TDI's News Page

tdilogo6.gif (23955 bytes)

6/17/00 - TDI Supports Needs of Deaf-Blind During FCC’s
NPRM on Video Description
Defers to AADB for specifics on accessibility to TV programming

TDI commends the Commission for the much-needed proposed steps outlined
in the Implementation of Video Description of Video Programming Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Although the Commission has previously conducted
inquiries on video description, the availability of video description has not
meaningfully improved during the past several years. Given this lack of
meaningful improvement over the past five years, it is necessary that the
Commission require all providers, digital as well as analog, to provide video
description. TDI urges the Commission to make the proposed rules applicable
to both digital and analog broadcasters.

There is also no need for an extended phase-in period of 18 months given
that the technology and methodology of video description have existed for
years and can be easily imported to programming development.

There is no reason, technical or financial, to limit applicability of the
Commission’s proposed rules to analog broadcasters. Digital broadcasters
may in fact have fewer issues to address than analog broadcasters. The
FCC has adopted major elements of the Advanced Television Systems
Committee’s (AATSC”) proposal for Advanced TV. The ATSC standard
allows the provision of ancillary audio without a separate Secondary Audio
Programming (SAP) channel or SAP-like channel to the home. All audio,
video and ancillary data will be transmitted as part of the same digital signal.
Nor are there any prohibitive costs specific to digital technology associated
with applying the Commission’s proposed rules to digital broadcasters.
Embedding the descriptive narrative in a digital signal will not add any
additional complexity or expense to the existing digital audio production process.

TDI joins the American Council for the Blind (ACB) in applauding the clear
intent of the Commission to insure that the transition from analog to digital
be made deliberately and consistent with a solid approach. However, the
potential harm to deaf, deaf-blind, late-deafened, and hard of hearing
consumers that may result from failing to make the proposed rules applicable
to both analog and digital broadcasters is too great to ignore. Unless the
Commission’s proposed rules are made applicable to digital broadcasters,
the technical standards currently being developed may fail to make adequate,
if any, provision for video description. As a consequence, by limiting
applicability to analog broadcasters, the Commission will have failed in its
ultimate goal of ensuring access for the millions of Americans who are the
primary benefactors of the Commission’s proposed rules.

TDI agrees with the Commission that program distributors should be held
responsible for implementation of video description of video programming.
Holding distributors responsible is clearly within the Commission’s authority.
Consequently, holding producers accountable could potentially lead to lengthy
litigation over the question of the Commission’s jurisdiction. Regardless of the
outcome of any such litigation, the end result would be further delay in the
provisioning of video description of video programming.

TDI encourages the Commission to mandate video description of all
programming as soon as possible. The Commission’s proposal that distributors
provide a minimum of 50 hours of described programming per quarter, is an
adequate beginning. The Commission should further mandate that seventy-five
percent (75%) of Commission mandated video description should be
descriptions of prime time programming. Given the significant level of isolation
of the millions of Americans that the Commission’s proposed rules is intended
to benefit, it is imperative that the Commission draft its rules in order that the
largest number of people may benefit within the shortest period of time.

However, full and equal commitment must be made by the Commission to
addressing the needs of a special constituency group across America that
would not benefit entirely from either captioning or video description of video
programming. There are deaf-blind individuals who can neither see captions
on the television, nor hear the video descriptions from the television. TDI
strongly recommends that the Commission issue a NOI or NPRM to address
this accessibility issue before any formal decision is made on the proposed rules
on video description services.

While TDI prefers to defer the specifics of how accessibility can be achieved
for informational needs of individuals with profound deaf-blindness to officers
and members of the American Association of the Deaf-Blind (AADB), TDI
would like to propose two options, subject to input from the AADB. First, TDI
suggests that the Commission, the AADB, the manufacturing industry and the
television industry meet and address the accessibility requirements that would
enable deaf-blind individuals to enjoy television programming. Second, TDI
knows that technology exists that can accommodate the individual who is
totally deaf-blind, allowing the deaf-blind to receive braille input on both the
conversational aspects of video programming. The television caption system
can be input into a braille device. Just as video description is provided during
the natural pauses in the program dialogue, video description over a braille
device can be provided in the same manner.

By: Michael J. Mendelson, Esq.and James Ferguson, Esq. of
Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, Friedman, LLP in Washington, D.C.

Return to FILINGS page