Click to this link which focuses on Closed Captioning.

FCC Memo, Order, and NPRM

Highlights:

FCC reviews the application submitted by the TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, HLAA, AAPD, and CCASDHH for review of the FCC’s past order of granting closed captioning exemptions to various TV Networks. To get a historical review, here is a quote.

“From 1997, when the Commission first adopted its closed captioning rules, until mid- 2005, the Commission received fewer than 75 petitions for undue burden exemptions. From October 2005 through August 2006, the Commission received approximately 600 such petitions. CGB granted two of these petitions in the Anglers Order, and during the two weeks that followed, granted an additional 301 petitions in reliance on the reasoning of that Order.”

Consumer Organizations (the list of abbreviated organized above) challenged the Order by outlining several rationales.

Consumer Group challenged the FCC’s language of “..non-profit organizations that do not receive compensation from video programming distributors for airing . . . programming and [who] represent that they may terminate or substantially curtail their programming or curtail other activities important to their mission if they are required to caption.”

The Group disagreed with this: “..this standard is “unclear and unworkable” and creates an exempted class of programmers that is “impermissibly broad” in that it covers programmers who might in the future be able to provide captioning. They also claim that it is “unclear how the Commission [will] determine what activities are ‘important’ to a petitioner’s mission.”

Group argued against “blanket granting” for hundred of petitions with this: “They [Consumer Groups} further allege that the individual merits of each petition should have been considered, and that in many cases, petitioners had failed to produce evidence to support their claims of undue burden. They argue against the permanent exemptions granted, instead maintaining that temporary waivers “might have been more appropriate to the scenarios presented.”

The FCC ruled “..we reverse the 296 exemptions that were based on the rationale in the Anglers Order. Each of the petitioners affected by this MO&O shall be provided with a copy of this MO&O and notified, by letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, that it may file a new petition for a closed captioning exemption, consistent with the requirements of the Commission’s rules and the instant order.”

The FCC also rejected non-profit rationale for exemption of closed captioning. FCC rejected the rationale for exemption based on a departmental budget set aside by the network for CC, instead FCC will look at the strength of the whole company’s financial data.

Personal comment: what exasperates me is if these all of these TV programs are for public, then what are we, deaf/hh, to them? Non-public? The religious programs, are they not interested in saving the souls of deaf/hh? Are we collateral sinners that cost too much and that these programs are willing for deaf/hh to be sacrificed to hell?

At any rate, I applaud the FCC for reversing its past order to remedy an obviously discriminating order.

I may do one more post on the same order, but treatise of the post will be on “undue burden” and “economically burdensome”.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1021/FCC-11-159A1.pdf

Check this link out.

CCInternet

The core purpose of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the following quote:

"The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”) requires the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) to revise its regulations to mandate closed captioning on certain video programming delivered using Internet protocol."

The following responsibility of the FCC I do not like because this could be a political tool as a way out of providing closed captioning because of "undue economic burdens" and this often is what I consider subtle discrimination: 

"..while ensuring that our regulations do not create undue economic burdens for the distributors, providers, and owners of online video programming."

Anyhow what is NPRM asking for?

Proposed rules:

• Requiring video programming owners to send required caption files for IP-delivered video programming to video programming distributors and video programming providers along with program files;
  
• Requiring video programming distributors and video programming providers to enable the rendering or pass through of all required captions to the end user; and
  
• Requiring the quality of all required captioning of IP-delivered video programming to be of at least the same quality as the captioning of the same programming when shown on television

Hey, these proposed rules seems to be on target for what most deaf/hoh want.   

Proposed schedule of deadlines:

• All prerecorded and unedited programming subject to the new requirements must be captioned within six months of publication of the rules in the Federal Register
  
• All live and near-live programming subject to the new requirements must be captioned within 12 months of publication of the rules in the Federal Register; and
  
• All prerecorded and edited programming subject to the new requirements must be captioned within 18 months of publication of the rules in the Federal Register;

"Craft procedures by which video programming providers and video programming owners may petition the Commission for exemptions from the new requirements based on economic burden".

On the preceding quote: I hope that the FCC will be very strict and not grant exemption all too easily; grant only when the provider will bankrupt because of CC (hell, if it were up to me, I would let them bankrupt because non-captioning videos have no value for me

I am not sure what to make out of the following quote.  Soothsayers of legal jargon, can you tell us in a layman's term what this means?

"Decline to treat a de minimis failure to comply with the new rules as a violation, and permit entities to comply with the new requirements by alternate means"

By alternate means, I hope does not apply to electronic voice to text because it is not perfect by any means.  

The following quote definitely is good; just hope that procedure to file complaints is easy and does not require first having to contact network provider or TV show, etc, before filing complaint with the FCC.  With regular TV, it is a nightmare to file complaint against TV show provider or network provider.  

"Adopt procedures for complaints alleging a violation of the new requirements."

As always your comments are most welcome if do it with respect.   

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0919/FCC-11-138A1.pdf

Quote will explain

"the term `advanced blocking technologies’ means technologies that can improve or enhance the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent, that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, or radio communication. "

Child Safe Viewing

See Sec. 2 (b)(3) which includes closed captioning.

Frankly, I think this is a good idea.  It seems nothing is sacred anymore on TV.  Just last night I was clicking thru diffeent channels, and ran into one that really floored me. I don’t think I’m being old fashioned; too explicit.   I’m not talking about the cleaves of breasts or bulking groins.   

Your thoughts, folks? 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

CSD has a very good website and very easy to understand on the transition from analog to digitial TV.

Check it out

DTV

Most of us will not need to do anything, but if you do need to do something – CSD has telephone number you can call to get help if you have problem understanding website.  Can’t get better than that. 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed