[Electronics-talk] FW: [acb-l] FW: [leadership] ACB's Comments Regarding FCC's VideoDescription NPRM

Fri Apr 29 15:27:22 UTC 2011

FYI!

________________________________

From: leadership-bounces at acb.org [mailto:leadership-bounces at acb.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Bridges
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:35 PM
To: leadership at acb.org; announce at acb.org
Cc: iac at acb.org
Subject: [leadership] ACB's Comments Regarding FCC's Video Description
NPRM

I am happy to share with all of you our comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) concerning the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM)  on video description implementation. As most will
remember, this NPRM was  triggered  by the signing of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act in to law in October
of 2010. 

Eric 

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Video Description:  Implementation of the Twenty-First Century
Communications andVideo Accessibility Act of 2010

            MB DocketNo.11-43

Comments of the American Council of the Blind

I.          Introduction

These comments, in response to the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC's) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 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.

The most current demographic information available reveals that more
than 25 million Americans (about 1 out of every 15 people) report
experiencing significant vision loss, i.e., individuals who have trouble
seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, as well as
individuals who are blind.[1][1]

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 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

II.         General comments.

1.                  "Audio description"

ACB strongly believes that the term "video description" is not the most
appropriate or preferred term given the focus of this NPRM: the
inclusion of description for video content. The generic phrase
referencing the use of language to provide access to visual images is
(and has been since 1981): audio description. In whatever format
(film/movies, DVDs, performing arts, museums), the description is made
available as 'audio'. The generic logo indicating the availability of
description (as established by the National Endowment for the Arts and
the Graphic Artists Guild) is: AD))) and there is established federal
precedent in the government for the phrase "audio description." For
years, the National Park Service has produced many documents that refer
to "audio" description and the Service regularly requisitions AUDIO
description for its videos and films. As a practical matter, newspaper
and online movie listings include information about accessibility for a
particular film by using CC for Close Captioning but the letters VD are
not used because of the negative social connotation. 

Audio description is no longer in its infancy - its use is growing and
as a field it is growing up. But it is still under known among its
potential users, nowhere near as ubiquitous as captions. Captions, by
the way, are not referred to as "video" captions simply because they
occur on television or with a video. ACB and its Audio Description
Project is committed to spreading the word about audio description; and
we ask that the Commission help in that effort by maintaining the use of
the phrase audio description-one phrase that can be universally
applied-and helpful to people to know this important access service by
knowing what to call it. As it is unlikely that the alteration in the
term "video description" will have negative connotations with regards to
either the language in the CVAA or the regulations proposed in this NPRM
the FCC should not hesitate to make a universal change.

2.         Audio description delivery mechanism

In essence, the rules established under this NPRM can be described as
doing one of two significant things: (1) ensure that certain hours of
prime time or children's video programming has audio description
available and (2) that the audio description will be "passed through" to
the device that the end-user is using. Compared to the world of
television broadcasting in 2000-the first time when audio description
rules were established, it can be argued that the world of broadcasting
has become more complex in 2011. However delivery mechanisms are
available in 2011 that were simply not possible eleven years ago. Partly
due to the establishment of the DTV standard by the FCC and the
proliferation of cloud computing, television networks are able to reach
audiences that are far larger and more geographically diverse. Multiple
efforts to deliver video programming content via the internet have
resulted in network partnerships such as Hulu. Indeed, to reach diverse
audiences, many networks have established content portals on their web
sites. These changes not only mean that persons who are blind or
visually impaired now have access to content in different formats, but
it means that the establishment of "top markets" based on broadcasting
numbers designed for the year 2000 are no longer adequate.

Other than a few lingering references to the DTV standard, we find the
consideration of additional delivery mechanisms singularly lacking. In
establishing the new authority, the CVAA provides the Commission some
latitude regarding the implementation of the new rules. We ask the FCC
to carefully consider internet delivery of content as an additional
factor. Looking ahead, this delivery mechanism is likely to make a
significant contribution in the way video programming is delivered. To
ignore it will only leave an important segment unavailable to people who
are blind or visually impaired.

In particular, we ask the FCC to consider two matters:

1.	Establish a rule that requires all covered networks to ensure
that whenever the described content prepared for prime time or
children's broadcasting is made available via internet, all such content
has accompanying audio description without exception.
2.	In establishing markets and networks that will be covered under
these rules, the FCC should utilize mechanisms that also consider
content delivery via the internet as a factor for determining the size
of a particular network or audience. This may include considering the
number of times particular programming is viewed via the internet.

III.       Discussion

1.         Broadcast stations

A.        Scope

As outlined in paragraph 9 of the NPRM, the FCC proposes to utilize the
1/1/2011 Neilson ratings to establish the top 25 markets for the initial
coverage for audio description. While Neilson ratings may have been
adequate for the 2000 rules, this may not be so for 2011. When feasible,
other factors should be utilized. In the case of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX,
Neilson ratings may suffice. As the report did not specify whether the
rules apply to low-power commercial stations, we believe that these
stations should not be exempted if they meet other requirements.

B..        Reassessing network coverage

Having seen significant changes in video programming delivery in the
last few years, ACB does not find itself as confident as the Commission
in its assessment that only four major networks and their affiliates
will be the only sources of described video programming. As a result, we
find it difficult to stipulate to a permanent rating based on numbers
available for 2010. We ask that reassessments occur no less than 24
months after the initial assessment-e.g., 1/1/2011, 1/1/2013, 1/1/2015,
etc. this will ensure that viewers of other networks and other
geographical areas are able to benefit from audio described content.

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.

C.        Extending to top 60 markets

We find no compelling reason why the Commission should not establish
implementation dates for extending audio description requirements to the
top 60 markets. In fact, we believe that it is particularly advantageous
to ensure that implementation dates are established now. Networks and
affiliates who will be covered after the  FCC's report to Congress in
2014 will have sufficient warning to build capacity as equipment updates
occur. FCC's previous report and additional Congressional records have
already established the benefits of audio description for video
programming. Waiting to establish deadlines for extending coverage will
cause unnecessary delays. We recommend that the FCC establish the
deadline of 1/1/2015 as the target time for extending the coverage to
the  top 60 markets.

2.         Nonbroadcast networks

A.        Reassessing network coverage

Having seen significant changes in video programming delivery in the
last few years, ACB finds it difficult to stipulate to a permanent
rating based on numbers available for 2010. This belief is no different
for broadcast networks. We ask that reassessments occur no less than 24
months after the initial assessment-e.g., 1/1/2011, 1/1/2013, 1/1/2015,
etc. this will ensure that viewers of other networks and other
geographical areas are able to benefit from audio described content.

3.         Pass-through of video described content

A.        Scope

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. As
discussed previously, 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. 

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.

B.         SAP exemption

In the era of digital broadcasting, the notion that a network or an
affiliate requires the use of the secondary audio programming (SAP)
channel in order to provide additional programming such as Spanish
language translations no longer applies. Digital broadcasting enables
multiple audio tracks to be broadcast without interfering with
programming. While networks may wish to utilize all available capacity
for commercial purposes, it is more than reasonable to require that at
least one audio channel be set aside for audio description. Similarly,
separate audio described files can reside on a web site or described
content can reside in digital files. It can be activated when needed. We
urge the FCC to remove the SAP exemption established in the 2000 rules.

4.         Other exemptions

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 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:

*         The "live programming" exemption can only apply when the
content is aired for the first time.  As this content is broadcast live
at a given date and time, it follows that all subsequent broadcasts of
this content are no longer live. This may include content such as
sporting events.

*         Additional prime time broadcasts of the same content may be
counted toward the required quarterly hours if the content is
subsequently described.

*         Rather than seeking a categorical exemption for "live
programming," the FCC should indicate to networks that live broadcasting
is indeed feasible. Live programming such as historically significant
events and sporting events such as the Olympics should be a specialized
category served by the addition of description.

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. In addition, ACB believes that the following
considerations should be made:

*         A program should not be considered near-live if more than 66
percent of its content is prerecorded.

5.         Digital broadcasts

We are pleased to see the FCC extend all the rules to cover digital
broadcasts. As current programming is only available in digital
broadcasts, it is necessary that the coverage be extended. Additionally,
we urge the FCC to consider broadcasts via the internet as another
delivery mechanism for type of broadcast and for pass-through purposes.

Moreover, we are pleased to see the  FCC's proposal to cover multiple
streams of content over the same channel as separate entities for the
purpose of counting 50 hours of described programming. This will mean
that a large amount of content is available to blind or visually
impaired viewers.

6. 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.            

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:

*         video description should not conflict with dialogue or other
important audio in the program.   

*         video description should be synchronous with the action it is
describing, interweaving it whenever possible in-between dialog, or as
near as possible to the point in time when the described images are
on-screen.  

*         video description should be written by experienced
practitioners with knowledge of the basics of the craft and the needs of
blind and visually impaired people.

Samples of available best practices documents include:

*         the "Description Key"  from the Described and Captioned Media
Program, which was thoroughly vetted by educators, producers, consumers
and description providers.

*         the Audio Description Coalition's Standards for Audio
Description and Code of Professional Conduct for Describers 

*         Effective Practices for Description of Science Content within
Digital Talking Books 

Through it's Audio Description Project, ACB has published Audio
Description Guidelines and Best Practices, v. 3.0.

7.         Other comments

One of the significant areas that remains a relic of the 2000
regulations, requiring modernization, is none other than the complaints
procedure. ACB is dismayed that no provision (other than e-mail) is
available in these rules to allow individuals to file electronic
complaints. We find it unfathomable that a set of rules established in
2011 will have no organized method of filing electronic complaints.

An electronic complaints procedure will not only allow the FCC to track
the data it receives in an organized manner but will enable the industry
partners as well as consumer groups to understand the range of
compliance concerns. The electronic complaints process will further
allow the Commission to collect significant data for its report to
Congress in 2014 and subsequent reports. As ACB has recommended in the
past, we ask that the Commission establish a complaints process via the
FCC's web site. In addition, we further ask that the Commission make a
database of complaints available for review. This database should
include aggregate information on all the complaints received including
(but not limited to), what action was taken by the Commission, what
action was taken by the party against whom the complaint was filed, and
the time that it took to resolve the complaint.

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 at acb.org

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

[1][1] American Foundation for the Blind, 2008 
http://afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&TopicID=413&DocumentID=4900
<http://afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&TopicID=413&DocumentID=4900> . 

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00048.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20110429/55bcd0e2/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT506391.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20110429/55bcd0e2/attachment-0001.txt>