- November 4, 1998 Meryl Icove, Director Disabilities Issues Task Force The CPB * WGBH National Center for Accessible Media Federal Communications Commission 2033 M St., NW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Meryl, At long last, here is our report on Video Description! As you can imagine, we would have preferred to deliver this to you much sooner, but our interest in assuring an up-to-date and accurate report (and a much busier than expected summer) precluded that. Getting this to you just as you have finished the Reconsideration Order on captioning is probably just as well. We've tried to cover as many foreseeable questions as possible, but we recognize that there can always be more. Feel free to ask us to fill in where you need more information or clarification. I have enclosed two copies of the report, including an important memo from Covington & Burling regarding the jurisdiction issue (you'll find that interesting reading). I look forward to your reaction and your thoughts as to the next step. I will be in DC on December 1 and 2 if you want to get together then. Otherwise, I hope to hear from you soon. Happy reading! Sincerely, Director encl. The CPB o WGBH National Center for Accessible Media October 19,1999 Eric Bash Mass Media Bureau Policy & Rules Division Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Room 2C135 Washington, DC 20554 Pam Gregory Deputy Director, Disabilities Task Force Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW, Suite 7B432 Washington, DC 20554 Eric and Pam, Just so that we have all the updated info in the right place, here is a hard copy of the full updated DVS report, correcting the oversight regarding local pass- through of video description by public broadcasters. The updated page is #32. Feel free to distribute this around the Commission as needed. As always, we are available for any further questions. Sincerely, & Larry Goldberg Director ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN A POSSIBLE FCC REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEO DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING A Report from the WGBH Educational Foundation November 5,1998 (updated October 19,1999) Larry Goldberg, Ray Joyce, Gerry Field WGBH Educational Foundation 125 Western Ave. Boston, MA 02134 617-300-3722 (voice/ fax) 617-300-2489 (TTY) Internet: Larry-Goldberg@WGBH.org TABLE OF CONTENTS I.BACKGROUND OF VIDEO DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. NEED FOR A MANDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. SIZE OF POTENTIAL AUDIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. CURRENT AVAILABILITY AND TRANSITION TO DIGITAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Broadcast Television and Multichannel Video Program Distributors.. ................................................................................................ .8 B. Consumer and Professional SAP Equipment: Readily Available and In Use.. ................................................................ .12 C. Costs to Retrofit ........................................................................................... 14 D. Other MVPD Issues and Solutions ........................................................ .16 E. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Must-Carry Rules...........1 7 V. DIGITAL TELEVISION ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._..................................... 18 A. Public Interest Obligations of Digital TV Broadcasters (Gore Committee). .................................................................................... .18 B. Set-Aside of Digital Bandwidth for Description.. ............................... -19 C. Receiver Issues.. ......................................................................................... .22 D. Summary of DTV Technical Recommendations.. ............................ -24 E. Alternate Delivery and Reception of Video Description.. ................ .25 VI. PROGRAMMING ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A. SAP Use and Priorities ............................................................................ .25 B. Assigning Responsibility: Producers and Distributors.. .................... .25 C. Programming Types and Quantities ...................................................... 26 D. Copyright Issues ........................................................................................ .27 E. Description Carry-Through: Repeats, Syndication, Reversioning .............................................................................................. 28 F. Funding ....................................................................................................... .29 G. Costs .............................................................................................................. 29 H. Suggested Phase-in Period ....................................................................... 30 I. Production Capacity .................................................................................... 33 J. Advisory or Standards Oversight.. ......................................................... -33 VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 APPENDIX - Report from Covington & Burling re: FCC Jurisdiction Over Video Description EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report examines a variety of issues which relate to a potential regulatory approach to increasing the amount of video programming made accessible to people who are blind and visually impaired via video description. Video description is an aural description of a program's key visual elements that is inserted during natural pauses in program dialogue. In its way, video description opens the world of video communications for blind and visually impaired people the way closed captions do for deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Section 713(f) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the Federal Communications Commission to commence an inquiry "to examine the use of video descriptions of video programming in order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual impairments." The Commission was asked to report to Congress on its findings, including "an assessment of the appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition of programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deemed appropriate." A Report was released in July of 1996 with subsequent Reports on video description incorporated into the Commission's Annual Report on Competition in the Video Marketplace. These Reports indicated ongoing questions about the available technology for delivering descriptions, the effects of the transition to digital television, the costs of production, and other perceived barriers to phasing descriptions into the marketplace. This Report addresses the three main areas of concern: Audience Size and Needs, Technology (both analog and digital), and Programming. It provides an up-to-date accounting of the proliferation of the Secondary Audio Program (the main vehicle for delivery of descriptions), the promise and obstacles to description in digital television, and provides a focus for appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace. The question has been raised regarding Commission jurisdiction and standing to require video description without further direction from Congress. Accompanying this report is a brief memorandum from the telecommunications law firm of Covington & Burling regarding the jurisdiction issue. In summary, this report demonstrates that both the need and means exist to better serve the video programming needs of blind and visually impaired people and that a schedule of requirements can be crafted which is fair, achievable and without undue burdens. Commission action on this matter would further its goal of assuring equal access to our nation's communications for all Americans. 1. BACKGROUND OF VIDEO DESCRIPTION In 1990, WGBH Educational Foundation, the public television station in Boston, launched Descriptive Video Service@ (DVS@). DVS is a free national service, to provide access to TV programs and home videos for blind and visually impaired people. WGBH began research and testing in 1986 after determining the Second Audio Program (SAP) channel was not being fully exploited by other services on a national basis. Blind and visually impaired audiences were overwhelming enthusiastic about the service and immediately began lobbying for more and more described programs. During these years, the availability of closed captioning was mushrooming (the major broadcast networks first announced 100% of prime- time and then virtually their entire schedules as accessible to deaf and hard-of- hearing viewers). Blind people began to question why the concept of accessible TV programming did not include them and their families. By 1986, WGBH already had more than a dozen years experience with the provision of captioning for deaf and hard of hearing audiences. In the early development stage of DVS, WGBH worked with The Metropolitan Washington Ear, Inc. which had been providing "live" audio-description of stage performances since the 1981. Other organizations also began applying this audio description concept for video formats including the Narrative Television Network in 1989 and the late Gregory Frazier's AudioVision. DVS has described more than 1,600 PBS programs including Mystery!, Nature, Arthur, Masterpiece Theatre, The American Experience and more than 50 films for the Turner Classic Movies cable channel including Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Nafional Velvet and King Kong. The DVS narration is available on the SAP channel which allows sighted viewers to turn off the description. Second Audio Program reception and audio playback is a standard feature on most television sets and VCRs built since 1990. In the fall of 1998 DVS will provide video description on three daily programs, four weekly programs, select episodes of three other series and several specials. DVS also provides more than 175 openly described home videos including Schindler's List, Toy Story, The Sound of Music, Unforgiven, Singing in the Rain and Forrest Gump through funding by the U.S. Department of Education and arrangements with most of the major Hollywood studios. In 1993, in partnership with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) was established at WGBH as an R&D facility designed to extend the Boston public television station's previous media access efforts into new media and to further the uses of captioning and descriptive video in the home, classroom, workplace, and community. WGBH Report on Video Description Page 2 Narrative Television Network (NTN) describes a selection of television series favorites on the Good Life TV Network on cable (formerly Nostalgia Television). NTN has described Ironsides, It Takes A Thief and The Streets of Sun Francisco along with a number of public domain films including Utopia, The Demi- Paradise, Tulsa, and Made for Each Other. NTN programs are normally provided with open description meaning there is no need for use of the SAP feature. Open description also means sighted viewers do not have the option to turn off the added narration. In the fall of 1998 NTN will provide video description on an average of ten movies a month with a regular repeat schedule and at least one weekly series. NTN also provides a selection of public domain movies as openly described VHS videos for libraries and other institutions to copy and return at no charge. These described programs and films inform and entertain people who previously were unable to gain access to this medium which continues to define our culture as we enter the 21st century. DVS is also available in other forms of media including theatrical releases, digital video discs, web sites and training videos. NTN is also available via the World Wide Web. Major support for DVS and NTN comes from the U.S. Department of Education. DVS also raises funds from foundations, corporations and individuals. II. NEED FOR A MANDATE Video description has been available for nearly a decade on public television and a small independent cable network, yet so far there has been very little interest in purchasing and using