Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of )
Implementation of )
Video Description of ) MM Docket No.99-339
Video Programming )
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND
ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on (insert title of notice). AFB has played a
substantial role with respect to video description having advocated for its initial federal
appropriation in 1990, and as an author the a report on video description entitled "ho's Watching?
A Profile of the Blind and Visually Impaired Audience for Television and Video."
The American Foundation for the Blind--the organization to which Helen Keller devoted more
than 40 years of her life--is a national nonprofit whose mission is to eliminate the inequities faced
by people who are blind or visually impaired. Headquartered in New York City, AFB maintains
offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and a governmental relations office in
Washington, D.C.
The following is a summary of recommendations made to the Commission as more fully outlined
below.
· The cost of description can readily be absorbed into the ballooning production
budgets with little impact on broadcasters or studios.
· The copyright is a nonissue since producers will control, directly or indirectly, the
description process.
· Because of the lack of voluntary participation, we believe that some level of
described programming should be required based primarily upon success of the
programming.
· Any feature film released 18 months following adoption of the commission rule to
the rental or network sales market may not be eligible for broadcast in any form
unless it includes description.2
· An enforcement framework and procedure should be established subjecting
noncompliant stations to economic redress and potential lose of license.
· As a percentage of the overall cost for a feature film, description represents a
shrinking portion of budget, perhaps 3 tenths of 1 percent for a $30 million film.
· The existing script is another source of cost-saving potential, as it already includes
much description from the screenwriter.
· While we question the degree of hardship created by costs absorbed by
broadcasters to become SAP capable, we agree that initial requirements for video
description should focus on larger broadcasters and markets. This should not,
however, absolve small broadcasters from become SAP compliant.
Impact of Television
Today throughout the world the universal language is "Media", and in the pantheon of media,
television is the unchallenged leader. For better or for worse, the world marches to the drumbeat
conveyed by the media. TV brings us together and drives us apart--it makes us laugh, it makes us
cry, and sometimes it even makes us think--all with equal impunity. In the recent past, information
was a perishable commodity, often arduous to obtain, and in its video form, was totally
inaccessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. Today, by contrast, communications are
instant, and a limited amount of public television programming is video described. Television is
the hub of the media world, gathering and disseminating the visual arts of every age and culture.
A parade of heroes, villains and celebrities linger in a special limbo that juxtaposes "I Love Lucy"
with "Law and Order," "Abbot and Costello" with "Ally McBeal." Movies of the week and
miniseries vie with feature films for attention and profits, as each new generation enjoys
rediscovering Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe and hundreds of
others.
Whether the viewing experience is educational or entertaining, people who are blind or visually
impaired are usually denied access to the full message, unless, of course, video programming is
described. For children, such disenfranchisement may mean immediate exclusion from social
interaction with their sighted peers. Without video description, blind children and adults alike are
denied the opportunity to learn things such as the nuances of body language, the significance of
costume or dress, and much more--important concepts which a sighted child or adult learns easily
through visual observation. Media is the language of our time, and those who are not fluent risk
isolation, even virtual exclusion from their own culture as that culture becomes ever more
dependent upon visual media. The stakes are very real and looming larger daily. We must choose
between inclusion or disenfranchisement. The FCC has made it clear that the choice is inclusion.
The issue, then, is not "whether" but "when;" not "if" but "how." In the spirit of the decision to
ensure that up to 10 million blind or visually impaired Americans are guaranteed their place at the
media table, we choose to view the relationship with the industry that must implement the FCC
rule in a spirit of partnership, rather than as adversaries.3
The Relationship Between Films and Television
The social icons and cultural touchstones of our age all come together in the media hub that is
television. Films cannot exist or succeed without television's markets (and marketing power). The
FCC has proposed that commercial broadcasters in the top 25 markets, and the largest national
video programming distributors, must provide 50 hours of video description per quarter. We
believe that this proposal, although laudable, is much too restrictive. Before we can truly
understand how best to implement video description in the commercial TV arena, we must first
understand the nature of the business itself. In the early days of electronic media, there was at first
open rivalry followed by an uneasy truce between film studios and television broadcasters. As we
enter the new millennium, however, these industries are inextricably intertwined and totally
interdependent. Television broadcasters could not remain viable in their present form without the
major studios providing a steady flow of product. The major studios would soon be out of
business if cut off from television, and forced to rely strictly on theatrical release and cable and
videotape sales. The synergy developed between the industries now literally supports and drives
them.
Very few productions leave the gates of the studios which are not destined at some point for
broadcast. The studios and broadcasters are knowing, willing, even eager partners in exploiting all
opportunities and advantages of the broadcast marketplace. Typically producers and production
companies, on their own or in some alliance with studios, propose projects to the various major
and minor networks. Contracts for these projects are extremely complex. Various actors, writers,
producers, directors, etc., may require specific rights and payments regarding future sales in
syndication, in foreign countries, or regarding technologies existing or not yet anticipated.
