, Fairfax, VA
\n22030; www.nvrc.org. 703-352-9055 V, 703-352-9056 TTY, 703-352-9058
\nFax. You do not need permission to share this information, but please
\nbe sure to credit NVRC.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
BETTER IP RELAY – EVERYWHERE! i711.com makes all your relay calls better.
\nBetter web calls. Better wireless calls. Better AIM calls. Why settle for
\nordinary IP relay? Go beyond! Try http:\/\/www.i711.com for free today!<\/p>\n
NEW! Try out our Deaf Network of Texas Calendar! Go to
\nhttp:\/\/calendar.deafnetwork.com <\/p>\n
NOTE: deafnetwork.com does not endorse any of the products, vendors,
\nconsultants, or documentation referenced in this message or. Any mention of
\nvendors, products, or services is for informational purposes only.<\/p>\n
Powered by http:\/\/www.CrazyWebHosting.com<\/p>\n
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters,
\nhttp:\/\/deafnetwork.com\/list\/?p=unsubscribe&uid=23e6b0ac27edebd2b6f52f1354859234<\/p>\n
To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit
\nhttp:\/\/deafnetwork.com\/list\/?p=preferences&uid=23e6b0ac27edebd2b6f52f1354859234
\nForward a Message to Someone
\nhttp:\/\/deafnetwork.com\/list\/?p=forward&uid=23e6b0ac27edebd2b6f52f1354859234&mid=773<\/p>\n
—
\nPowered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com —<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
TDI Conference: TV Captioning Issues – Part 1 By Lise Hamlin One of the sessions that packed in the audience at the TDI Conference in San Mateo was a panel discussion of TV captioning issues. Cheryl Heppner moderated this discussion.…<\/p>\n