this service by private sector video programmers. To date the vast majority of programs disseminated with video description have been funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The remaining DVS programs have been funded by series producers and occasionally series underwriters while other NTN programs are funded through advertising revenue. Although the potential market for video description is more than 10 million U.S. viewers, the majority of these visually impaired people are over 65 years of age. Almost all television advertisers perceive this market as either too small or told old to fit into their demographic targets. DVS has been working closely with all the major broadcast networks and several cable channels, but with the exception of the Good Life Network (for NTN), no network has been willing to carry descriptions openly (that is, for all to hear without the option of turning them off). Therefore, in both the current analog television system and future digital realm, television networks and their affiliates will need to make relatively small investments in equipment to deliver the added narration on a separate audio channel. This same investment is required to provide an alternate language audio track (see Discussion of use of SAP for Spanish below). To date the only other participating network to deliver video description via the WGBH Report on Video Description Page 3 SAP audio channel, beyond the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), has been Turner Classic Movies and in both cases the networks already had the SAP equipment in house. Like video description, closed captioning has been funded to a large extent by U.S. Department of Education funds. The advent and popularity of the VHS videotape format, which allows for proper encoding and display of closed captions, significantly increased visibility and demand for this service. In addition the U.S. population of deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers (24 million) is about double that of visually impaired audiences. The need for a requirement for video description is highlighted by the fact that, even in light of the FCC's existing closed captioning requirements, some cable networks are refusing to increase their hours of captioned programs in advance of the Order's timeline. At least one has even .refused free captioning made available through federal funds so as to not accelerate their implementation. In comments to the FCC, the MPAA, NCTA, NAB and their constituents have all discouraged any type of mandate for both closed captioning and video description, instead emphasizing marketplace incentives and voluntary efforts. Yet these same trade associations have also been unwilling to encourage their members to voluntarily fund description of programming or even to simply participate in the delivery of video description funded by other sources. As has been seen, relying on the marketplace to serve the needs of either deaf and hard- of-hearing viewers or blind and visually impaired ones will fail without significant governmental involvement. Since the very first public demonstrations of video description, people who are blind or visually impaired have requested, pleaded and sometimes even attempted to demand additional programming with description. Largely through government grants and fundraising there has been a slight increase in the availability of described programming. However, at this point, far less than 1% of all television programming is accessible via video description. To some of video description's users, the service is simply a convenience; but for the vast majority, this added feature makes all the difference. It's availability determines whether they fully enjoy a program or just become frustrated and confused by television. Almost ten years of anecdotal evidence has confirmed the benefits of video description. In addition, a major research study conducted by the American Foundation for the Blind quantified increased levels of comprehension and enjoyment when comparing described and undescribed programming. WGBH Report on Video Description Page 4 III. SIZE OF POTENTIAL AUDIENCE Blind and Visuallv Imoaired People It is estimated that more than 11 million visually impaired people can benefit from descriptive video, according to the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) and other professionals in the field of blindness and visual impairment. AFB has analyzed a variety of data on blindness and visual impairment and has written a widely used resource manual on the subject.1 The figure of 11.5 million visually impaired persons is based primarily on an annual measure colIected by the Health Interview Survey (HIS) of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It includes people with any problem in seeing that is not correctable with ordinary glasses or contact lenses. In 1988, 11 million non-institutionalized people reported visual impairment, including color blindness.' A similar figure comes from the Census Bureau's 1984 "Survey of Income and Program Participation," which reported 12.8 million non- institutionalized persons, 15 years and older, who "have a limitation in seeing."3 In addition, a conservative estimate of legally blind school children is approximately 45,000." Some basic demographic characteristics about the non-institutionalized visually impaired population have been reported; for example, most are elderly and female. Also, the non-white population's rate of vision loss is higher than for whites of all ages.5 Among the estimated 11.5 million in the target population for descriptive video, there is, of course, a wide range of severity. Nearly 400,000 people report they are "blind in both eyes, `I6 plus 45,000 persons in nursing homes are reported to be "totally blind." The National Center for Health Statistics says eye problems now rank third, after heart disease and arthritis, among chronic conditions that restrict the normal 1 Data on Blindness and Visual Impairment in the U.S., second edition, Kirchner, American Foundation for the Blind, 1988. 2 Current Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1988, Series 10, No. 173, the National Center of Health Statistics, 1989. 3 "Disability, Functional Limitation and Health Insurance Coverage 1984/85," Series P-70, no. 8, Bureau of the Census. 4 American Printing House Register of Legally Blind School Children 5 Data on Blindness and Visual Impairment in the U.S., 2nd edition, Kirchner, American Foundation for the Blind, 1988. 6 Data on Disability from the National Heafth interview Survey, 1983-1985, LaPlante, U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1988. WGBH Report on Video Description PW 5 daily activities of people older than 65. The National Eye Health Education Program states "Over 60 million Americans are at high risk of losing their eyesight to glaucoma or diabetic eye disease. For glaucoma, this includes African Americans over age 40 and everyone over age 60, and for diabetic eye disease, all people with diabetes. The National Eye Health Education Program is run by the National Eye Institute of the National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Other Pooulations - Elderlv Throughout the history of research and development in media access technologies, many valuable alternate uses of video description have been encountered. Like captioning, audiences outside of the core constituency (11.5 million blind and visually impaired persons) have turned to the service for their own needs. One additional audience for description can be found in the elderly population. Many of these people experience losses in vision as a natural result of the aging process, but are unlikely to identify themselves--or be identified-as visually impaired. While many older people are reluctant to use assistive devices, the discreet nature of descriptions and the fact that no special equipment is needed, increase the likelihood of use among this population. Other Pooulations - Learnine Disabled Films and videos that contain video description appear to be especially well- suited to the needs of children with learning disabilities. (In some school districts, as much as half of the student population has been identified with one form of learning disorder or another). Because the medium has high visual appeal along with rich audio description, it has a high potential to capture a child's attention and enhance information processing. By providing similar information in two modalities, described video capitalizes on the different perceptual strengths of learning-disabled (LD) children, utilizing their stronger modality and pairing it with their less-developed modality to reinforce their comprehension of information. For example, the extra verbal cues can help children with a non-verbal perceptual impairment use their well-developed auditory abilities to interpret the meaning of a character's smile (Foss, 1991). From a teacher's perspective, the learning acquired through viewing educational videos in the classroom could be particularly meaningful for LD students. Since so little work has been done in the field of video description for students with learning disabilities, NCAM sought to test the concept by interviewing 22 professionals in the fields of learning disability, attention disorders and head injury; 17 watched a described videotape sampler before the interview (NCAM, 1995). Experts noted that video description supplies multiple extra cues about what's important during the program, about how people interact, including visual and WGBH Report on Video Description Page 6 behavioral cues, and may help LD students grasp or figure out causal links for themselves. Overall, those interviewed felt that the following were potential beneficial features of video description for LD students: Description of body language, gesture, facial expression give clues for social pragmatics. Names of characters, which LD students easily confuse if they look alike or are dressed similarly, are reinforced. Transition in place and time, which LD students easily miss, are marked. Salient features of scene action are described, helping LD students who often get mired. in detail. Key features of scene action are often presented before the action takes place, helping LD children anticipate and look for those features. Precise vocabulary is used in descriptions which labels what the student sees and might help integrate visual and auditory channels. The additional audio track helps focus students with poor ability to sustain attention. The consensus among the study's.professionals who were familiar with non- verbal learning disabilities was that this population is likely to benefit greatly from described videos, especially descriptions that provide focus on body language, gesture, and facial expression, These subtle behavioral nuances, while challenging for students to interpret, are essential for understanding the dynamics of social interaction. Nonetheless, further research is needed to determine specific effects and benefits of video description for individuals with learning or cognitive disabilities. Other Pooulations - Non-disabled One viewer wrote to WGBH's DVS department with the following comment: "Even though my wife and I are fully sighted, as are our two children, we have found that the concise but colorful descriptions of the action on the screen helped us to enjoy our programs with a whole new dimension of perception. Often the narrator describes little details that we would certainly have missed, details which enhance our viewing pleasure. Our children have also increased their working vocabulary and have learned to be more observant participants in the shows they watch with DVS." - Ira Marc Goldberg, Los Angeles, CA Descriptions can also be useful when a viewer is doing several things at once, needs to attend to something or leaves the room during a program. While these WGBH Report on Video Description Page 7 uses are not the original intent of the service, they need to be taken into account when considering the potential audience for and potential benefits of video description. This has certainly been the case for closed captioning - the majority of beneficiaries of this now pervasive service are people who watch captions in health clubs, sports bars, airport lounges and other places where ambient audio makes captioned TV an idea solution. In fact, Narrative Television Network reports that 60% of their regular viewers are not visually impaired. Since NTN provides "open" description, audible to everyone without the option to turn off the added narration, these sighted viewers are choosing to watch a program with description. IV. CURRENT AVAILABILITY AND TRANSITION TO DIGITAL A. Broadcast Television and Multichannel Video Program Distributors Broadcast Television In 1984, the Commission adopted the Broadcast Television Systems Committee (BTSC) standard for multichannel television sound 7 and in 1986 issued a technical bulletin providing guidelines for stations to provide "television stereophonic sound, second language programming and any other broadcast or non-broadcast use."8 BTSC (also referred to as MTS - Multichannel Television Sound) defined a new way to deliver enhanced audio from a broadcast transmitter to a home receiver, by encoding multiple signals in a television station's 6 MHz broadcast frequency. One element of the BTSC system - the monaural Second Audio Program (SAP) channel - made the simultaneous delivery of video description with broadcast television programs technically possible. This also removed a significant practical barrier to distribution, by eliminating the need to provide openly described programming on repeat broadcasts targeted to special-audiences. A local station could now add a single (monaural) audio track to any of its programs and the individual viewer could for the first time choose among audio services. 