Recommendation:
Broadcasters should take full advantage of new digital closed captioning technologies to provide maximum choice and quality for Americans with disabilities, where doing so would not impose an undue burden on the broadcasters. These steps should include the gradual expansion of captioning on PSAs, public affairs programming, and political programming; the allocation of sufficient audio bandwidth for the transmission and delivery of video description; disability access to ancillary and supplementary services; and collaboration between regulatory authorities and set manufacturers to ensure the most efficient, inexpensive, and innovative capabilities for disability access.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated that broadcast and cable programming be fully accessible through the provision of closed captioning.(13) Recently, the FCC promulgated regulations to implement Section 305 of the Act, requiring 100 percent of new television programming to be captioned over an 8-year period, and 75 percent of "pre-rule" programming to be captioned over a 10-year period.(14) The obligation to provide captioning access will, of course, continue into the digital era. The 1990 Television Decoder Circuitry Act requires that new television technologies, such as digital technologies, be capable of transmitting closed captions.(15) Passage of this legislation and Section 305 reflect Congress' intent to ensure that our Nation's 28 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing continue to receive access to televised news, information, education, and entertainment in the digital age.
Digital technology will open new avenues to enhance and expand captioning access. For example, the ability to alter the size of captions will enable viewers to see both captions and other text appearing on a television screen. The Advisory Committee recommends that broadcasters take full advantage of new digital closed captioning technologies to provide maximum choice and quality for caption viewers, and to work to make captioning in the digital age functionally equivalent to audio transmissions.
The FCC's rules on captioning currently exempt certain categories of programming, including advertisements under 5 minutes, certain late-night programming, and certain local non-repeat programming.(16) Thus, benefits derived from recommendations made elsewhere in this Report—for example, recommendations made with respect to PSAs, public affairs programming, and political discourse—will not reach deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers under existing FCC rules. It is for this reason that we have included within our minimum public interest requirements a requirement for the gradual expansion of captioning on PSAs, public affairs programming, and political programming, where doing so would not impose an undue burden on a digital television broadcaster.
Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act also directed the FCC to conduct an inquiry into the provision of video description on video programming.(17) Video description provides a narration for blind and visually disabled viewers that consists of verbal descriptions of key visual elements in a television program, which are inserted into natural pauses in the program's dialogue. Utilization of video description as a form of providing access has been hindered by the analog standard, which only permits delivery of descriptions via the secondary audio program channel. In contrast, digital technology offers multiple audio channels, with significantly greater bandwidth, that can more easily accommodate video descriptions. We recommend that broadcasters allocate sufficient audio bandwidth for the transmission and delivery of video description in the digital age to make expanded use of this access technology technically feasible.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows broadcasters to provide ancillary and supplementary services using a portion of the digital spectrum.(18) The Advisory Committee recommends that broadcasters ensure that the provision of ancillary and supplementary services not impinge upon the 9600 baud bandwidth currently set aside for captioning of digital programs. At the same time, we recommend that as broadcasters explore new digital technologies, they vigorously explore ways to expand access to these ancillary and supplementary services by individuals with disabilities. The provision of these services, which as noted, may include new kinds of video services, computer software distribution, interactive services, and data transmissions, can open a world of opportunities for individuals with disabilities who are seeking full participation in our society. The resulting greater access in employment, education, recreation, and other areas can provide significant benefits to individuals with disabilities and to society as a whole. Drawing upon the flexibility and capacity of digital technology, broadcasters should provide such disability access to their ancillary and supplementary services, where doing so would not impose an undue burden. Among other things, this would entail offering a text option for material that is presented orally and an audio option for material otherwise presented visually.
Finally, just as with emergency notifications, we recommend that the FCC and other regulatory authorities work with set manufacturers to ensure that modifications in audio channels, decoders, and other technical areas be built to ensure the most efficient, inexpensive, and innovative capabilities for disability access.
Endnotes
13) Section 305, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-114, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
14) The FCC exempted certain programming from its captioning mandates. The 75 percent requirement for "pre-rule" programming refers to programming that was first exhibited or produced prior to January 1, 1998, the effective date of the FCC's captioning rules.
15) Pub. L. No. 101-431, 104 Stat. 960 (1990) (codified at 47 U. S. C. § 303 (u), § 330 (b).
16) 47 C.F.R. § 79.1 (a)(1).
17) Communications Act of 1934, § 713(f) (codified at 47 U. S. C. 613 (f).
18) Henry Geller, Public Interest Obligations of Broadcasters in the Digital Era: Law and Policy, 6-8 (prepared for the Aspen Working Group on Digital Broadcasting in the Public Interest, January 1998); see also Henry Geller, 1995-2005: Regulatory Reform for the Principal Electronic Media, The Annenberg Wash. Program Nw. Univ. (1994).
Additional Links
- National Association for the Deaf
- National Center for Accessible Media
- American Foundation for the Blind
On to Recommendation 9