7 FCC Report and Order in BC Docket # 21323, adopted March 29,1984. 8 FCC - Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin Number 60 (Revision A - February 1986) Multichannel Television Sound Transmission and Audio Processing Requirements for the BTSC System WGBH Report on Video Description page 8 But the new standard needed to be tested and implemented, and practical solutions were necessary to support the origination, routing and distribution of video description. Since SAP-capable consumer equipment coming to market would largely present SAP and regular program audio as an "either/or" (A/B) choice, the first de-facto standard for video description became the need to create a single re-mixed monaural track of the full program audio and the description narrator's voice. That is, due to the receivers' limitation, the consumer couldn't chose to mix the existing program audio with the added description, and therefore the audio placed in the SAP channel had to contain both the program audio and the descriptions as a new mix. Although SAP arrived as a side-benefit of stereo television, those choosing to listen to SAP would lose the benefit of a richer, stereo soundtrack. For the network broadcast center and the local stations, recording and routing an additional audio track with a given program presented real challenges. The most common professional videotape format at the time (Type C one-inch) was limited to two audio channels, typically occupied by the two channels (left and right) of a stereo soundtrack. A third, limited-bandwidth audio track - designed to carry an audio-based Linear Time Code (LTC) signal - was available, and was seen as the only logical choice for carrying video description. This, in turn, forced the decision to either. eliminate the time-code information from the air master tape entirely, or to utilize Vertical Interval Time Code (VITC), then an optional upgrade for many one-inch machines. Audio switchers, routers and patch bays at this time were also largely designed to support only a single stereo pair (two channels) for a given program signal. For the typical broadcast plant, accommodating a third audio track required at least some work-around, either additional equipment purchase and hard-wiring, or temporary signal patching. For a station with a distant transmitter, its Studio to Transmitter Link (STL) - often via microwave - would also be limited in its audio capacity and need an upgrade or work-around A final challenge remained in creating a method for national distribution that would support a sustained supply of video description. Satellite delivery provided the solution. In 1988, WGBH successfully tested national delivery of video description with ten participating public television stations, using an additional dedicated audio subcarrier on PBS national satellite feeds to carry the service to member stations. Through a simple reconfiguration of existing satellite capability, PBS pioneered this new service and established a model distribution path from the network to the local affiliate station. WGBH Report on Video Description Page g Some of these stations reconfigured their plants to support full receive, record, playback and routing of the additional audio signal. Others took a simpler approach and hard-wired the signal from the satellite receiver directly to the transmitter's SAP generator. As a result, these stations lacked the capability to record and repeat described programming. This is still the case for small stations using tape formats (such as 3/4" U-Matic) that are limited to two channels of audio. As more stations upgraded to the new stereo broadcast standard, WGBH and PBS in January 1990 launched the Descriptive Video Service (DVS), on 35 public television stations. In fact, by providing a new and permanent value-added service to their communities, the arrival of DVS accelerated the transition to stereo for some stations. Now, in 1998, 156 public television stations reaching 79 million (80% ) of U.S. television households have installed the necessary equipment to distribute DVS via SAP. While the related, one-time routing and transmission costs for broadcast stations can range from $5,000 to $25,000, there is not a prohibitive burden when viewed in light of most stations' annual operating and capital equipment budgets. While major PBS stations in all of the top 20 markets carry DVS, so do many smaller member stations, some in the bottom 20 marketsg. Clearly if small and perennially hard-pressed public television stations can uncover the resources to add SAP-broadcast capability, so can most commercial stations. MVPDs: Cable Television Using a similar national satellite distribution path, video description is also starting to be delivered through Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), specifically cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS - also known as Direct-To-Home) . In April 1996 the Turner Classic Movies (TCM) cable channel began providing video description on a weekly selection of movies utilizing the SAP channel. A U.S. Department of Education grant has provided DVS with funding to describe 51 classic films to date. As of September 1998, TCM reaches 28 million subscribing households on more than 3,000 cable systems.lO A local cable system receives video description from a satellite program distributor in a similar manner to a local broadcast affiliate-by tuning a receiver to a specific satellite transponder's audio subcarrier and routing the 9 Charlottesville, VA (199), Bend, OR (203) and Presque Isle, ME (207). Descriptive Video Service station listings, August 1998. lo Figures from Turner Classic Movies marketing staff, September 1998 WGBH Report on Video Description page 10 signal as baseband audio to the modulator of the target cable channel. This modulator must be equipped with a SAP exciter, typically provided as a plug- in card or tray. If a cable operator simply passes through local off-air broadcast stations, the SAP signal should remain intact, requiring no intervention. However, if the local broadcast signal is received, demodulated to baseband, and remodulated to another cable channel frequency, the SAP signal must be demodulated, routed through the headend and re-inserted in the cable modulator as well. As a result, the cost of adding SAP capability on cable systems has ranged from $0 to $500 to $5,000 depending on the local cable system's existing equipment, size and the channels affected. Since the consumer's SAP decoder typically sits in a stereo TV or VCR, the cable system and decoder box must "pass-through" the complete BTSC multichannel audio signal, with SAP intact. While this is often the case, there are many cable boxes (and other consumer equipment) with built-in volume controls that will degrade the signal as the volume is lowered, resulting in a total loss of the SAP signal. The same is often true when routing a BTSC-encoded stereo signal through some monaural VCRs. Interoperability of professional and consumer equipment is needed to ensure delivery of video description. If a content provider and a broadcaster or MVPD are to provide these services, there must be a guarantee they will be delivered to the home and "passed through" to the enabling decoder (a SAP- equipped stereo TV, VCR or stand-alone decoder). In the "Programming Issues" section below, we indicate how a phase-in period and a limitation on the number of impacted cable services will reduce and amortize these additional costs to the cable networks and operators over many years. Previous industry comments have simply multiplied the number of cable systems by the number of cable services by the number of hours of programming to reach an astronomical and indefensible total cost of adding video description to each and every cable programming hour available. However, increasing the availability of video description needn't be examined as an "all or none" proposition and use of these aggregate costs is highly misleading. Direct Broadcast Satellite CDBS) MVPDs: Direct Broadcast Satellite (direct-to-home) services have expanded greatly in recent years, providing yet another method of program distribution to consumers. These services typically employ analog or digital compression and encryption systems such as MPEG-1 and DigiCypher, and typically can support multiple audio signals per channel. WGBH Report on Video Description page 11 Through recent agreements with DBS program distributors, PBS national program feeds on DirecTV and Echostar/DISH Network now offer video description (DVS). Discussions with Primestar are on-going. Turner Classic Movies has arranged for carriage of DVS on Direc'IV, and is in negotiation with Echostar/DISH and Primestar as well. Subscribers to these services receive the additional audio in the home as part of the compressed and encoded satellite signal, and select the "auxiliary" or "alternate" audio feature on their DBS remote controls to hear video description. Open Descrintion Narrative Television Network's "open" video description is delivered to more than 7 million U.S. subscribers of the Good Life cable television network, Kaleidoscope and Golden Eagle cable in addition to the Family Channel in Canada. No additional equipment or costs are incurred through this means of delivering description; however, video programmers are adamantly opposed to an accessibility accommodation which they feel would infringe on the viewing experiences of their sighted consumers and which would not allow user choice. B. Consumer and Professional SAP Equipment: Readily Available and In Use SAP has been a standard feature of stereo broadcasting for the past fifteen years. According to the Broadcasting and Cable 1997 Yearbook, 650 television stations now broadcast in stereo, amounting to roughly 40% of total television stationsn. For consumers, SAP has become much more available, and at a much lower cost. The Consumer Electronics Manufacturers' Association's (CEMA) January 1998 sales reports show 59% of all television sets and 90% of all VCRs sold had stereo capability. Most also have SAP decoding capability. CEMA estimates nearly 50% (45 million) of total television households currently have SAP capability either in a TV or a VCR. I2 As SAP decoding has become a standard feature in a high volume of consumer electronics components, the price has dropped substantially. A recent quick survey of two major electronics retailers indicated that many SAP-capable TV and VCR models are available for $150 or less. l1 Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1997, pg. C-136. I2 DVS staff phone caII with CEMA Communications Office, September 1998. WGBH Report on Video Description page 12 Professional SAP encoding equipment is readily available through a number of broadcast suppliers, who can provide SAP generators as part of a turnkey system or as an optional add-on. One example is the Orban OPTIMOD 8182ASAP Second Audio Program generator, which lists for $5,90013. In August 1996, WGBH's Descriptive Video Service conducted a survey (for a prospective client) of commercial broadcast television stations in the top 25 markets, and found that 81% of one major network's affiliates were SAP equipped.14 In most cases, use of the SAP channel was routine, yet typically limited to a redundant, monaural feed of the program audio. Some stations reported using SAP for occasional second-language broadcasts on syndicated or special-event programming, or to support promotional or other commercial efforts. In 1996-97, as part of a federal grant, WGBH conducted a survey of 408 cable systems representing 41,528,OOO cable households in the top 50 Designated Market Areas (DMAs). Of the 204 surveys completed, 69% (140) of the respondents indicated having the Second Audio Program (SAP) capability. In February 1998, the CBS Television Network offered a SAP-delivered Spanish- language service as a regular part of a new weekly dramatic series, Four Corners. To our knowledge, this was the first instance of a major commercial network using SAP on regularly scheduled prime-time entertainment programming. Viewers were notified of SAP availability through standard program promotional materials and an on-screen graphic at the start of the program. In the Fall of 1998, the Fox and NBC television networks offered for the second year SAP-delivered Spanish-language services on its broadcasts of the Major League Baseball playoffs and the World Series. On October 26, 1998, ABC began Spanish-language broadcasts on SAP of "Monday Night Football" carried by at least 17 affiliates in major Latin0 markets. ABC is also expected to increase SAP offerings on its other sports and movie programming.15 13 see www.orban.com/tv/8182ASAP.html I4 internal WGBH communication, August 2,1996. l5 Boston Globe article, October 22, 1998. WGBH Report on Video Description page 13 C. Costs to Retrofit; Analog vs. Digital Investment There have been many significant changes in the television industry since DVS launched video description nearly nine years ago. Most major market stations and network operations centers have completed significant rebuilding projects and have adopted numerous new formats in that time. Many of the past arguments concerning the costs to retrofit for SAP distribution have become irrelevant during this time, and have been rendered obsolete by technology development. What were once seen as prohibitive expenditures have largely been absorbed as the cost of doing business and staying competitive. Professional videotape formats have evolved to the point where Type C one- inch (limited to two full-band audio channels) has nearly become extinct. All of the major professional tape formats (Dl, D2, D3, D5, DCT, BetaSP, DigiBeta, DVC-Pro-50, and Betacam SX (optional upgrade)) now offer four audio channels as a de-facto standard, and all have been used successfully to support video description. Indeed, the audio post-production world has evolved even further. Most prime- time television and feature film audio mastering work is now being done on B- channel digital audio tape (DA-BB), a very high quality and inexpensive small format, offering sample-accurate time code synchronization. Where multichannel audio was once the exception, it is now the rule. With the arrival of multichannel (5.1) digital surround sound, the pressure is mounting to expand the track count once again. New videotape formats being developed (such as D6 and D9) are being planned with 10 to 12 channels of 24-bit, 48 kHz digital audio. The pervasiveness of the four audio-channel tape standard has also had a major impact on Master Control and routing plant design, with new switching equipment regularly offering support for a minimum of four levels of audio. The DigiCypher II compression and encryption system used in satellite uplinking and downlinking offers a minimum of four audio signals per channel. Microwave STL equipment supporting four audio channels is readily available. Fiber-based STL technology supports a composite signal including video, stereo audio, SAP and Pro Channel. Basic plant architecture is developing as well, with many broadcast facilities now converting to CCIR-601 (SMPTE 259M) serial digital transport for digital component and analog composite video. This is an extremely flexible and capable high bit-rate design for in-house signal distribution, also supporting WGBH Report on Video Description page 14 multiple audio channels. Many broadcasters see 601 as a logical bridge between analog and digital broadcasting. With all these changes, though, some broadcasters have expressed concern that any investment in the NTSC analog plant is wasted money. Why upgrade anything now when there's a limited future for analog? Since SAP is analog, why add it now? The answers are simple and straight-forward: SAP is available and it's a Droven, viable and reliable means of delivering a needed service. It makes sense to add SAP now, particularly when there exist established and growing national services which serve some of the most under-served audiences. Broadcasters will be in the analop broadcasting business for at least another 8 vears (2006) or as much as 10 to 15 vears or more. For programmers, building up a library of analog described programming now will allow a ready transition to the digital world, where multiple ancillary audio channels will be the norm and content to put in those channels will be highly valued. Most of the programming in the first years of digital TV will be converted from its analog origins. The Commission's target date for ending NTSC analog transmissions and recovering bandwidth (December .31, 2006) is also dependent on digital television reaching an 85% penetration in a given market.16 Some industry experts predict that NTSC may indeed be viable for a much longer period of time (to 2015 or beyond). Average depreciation cycles for broadcast equipment are well within this time period. Most broadcast transmission and production equipment is depreciated over a lo- to 15-year period. New SAP-eauiDDed transmitters are enerev and cost efficient. The energy savings realized from scrapping old, inefficient analog transmitters (with no stereo or SAP capability) for new solid state ones (with stereo and SAP built in) could be substantial enough to justify the expense over a projected 8 year (or longer) period of use. Digital transition clans can further iustifv the exnense now. A competitive broadcaster will need to support multiple layers of audio throughout its facility to accommodate the ATSC digital audio standard (5.1 channels and associated services), multiple program streams, multicasting and digital/analog simulcast requirements. I6 FCC 98-23, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER, Adopted: February 17, 1998. Released: February 23,1998. Para 80. WGBH Report on Video Description page 15 Four-channel audio routing is becoming commonplace, and industry engineering standards are being drafted to support 10 to 12 audio channels per program. Video server and automation technology now being implemented can support a wide range of current and future services, including multiple audio programs. According to Broadcasting & Cable magazine, these description-capable technologies' "growing popularity" is expected to "continue over the next three to five years as more broadcasters move to a tapeless realm and begin their digital broadcasts".*7 Any investment (including plant routing equipment) a broadcaster makes to support SAP services now can be protected as an investment in a sensible hybrid analog/digital plant, as part of the transition to digital broadcasting and advanced digital services with multiple ancillary audio streams. D. Other MVPD Issues and Solutions In its 1997 Report on Video Competition, the Commission concluded that video description poses varying degrees of additional difficulty for other MVPDs. Specifically, the Report cited concerns of DTH satellite systems. Many of the issues of distribution, availability of programming and potential conflict among services competing for SAP have been addressed in this paper. In fact, through the efforts of PBS and Turner Classic Movies, distribution of video description and other "SAP" services is growing and viabie for terrestrial broadcast, cable and DTH satellite as well. The 1997 Report also cited that, using current technology, many MMDS and SMATV operators are unable to decode SAP programming without upgrading a significant portion of their equipment. It said that while MMDS and SMATV systems are generally capable of passing the SAP channel through, many of the current set top boxes are not capable of decoding the signal. l7 "Automating The Future", Broadcasting & Cable magazine, October 19,1998, pg. 30. WGBH Report on Video Description page 16 As with cable decoders, these devices do not have to decode the SAP. They simply need to pass the full 6 MHz television signal through to the consumer's TV or VCR without degrading it. It is important to remember that the consumer's TV or VCR is the device that typically provides the SAP decoding. E. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Must-Carry Rules In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 there are various provisions related to the carriage of closed-caption data which can be extended to the parallel question of carriage of video descriptions. Similarly, in the precursor to the present Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Cable System Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Television Broadcast Stations ("DTV Must Carry"), there is precedent for's ruling that video description can and should be afforded full carriage under existing or future must-carry rules. The reference to sub-carriers below indicates the audio bandwidth that video description is usually delivered on today and when these laws were written. Below are the related sections of the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act that should guide such decisions: 1. Cable TV Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Section 614: Carriage of local commercial television signals, Subsection (b) (3) Content to be carried: "A cable operator shall carry in its entirety, on the cable system of that operator, the primary video, accompanying audio, and line 21 closed caption transmission of each of the local commercial television stations carried on the cable system, and, to the extent technically feasible, program-related material carried in the vertical blanking interval or on sub-carriers." (emphasis added) Section 615: Carriage of noncommercial educational television, Subsection (g)(l) Content to be carried: "A cable operator shall carry in its entirety the primary video, accompanying audio, and line 21 closed caption transmission of each qualified local noncommercial educational television station whose signal is carried on the cable system, and, to the extent technically feasible, proeram-related materials carried in the vertical blanking interval, or on sub-carriers, that may be necessary for receipt of programming bv handicapped bersons or for educational or language purposes." (emphasis added) * WGBH Report on Video Description page 17 2. FCC Report and Order on closed captioning resulting from Telecommunications Act of 1996 : (c) OC Programs. All video programming distributors shall deliver all programming received from the video programming owner or other origination source containing closed captioning to receiving television households with the original closed captioning data intact in a format that can be recovered and displayed by decoders meeting the standards of 5 15.119 of this chapter unless such programming is recaptioned or the captions are reformatted by the programming distributor. In order to protect the voluntary or mandated efforts of video programmers who add either captions or descriptions to their productions, a general statement can be made: "A cabIe operator shall carry in their entireties ancillary or supplementary program-related services that may be necessary for receipt and understanding of programming by people with disabilities, including the full and complete closed-caption transmission and the full and complete video-description transmission of each television station or cable service whose signal is carried on the cable system." V. DIGITAL TELEVISION ISSUES Digital television holds great promise for increased delivery of video description. But even with the seemingly unlimited potential of this new medium, there are significant issues that must be addressed to assure that video description is properly handled during the production, distribution and reception of digital television. A. Public Interest Obligations of Digital TV Broadcasters (Gore Committee) On October 22, 1997, Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley and Vice President Al Gore opened the first meeting of President Clinton's Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters (PIAC). The Committee was chartered to advise the Vice President on the public interest obligations of digital broadcasters. Since that time, the Committee has held hearings and has studied the question as to what public interest obligations should accompany broadcasters' receipt of digital television licenses. Recommendations are expected from the Committee by the end of 1998. WGBH Report on Video Description page 18 At the January 16, 1998 meeting of the Committee, a briefing on closed captioning and video description was provided so that the Committee could take up these questions as part of their deliberations. The briefing on video description centered on the need for an assured place and piece of the total DTV bandwidth, the need for assured delivery of video descriptions to the viewer, the need for guaranteed decoding capability in all DTV receivers, set-top boxes, and PC/TV hybrids, and the need for attention by manufacturers to the difficulty of navigating on-screen menus by people with visual impairments. These issues are now part of the official record of the deliberations of the Gore Committee and will be considered for inclusion in their final report and recommendations. At'the April 14, 1998 meeting, a draft proposal of recommendations was submitted to the Committee by member Gigi Sohn of the Media Access Project. Her recommendations included the following provisions: o For all stations, create a mandate for broadcasters to take full advantage of new digital closed captioning technologies to provide the maximum choice for quality for caption viewers. o Ensure access to digital streams for individuals with disabilities. o Allocate sufficient audio bandwidth for the transmission and dehvery of video descriptions. o Allocate sufficient bandwidth for the transmission and delivery of Radio Reading Services. B. Set-Aside of Digital Bandwidth for Description The DTV standard approved by the FCC was intended to allow flexibility and creativity by broadcasters. However, though allowing for added video descriptions, the adopted standard does not address the fact that video description's experience to date shows that market forces and voluntary efforts alone will not result in increased video description services. Video description will face these challenges and more in the coming world of digital television. In fact, there is serious concern that a likely proliferation of dynamic and interactive services in digital television will intensify the "bit- budget" battle for bandwidth. The DTV audio system was designed to allow for delivery of a number of services in a "bit-efficient" manner. Language translations or video description can be delivered as separate, single streams of audio sent alongside the regular program, then mixed together in the receiver at the consumer's option. WGBH Report on Video Description page 19 The single channel "VI (visually impaired) associated service" as defined in ATSC A/52 would provide a more efficient use of bandwidth, but it requires the consumer receiving device to decode two audio streams (program plus "VI") simultaneously and to perform a mix of the streams. This "dual-stream" approach allows a broadcaster to deliver these services without sending the same (regular program) audio twice (once as the main audio and a second time as a mix of main audio plus descriptions). In the Fall 98 edition of Videography magazine, industry analyst Mark Shubin describes the "extraordinary capabilities" of DTV audio, including "descriptive audio channels for the visually impaired, and more!" Yet, Shubin adds, "Unfortunately, getting all of those benefits requires dual-stream audio decoding, something not expected in initial DTV receivers. Will broadcasters avail themselves of dual-stream features knowing that some receivers won't make them audible?" 18 To date, consumer electronics manufacturers have strongly resisted any requirement for this type of "dual stream audio decoding." Without intervention by the FCC, it is unlikely that this bit-efficient feature will be common, or available at all. There must be some guarantee that people who are blind or visually impaired will be able to benefit from video description services. There must be guarantees that all receivers and set-top boxes will be able to access, decode and present video description in a standard, interoperable fashion. Without dual-stream audio decoding, video description must be delivered as an alternate, "complete main" program - a mix of descriptive narration with fully redundant program audio. There must be room reserved for this service for each program to be described. o A minimum set-aside of 384 Kbps per broeram stream within each licensee's 19.4 Mbps ATSC transport stream for video description would assure the viability of video description in DTV. In the case of the highest-quality HDTV broadcast, this requirement would amount to roughly 2% of the available bitstream. I8 Videography, Fall 1998, Mark Shubin: "Research & Developments - HDTV/DTV: Same/Different?", p. 40. WGBH Report on Video Description page 20 In the case of a four-program SDTV multicast, this would amount to roughly 8% of the total bitstream, but would still be within commonly accepted industry standards. For example, the current DVD Movie format delivers its data at an average bit rate of 5 Mbps (megabits per second), roughly the same rate as a single SDTV (standard definition DTV) program.19 At this rate, a typical DVD Movie title delivers near Dl digital master quality video and three alternate language tracks (as well as closed captioning and subtitles), using the same MPEG-2 video encoding and Dolby Digital audio encoding techniques being employed for DTV transmission? Such a set-aside would still allow for great flexibility for the content provider, but would provide a basic guarantee that video description can and will be technically accommodated and would never run into a programmer's data allocation decision-making process (where the needs of blind and visually impaired people are not likely to win out over virtually any commercial service). The 384 Kbps set-aside would provide an alternate complete main audio program, allowing video description to be presented within the highest quality sound field (Dolby Digital, 5.1 channel surround). Blind and visually impaired viewers should be able to experience this enhanced audio benefit of new DTV services. This alternate audio track would deliver video description to the full range of possible consumer receivers and devices. It could be decoded with full surround features in high-end product, or mixed down using standard processing in less expensive consumer equipment. Again, this is very much the same technique being used today with DVD Movies. Delivery of video description services using lower bit rates is technically possible, and are outlined in the ATSC audio standard. Yet these efficiencies can only be meaningful if all receivers are designed to take advantage of them and are required to do so. I9 Assuming four SDTV program streams multiplexed within a single 19.4 Mbps ATSC MPEG-2 transport stream. *O "Compression to Disc Building: DVD for Movies", Jerry A. Pierce, Director, Digital Video Compression Center, Universal Studios; http://www.dvcc.com/dvd4mov.pdf WGBH Report on Video Description page 21 o It is recommended that the 384 Kbps set-aside for video description be maintained until such time as a more efficient approach for delivery - such as "dual stream audio decoding" - is a universally available feature in consumer equipment. As with the closed captioning experience and with the history of SAP delivery of description, we can expect that video description will not become widely available on digital television programming until and unless it is virtually guaranteed as a common feature in consumer equipment. C. Receiver Issues Video description has been proven to be technically feasible and readily achievable in today's analog system and, according to digital audio experts, equally so in the digital environment. In order to assure an efficient, properly and fully functioning video description service in DTV, the following minimum requirements for DTV receivers and set-top boxes must eventually be met: 1. Dual Stream Audio Decoding o All DTV receivers and set-top boxes must be equipped with dual stream audio decoding capability, as specified in ATSC A/52. 2. PSIP With the myriad of services digital television will bring, information announcing and identifying those services and their relationships to each other will be crucial if a receiver (or viewer) can ever hope to find a given program or program-related service. The ATSC "Program and System Information Protocol" or "PSIP" (ATSC Document A/65) describes the standard digital broadcasters will use to announce their program offerings to receivers, and that receivers will use to construct channel tables and on-screen program guides for a given service area. Implementation of PSIP is still being developed, and there is much debate over how much PSIP information a receiver will need to decode as a minimum functional requirement. Consumer equipment manufacturers indicate the first generation of DTV devices will decode only the first layer of PSIP data, likely the major and minor channel numbers. WGBH Report on Video Description page 22 This approach will likely overlook any service descriptors or IDS for additional services such as video description (or other alternate audio) included in a program stream when the receiver constructs an electronic program guide. If a broadcaster wants to "announce" an additional service and provide the viewer with the proper "hook" to select that service, an additional "virtual channel" will need to be added to its PSIP information. This additional step is cumbersome, and provides a negative incentive for the broadcaster as well as potential confusion (or lack of information) for the viewer. o Service descriptors and IDS for video description (and closed captions) must be included in the "first layer" of PSIP information available to all receivers and set-top boxes, must be fully decoded by the receiver or set-top box, and must be fully utilized in drawing program tables and electronic program guides. 3. Pass-Through to NTSC Devices o Devices that pass a digital television broadcast signal to legacy NTSC consumer equipment must be fully capable of selecting and decoding a video description service from the digital transport stream, and must present video description either as a user-selected alternate main audio or as an NTSC SAP service. Many manufacturers are currently building this capacity into their DTV equipment, but this must be a minimum requirement if the current level of video description services is to be maintained. 4. User Interface Accessibility o Video description services are only beneficial if a blind or visually impaired viewer can locate and select them. Graphical, on-screen program guides and menus do not provide an accessible user interface for people who are blind or visually impaired. Alternative user interfaces should be available and provided. Some current consumer equipment provide alternate access to on-screen menus for direct selection of SAP audio through a dedicated button on the remote control. One manufacturer provides a tactile identifier for this button by adding a series of raised markings, as well as a standard location on the remote control. The consumer uses this button to toggle through the available audio choices (typically stereo, mono and SAP). WGBH Report on Video Description page 23 Another potential solution is to provide a user-selectable default for audio services. When setting up the receiver or set-top box, the viewer could select "play video description whenever available." This would potentially reduce the reliance on an inaccessible graphic interface for set-up. A larger question remains concerning accessibility of interactive DTV services, including advanced searchable program guides and enhanced web-like services. WGBH is conducting on-going research in this area, and has a proposal pending with the U.S. Department of Education to develop a prototype system. This issue of access and equity could also be addressed within the Commission's current proceeding on "Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices."2* D. Summary of DTV Technical Recommendations Implementation of video description within the digital television environment can be facilitated by taking the following steps: 1. Bandwidth - A minimum set-aside of 384 Kbps per oroeram stream within each licensee's 19.4 Mbps ATSC transport stream for video description would assure the viability of video description in DTV. 2. Sinple Audio Channel - Video description should be delivered as a single audio channel "VI associated service" as defined in the DTV standard (ATSC Dot. A/53 ("ATSC Digital Television Standard, 16 Sep 95., Annex B, Sec. 6.5, Paragraph 1.) 3. Dual Stream Audio Decoding - All DTV receivers should be equipped with the appropriate audio decoding and mixing capability ("dual stream decoding") to access and deliver the VI associated service as a single narrative channel mixed with the main audio program. 4. Selection and Use - All DTV receivers should be capable of selecting "video description when available," as a standard default setting. Remote control devices should also allow easy alternative access to on-screen menus for visually impaired users. 21 FCC 98-116 Report and Order In the Matter of Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial AvailabiIity of Navigation Devices. WGBH Report on Video Description page 24 5. Procram Guides - Indication of availability of video description must be included in program tables and other on-screen guides. The guides themselves should also have an alternate means of access other than the standard graphic user interface. E. Alternate Delivery and Reception of Video Description In the evolving world of digital media, video description may also be delivered via data services that reach consumers through such means as the Internet, high-bandwidth dial-up phone connections and broadcast data. Experiments have been proposed which would use new consumer devices and services (Intel's Intercast, Microsoft's WebTV, RealAudio, and others) that may prove to be a new route and means for making television accessible to blind and visually impaired people in the future. And while these opportunities are exciting and promising, they do not yet represent a practical alternative to the existing analog delivery mechanisms and the digital ones about to be available in the marketplace. VI. PROGRAMMING ISSUES A. SAP Use and Priorities No distributors are using their SAP channels at capacity, with the possible exception of HBO, so there is no need yet to prioritize services (alternate languages vs. video description). In addition, multiple additional audio channels will become available as the industry converts to the digital format. On rare occasions in the present system, video description has competed with an alternative language (Spanish) or a radio reading service or news service. Since there is but one SAP channel, the only solution so far has been for local stations to decide which additional track would best serve their local audience or to air the program more than once, with each SAP service being made available for at least one airing. This practice has been followed by PBS on programs where both a description and a Spanish track was available. Cable networks also often repeat programming, which would allow alternating cablecasts of each SAP-carried audio service. B. Assigning Responsibility: Producers and Distributors Propram Producers Federal grants have "primed the pump" for several years to build up a modest amount of described programming and to increase audience awareness. Now, a handful of public television producers have begun to fund video description out WGBH Report on Video Description page 25 of their own budgets. WGBH instituted a policy in 1997 to include video description in the production budgets of several national productions and prime- time limited series. The policy is being phased in over three years at which point WGBH hopes to have doubled the amount of programming with video description. Two other public television producers, WNET (New York) and WETA (Washington) have also funded the video description of some of their productions. KUHT in Houston, Texas has also made independent arrangements to have some of their programming described. Turner Classic Movies has recently agreed to match (privately fund) one hour of video description for every four hours funded by a new federal grant up to a limit of six hours per year. Even with these first steps toward non-federal funding, the overall amount of described programming on television is slight. Distributors In the captioning rules, the mandate falls on video programming distributors who, in most cases, have turned to their program suppliers and producers to make arrangements for captioning. Distributors also maintain the necessary infrastructure of caption encoders and other equipment to assure proper delivery of caption data, especially for live programs. On the local level, the bulk of programs which fall under the caption requirements are local news programs, where the producer is the distributor. For video description, a similar process would be effective. Along with arranging for the description of selected programs (see Suggested Phase-in Period below), distributors would be required to install and maintain the equipment necessary to pass the description signal to the public. A difference in the case of description is that maintenance of equipment will need to be effected on both the national and local levels, due to the fact that local broadcast and cable stations will need to make a proactive effort to pass the description signal along. (For closed captions, a local station can passively pass the caption data directly through to the consumer with virtually no effort). C. Programming Types and Quantities In the American Foundation for the Blind study mentioned earlier, two extensive surveys asked visually impaired respondents to rank, in priority order, the types of programming they would like described. Responses to this question were analyzed only for those people who said they would be more likely to watch television shows with description. In answering this question, it is likely that respondents took into consideration both how important they thought description would be to a particular genre, as well as how much they enjoyed that genre. The findings are summarized below. WGBH Report on Video Description page 26 Television Genre Survey #I Survev #2 Average Dramas or Mysteries 85% Nature or Science 67% News and Information 61% Comedies 59% Music Programs /Videos 40% Game Shows 26% Children's Programs 15% Sports 37% Daytime Soap Operas 21% Talk Shows 20% Shopping Programs 16% Other 14% 83% 72% 68% 77% 44% 41% 38% 26% 28% 29% 12% 11% 84% 69% 65% 68% 42% 33% 26% 26% 25% 25% 14% 12% Since video description is still a relatively new service (compared with captioning), an explanation of a few of description's distinguishing characteristics is in order. In the case of sports programming, even play-by-play commentary is often supplemented by graphics, replays or special visual effects which remain inaccessible to a blind audience without video description. In some instances (often the most dramatic and crucial), television play-by-play commentary frequently steps back entirely, letting the picture and ambient sound tell the story. In these cases, the program becomes wholly inaccessible to a blind audience. Live news broadcasts are often considered the type of program for which video description is either impractical or unnecessary. However, as demonstrated by the described broadcasts of the 1993 and 1997 Presidential Inaugurations on PBS, live description of news events is not only possible, but can provide true access to information not otherwise available to blind and visually impaired audiences. And though News and Information ranked high in the surveys, provision of live description on either a local or national level would be impractical in the first years of enhanced description services. D. Copyright Issues A mandate for description, like the mandate for captioning, does not imply or require a copyright holder to give up any ownership rights. All captioning takes place under the aegis and control of the program owner and no conflict has arisen even with the new captioning requirements in place. Some people have raised the concern that description could be considered a "derivative work;" even if it can be considered as such, that (description) work can and WGBH Report on Video Description page 27 will still be under the control and ownership of the copyright holder, particularly if that owner is paying for the descriptions. Based on WGBH's experience in providing thousands of public television program hours with video description and more than 170 described home videos from numerous Hollywood studios, WGBH continues to have no difficulties with copyright protection of the original rights holders. Copyright holders have been more than willing to permit description to be added to their works since they continue to own the copyright on the described version of the work and the description adds value to the work. E. Description Carry-Through: Repeats, Syndication, Reversioning In order to be a truly effective service for blind and visually impaired people, intact transmission of video description must be guaranteed, particularly when programming is obtained from third-party sources. Such programming is subject to signal processing, remodulation and record and playback. In accordance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the Commission adopted standards that required cable systems to retransmit broadcast signals in their entirety including, "if technically feasible, . . . any program-related material transmitted by the broadcaster on a subcarrier or in the vertical blanking interval necessary for the receipt of programming by handicapped persons..." (102d Congress, Report 102-92, June 28,199l). This must-carry requirement should be extended to all distributors, broadcasters and cablecasters alike, to ensure that descriptions are transmitted intact. The conditional language ("if technically feasible") is no longer required due to the ready availability of professional tape formats with multiple audio channels as well as the full-range of transmission and routing equipment necessary to accomplish "receipt of programming by handicapped persons." In addition, any mandate for video description of original programming should require that video description is maintained for all previously described repeat broadcasts or cablecasts as well as syndicated versions. Although editing of the originally described program may require alterations to the description track, these changes are usually minor and significantly less costly than re-describing the entire program. Program distributors and providers should make every effort to acquire the described version of the program or the description track and assure that "once described, always described" is the rule. Consumer expectations will certainly follow that rule. WGBH Report on Video Description page 28 F. Funding Since 1990, several federal agencies have funded video description; primarily the U.S. Department of Education and including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Science Foundation. For fiscal year 1998, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services of the U.S. Department of Education awarded grants amounting to $1.5 million for video description. WGBH's Descriptive Video Service and the Narrative Television Network were each awarded a portion of these funds. Approximately 45% of the total operating budget for DVS comes from these Federal grants, the remainder from described home video revenues and corporate, foundation and individual viewer donations. As mentioned earlier,. some producers and distributors have begun to pay for video description as well, including WGBH, WETA, WNET and Turner Classic Movies. Video description for some PBS series and programs has been funded by the program's underwriter, such as General Motors for Ken Burns' Baseball. In the home video market, the U.S. Department of Education has funded video description in all cases but one. The one exception is the home video version of Schindler's List which was described with funds provided by the distributor (MCA/Universal Home Video) per a personal request from the film's director and producer, Steven Spielberg. As has been experienced in the implementation of the new captioning requirements, creative and cooperative funding arrangements can be made when program producers and distributors work together along with their advertisers. An increase in video description from a similar mandate would provide a new opportunity for advertisers to underwrite description costs in return for an on-air credit. G. Costs Video description rates range from $1,000 - $3,00 per program hour for broadcast programs depending upon the vendor. 22 These rates vary based on a number of factors including the level of description required, the quality of the audio mix session, the amount of research necessary, the amount of lead time available and whether or not the narrators are AFTRA/SAG talent. 22 FCC MM Docket No. 95-176. Report July 25,1996, para. 106. WGBH Report on Video Description page 29 The cost of video description also varies by each individual program, not by program type. One dramatic program may require or allow for significantly more description than another. Documentaries may in general allow for less description but often require additional research. A describer's workstation at WGBH consists of a 3/4" VCR, Macintosh computer, a control interface and specially created software. To maintain the highest audio quahty, consistent with PBS and Hollywood studio requirements, DVS uses the professional audio production suites at WGBH to record and mix DVS audio and produce DVS broadcast masters. The cost for these facilities is similar to production operations at any high-end broadcast or cable network. One factor which will continue to have a major impact on the cost of video description is the current necessity to provide a complete program-plus- description mix on the third audio channel of a program (as discussed above in the section on DTV and the need for dual-stream audio decoding). This is due to the fact that almost none of the stereo VCRs and TVs manufactured provide the user with the option of selecting BOTH main program audio AND SAP (descriptions). Instead, it was assumed that consumers would want EITHER main audio OR SAP (alternative language usage was in mind -- if one wanted a Spanish audio track, the English track had to be switched off). The result is that the video description process for broadcasting requires an expensive mixing step rather than simply recording a description-only narration track. Unlike program production costs for digital TV, the cost of description may actually fall significantly in the digital environment. If the expensive audio mix session can be reduced or eliminated through added capabilities in DTV receivers, we could experience noticeable savings in video description production. H. Suggested Phase-in Period The schedule and targets for a video description requirement are most appropriately delineated by consumers, not vendors of the service. A proposalz3 has been put forth by a group of leading advocates for video description, the National Coalition of Blind and Visually Impaired Persons for Increased Video Access, who together represent more than a dozen national organizations serving blind and visually impaired citizens. Coalition chair Margaret Pfanstiehl submitted a suggested seven-year phase-in period in comments to the FCC in 23 The National Coalition of Blind and Visually Impaired Persons for Increased Video Access, Report to FCC, February 7,1997 pages 10-E. WGBH Report on Video Description page 30 March 1997. Their proposal can now be updated to take into account the results of the closed captioning proceeding and the subsequent reconsideration order. The following suggested phase-in is based on the comments of the Coalition. 1. National Networks Requirements should attempt to maximize national audiences through application to the most-watched, most-available programming (and, by extension, those with the largest production budgets). Therefore, the initial requirements should apply to the five major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and PBS) and national non-broadcast networks serving 50% or more of the total number of multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD") households. Application of n&w rules to regional and local video programming distributors can be evaluated during the course of phase-in of national rules and perhaps be taken up after the initial seven-year period. 2. Primetime It took approximately eight years from the time of the first closed captioned broadcast until all prime-time commercial network television programming was closed-captioned. In addition, by the time the FCC announced its captioning mandates, the major networks had already achieved a level of 80% or more of captioned programming. It would therefore be a modest proposal to require video description of the prime-time programming of those distributors indicated in #1 above, to be phased in over a seven-year period. At the end of the first year of a video description mandate, distributors would be required to have at least four hours per week of described primetime programming. An additional three hours per week should be added each year for six years until all 22 hours of primetime (excluding live news broadcasts) are described. 3. Children's ProPramming In addition to primetime programs, the Coalition asserted that children's programming should carry a very high priority for description. This priority is consistent with recent Congressional and Commission policy statements in the field of children's te1evisior-P. Therefore it is appropriate that within two years, distributors as defined above should provide three hours per week of described educational children's programming. 2J Children's Television Report and Policy Statement, 50 FCC 2d 1 (1974), aff'd Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 564 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir 1977); Policies and Rules Concerning ChiIdren's Television Programming, FCC 96-335,3 CR 1385 (1996). WGBH Report on Video Description page 31 4. Additional Proeramming According to the Coalition, "Once the infrastructure for video description is fully functional and the value of the service is appreciated we anticipate that a strong demand for description of non-primetime programs will develop as well. We recommend that the Commission defer for two to three years a determination as to what other categories of programming should bear the highest priorities for description. After the initial 2-3 year period, as description services are more established and greater audience feedback is available, it will be more practical to make priority choices. The communications field is changing so rapidly that at this time we do not exempt any classification from being described." This appears to be a very sensible approach. In addition, sports and news were given a lower priority by the Coalition, with the exception of special events such as the inauguration of the President and the Olympics. 5. Local Pass-throuph Reauirements Though it is suggested that the initial phase-in take into account only nationally distributed programming, there will be a parallel impact on the local distributors of those programs. Network affiliates, PBS member stations, other public broadcasters, and cable systems must equip themselves to properly pass the descriptions through to the consumer. For those broadcast stations and cable systems that are presently not equipped to do so, a schedule for enhancing their infrastructure to pass descriptions through could follow this timeline: a. By the end of Year One: Affiliates and members of the five major broadcast networks in the top 25 markets. b. By the end of Year One: All cable systems in the top 25 markets must assure pass-through of video description of the effected programs of the affiliates and members of the five major broadcast networks and the national non-broadcast networks serving 50% or more of the total number of multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD") households. c. By the end of Year Two: Affiliates and members of the five major broadcast networks in the top 50 markets. d. By the end of Year Two: All cable systems in the top 50 markets must assure pass-through of video description of the effected programs of the affiliates and members of the five major broadcast networks and the national non-broadcast networks serving 50% or more of the total number of multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD") households. WGBH Report on Video Description page 32 e. By the end of Year Three: Top 100 markets. f. By the end of Year Four: Top 200 markets. g. As additional programs and program providers are included under the video description requirement, the pass-through requirements of local stations and cable systems should include those added providers. I. Production Capacity As mentioned above, WGBH's Descriptive Video Service and the Narrative Television Network are the main providers of the video description service. Dozens of smaller organizations provide live description in theater productions on stage and in special movie screenings. A national organization has recently been formed which has brought together all of the professional and volunteer groups which are involved in description services, to discuss standards and promote greater uses of description. It is apparent, in light of the extent of description experience and talent in the country and the expansion capacities of the two major vendors, that a phased- in demand for description services could be met by increased provision of the service by existing and potential service providers. If an increase in demand is occasioned by regulatory action, the marketplace will certainly operate to supply the service. J. Advisory or Standards Oversight As is the case with captioning, there are content as well as technical quality issues in the production of video description. In fact, video description requires a high-level of creative writing ability and thus, variations in content quality can be expected. An increase in the demand for description services will also put a burden on consumers, who should be empowered to comment on and effect the maintenance of high-quality services. However, as in the case of captioning, the Commission is not likely to want to be involved in regulating the content, as opposed to the technical delivery, of descriptions. As part of a rulemaking process, an appropriate complaint and feedback process should be instituted so that consumers can be assured that their concerns are directly heard by the distributors and programmers as well as by the Commission. Should a preponderance of content complaints be received by the Commission, further steps should be considered to evaluate and establish quality standards. WGBH Report on Video Description page 33 VII. SUMMARY In the two years since the Commission began considering how it could meet the mandate of the Telecommunications Act regarding service to blind and visually impaired people, much has changed. Technology has advanced to the point where more than 40 TV stations are already broadcasting digital signals. At the same time, caution has been expressed about consumer acceptance of this complex new and expensive medium. Lingering concerns make it likely that we will be relying on our analog system for possibly another decade or more. Early consumer adopters of digital TV will be the wealthiest and most technically savvy members of society. At the same time, blind and visually impaired people continue to wait, not often patiently, for access to our most pervasive and influential medium. The marketplace has not, and will not serve this group which has been assured of its rights of equal access by numerous legislative and societal acts over the past decade. Advances in technology have paved the way for a more rapid, affordable, and reliable video description system which can bring the benefits of today's analog and tomorrow's digital television systems to all Americans. Through a fair and practical application of its authority, the Commission can play its most essential role - that of assuring equal access to communications for all. A video description rulemaking process will be a great step toward accomplishing this goal. 10.18.99 WGBH Report on Video Description page 34 RUG-31-1998 16:37 CWINGTOf%BURL Iffi 1816 W& PRI 282 662 6291 P.02 Awusr 31.1998 ~MOIUNDUM TO RAY JOY= Re: FCC Jurisdiction Over Video DescrintiQg You asked us to examine whether the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") has jurisdiction to issue rules regarding video description. As discussed below, we conclude that, atthough Congress did not require the Commission to hold a video description rulemaking in the same fashion that it requiml the Commission to hold a closed captioning rulemaking. the authority for such a rulemaking falls within the Commission's broad grant of authority based on the Communications Act of 1934. Furthermore, such a rulemaking would further Congress' clearly expressed intention that video services become accessible to the visually impaired. As we discussed last week, I have prepared and attached an insert on the jurisdiction question for your comments to the Commission on this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is any fimthez way we may be of assistance. Harold Feld cc: Bill Fitz FUG-31-1998 16: 37 COUINGTON8BURL ING 1816 202 662 6291 P.83 mw AUGUST 31,199s It is clear that the Commission has broad powers to eBctuate Congress' goals, including the goal of making video progmmming accessible to the visually impaired. The Supreme Cow& as discussed below, has in the past noted the authority and jurisdiction of the Commission in the area of program accessibility. Nothing in the legislative history of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which mandated that the Commissi on conduct a study on video description but which did not set a deadline for a rulemaking, indicates that Congress wished to limit the Commission's authority in this area Instead, it appears that Congress decided to set some detite milestones, such as the study, but intended to leave the method of phasing video description into the market to the Commission. The Commission's previous interpretation of the relevant section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is entitled to considerable defsrcnce, is in accord with this interpretation An analysis of the Commission's jurisdiction must begin by acknowledging the broad jurisdiction conferred upon the Co mmission by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 173 (1968). This broad jurisdiction includes any matter "reasonably ancilIary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting." Id. at 178. "Reasonably ancillary" includes not merely adopting rules that achieve specific statutory objectives, but includes adopting rules that promote the broad goals of Congress. (general See id. at 173-78 CongressionaI mandate to promote community-based programming and to create national broadcasdng system equitable to all communities justifies FCC imposing "must carry" requirement on earIy cable systems); General Telahone Co. of the Southwest v. United States, 449 F.2d 846,853~54 (5' Cir. 1971) (anti-trust concerns are "reasonably ancillary" to promoting national broadcast system). The Supreme Court acknowledged the application of this broad authority to making video communications accessible to ail individuals, inc1uding individuals with hearing or visual impairments, in Communitv Television of Southern California v. Got&&i, 459 U.S. 498 (1983). While rejecting the argument that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 imposed any new requirements upon the FCC, id. at 509, the Court stated that the FCC impose could "require~extraordinary efforts to make certain types of programming universally accessible," provided that the FCC engaged in appropriate rulemaking proceedings and supported its decision with appropriate findings. g. at 511-12. While the cast did not turn on this issue in light of the disposition of the case, &. that the FCC acted within ik authority by m taking action, it indicates that the FCC does indeed have the authority to act in the area of programming accessibility without explicit authorization from Congress. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 further strengthened the Commission's jurisdiction in this matter. The Telecommunications Act amended the Commtications Act of 1934 to in&de a req+ent that the &nmission study video description "to CIISIKC the accessibili~ of video programming to persons with visual impairments." Pub. L. No. 104-104,_ 713 (1996). Both to emphasize the importance of this goal and to ensure SW% action by the Commission, the statute ordered the Commission to commence its inquiry within six months of enactment of the Act. Id. In addition, the Act required the Commission to undertake a study on the availability of closed captioning in video programming, and to prescribe regulations mandating closed captioning within 18 months of enactment Although the section of the statute referring to video RUG-31-1998 16: 38 CWINGTON&BJRL ING 1016 2026626291 P.04 Pwvr~.~~m & CONFJD- AVCVST31,1998 description does not directly refer to an FCC n&making, the legislative history makes clear &at Congress intended to make video pro pamming as accessible as possible to Americans with visual impairments. &g HR Rep. No. 104-204 Part I at 115 (1995) ("House Report"); S. Rep. No. 104-23 at 52 (1995) ("Senate Report"); H-R Rep. No. 104-458 at 182-83 (1996) ("Conference Report"). Indeed, Congress explicitly instructed the Commission to report on "the appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace," Pub. L. No. 104- 104 8 7 13(f), clearly expressing Congress' intent that the Commission ultimately shouid require video description. Accordingly, the Commission may act under its broad powers to effectuate the will of Congress and proceed with a video description r&making. &' Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 173-78. The fkilure of Congress to mandate video description by a date certain, as it did with closed captioning, does not remove the Commission's authority to adopt vi&o description pursuant to a standard rulemaking proceeding. The House version of Section 713 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the Commission to mandate both closed captioning and video description on a very specific timetable. w House Report at 38 & 115. The Senate version, while requiring that the Commission mandate closed captioning within a specific timeframe, did not require such a timeframe for video description. & Senate Report at 52. Instead., it required that the Commission promptly conduct a study of video description. Id. In conference to resolve the differences between the bills, the Conference Committee adopted the House language for Section 713 with the exception of mandating video description. & Conference Report at 183-84. On the subject of video description, Congress ultimately adopted the Senate version and nquircd a study within a short period of time, without setting a date certain for adoption of regulations. a It is well established that Congress' failure to require the Commission take specific action implies nothing about the Commissions broad jurisdiction to carry out Congress` goals. & Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 170-71 (that Congress twice failed to pass legislation explicitly authorizing Commission jurisdiction over cable television did not imply that Commission lacked jurisdiction, nor did legislative history of these legislative efforts shed light on jurisdiction granted by Communications Act of 1934). Rather, if Congress does not explicitly limit the Commission's broad jurisdiction over broadcast media, it is assumed that the Commission's jurisdiction remains UnaEected. & TRT Telecommunications Corn. v. FCC, 876 F.2d 134,146 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (because Congress did not explicitly address ownership of certain satellite ground stations in the Communications Satellite Act, Commission was free to use its authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to determine the matter; legislative silence cannot be taken as meaning that Congress has resolved the issue). Furthermore, nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress intended to restrict the Commission's jurisdiction in this area. Nor does anything in the legislative history suggest that Congress felt a need to provide the Commission with new authority to make video programming more accessible to Americans with disabilities. The only direct statements in the legislative history on these sections concern the Congressional intent to make video programming accessible to all ~mexicans.' The more logical intqxdation of the legislative 1 See. & 140 Gong. Rec. E1439-03 (Statement of Rep. Slat&y). ("WR 3636 directs the Federal Communications Ch2mmission to undertake inquiries regarding the provision of both closed captioning aad video 2 WG-31-1998 16: 39 COUIffiTCM.BURLING 1016 202 662 6291 P.125 PRML~ED& CoruFlD~ AUGUST 31,199s history, therefore, is that Congress felt the need to compel the Commission to act, but did not f-1 that it had su&ient information regarding video description to set spcci& deadlines for implementation. Accordingly, Congress required that the Commission study the problem of implementing video description, but left the schedule for implementation to the Commission's discretiolz* Finally, the Commission has consistently interpreted Section 713 as requiring the Commission to mandate video description over time. In its report to Congress on video description made pursuant to Section 713, the Commission stated that "Congress has directed the Commission to assess the appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video description into . . the marketplace." wsed Cm an d a Video Descritioa of Video Programmmg, 11 FCC Red. 19214,19222 & 19265 (1996). The Commission's won of Congress' intent is entitled to great weight; it is definitive if Congress has not spoken to the issue and if the Commission's interpretation is reasonable. See TRT Communications, 876 F.2d at 142. For the reasons stated above, the Commission has jurisdiction and authority to mandate vi&o description through its rulemaking procedures. description services of video sezviccr, and fixher directs the cbnmission estabbh regulations to require an qpmpriate schedule for cledhes for the provision of closed c8pcioniq. We have fIrtally set the stage for full access - accctz which is long ovorduo to video progamming to these poplal8lion8"); House Report at 1 IS ("it is the goal of the Committee to ensure that all Arnerieans tdtimdy have access to video ticts and programs"); Senate Report at 52 ("The Cornmilw recognizes the impoltaxlce of access to communications fbr au Americalls"). 7. Closed captioning, by contrast, is a much more mature tedmology. Co- @rcfbre appears u) have felt more comfortable setting a specific riazrable for closed captioning l&an fbr video -on. 3 TOTAL P.05