Producers may be individuals or large companies, and it is common for many actors, directors and
writers to maintain their own production companies. The process for feature films is similar. Both
networks and large film studios may develop products "in-house" with key players under contract.
At some point a very convoluted, often haphazard, process must get very real, very quickly, to
enable production and a budget. In the case of television networks, a show is granted a "license
fee." The producer agrees to produce a specific number of episodes for a specific fee per episode.
Fees for half-hour series may range from $300,000 to about $900,000 per episode. Costs at the
lower end of the scale are for cable syndication shows and newer network series. Higher-end
costs are for long-running network series whose stars and key personnel command increasingly
high salaries. For comparable one-hour series, the range is from about $500,000 to $2 million per
episode. In a 22 episode season, then, the network or cable station is making a commitment
ranging from $6.6 million to $44 million per year. Cost overruns are the responsibility of the
producers. In many instances, cost overruns are an acceptable part of doing business especially if
the producers feel the show will generate higher profits in syndication, foreign sales and/or
merchandising rights.
It is common for the media to focus on the high salaries and windfall profits inherent in show
business. But in the world of show business itself, the emphasis is on the word "business," and by
any definition the stakes and risks are extraordinary. As stakes rise, so has the need for research,
focus groups and all manner of studies. While these tools grow more sophisticated each season,
there is new evidence that the ability to predict hits is as well achieved through the magic of4
rattles and beads, or simple guesswork. In this financial cauldron commitments must be made to
spend anywhere from $3 million to $20 million or more in an investment that may prove
ultimately worthless. As we review the options for the implementation of descriptive video, our
goal is to seek solutions that are economically rational without being viewed as unreasonable or
burdensome, while at the same time achieving maximum access for people who are blind or
visually impaired.
Production Issues and Costs
1
Public Television station WGBH in Boston, as it had with closed captioning, has pioneered video
description with its Descriptive Video Service (DVS). As the FCC has noted, after more than a
decade of experience, WGBH has described more than 1600 PBS programs and dozens of feature
films. Starting in the fall of 1998, DVS provided description of three daily programs, four weekly
programs, and selected episodes of other series and specials. While the process has been perfected
over the years, there have been few emulators, and only Turner Classic Movies has voluntarily
embarked on a systematic program of video description of its library collection.
As the pioneer in the descriptive video for SAP technology, WGBH notes its costs for description
of movies typically run from $8,000 to $12,000 for a two-hour feature film. The Turner movies
cost an estimated $3,500 per hour. Description for television programs has dropped from $4,000
per hour to $3,400 per hour. These are costs incurred long after a production has been wrapped.
Interestingly, the Kaleidoscope service, which does not use SAP but produces open video
description heard by all, claims costs for description are negligible because they are factored into
the normal production budget. Clearly, costs increase when it is necessary to rework or adapt to
that which is already done. At this point the typical procedure for creating description is to select
a project, negotiate with the producers, time, script and record the description, and ultimately add
it to a sound mix of the project's sound track.
1
Much of this material was contributed by Stephen Kline. Mr. Kline was born December
17, 1945 in Iselin, N.J. and attended Penn State University for three years and was graduated
from the University of Oregon with a B.A. in journalism. During his 17-year career as a producer
and comedy and dramatic writer, he wrote numerous episodes for shows ranging from "Lou
Grant" to the "Cosby Show." In addition he was on the production staff for "Lou Grant."
When a producer agrees to support the DVS process, the costs are borne by aftermarket budgets,
such as home video marketing. A feature may cost $25 million, but its marketing budget as part of
a package may be only $100,000 to $150,000. In this context, the budget for description
represents a significant percentage of the producer's overall video marketing budget. To a
significant degree, the cost of descriptive video depends upon where in the process it occurs. The
key is not really the cost, but if you will, the location of the journal entry. It would be more5
seamless and less costly if the description were included as part of the normal production budget,
where it more appropriately belongs. In this way, as part of work in the sound lab, descriptive
video could be integrated as part of the post-production routine. Utilizing description at this stage
of the process has a number of advantages. First, the producers and creative team maintain far
more creative control over the final described product, ensuring that it best conforms to their
artistic sensibilities. As part of the production budget, the cost for description is viewed in a more
accurate context. A $12,000 description bill for a $12 million film amounts to one tenth of 1
percent of the overall project cost. While $12,000 represents the upper end of the descriptive
budget -- which remains something of a constant -- $12 million is in the bargain basement of
today's typical Hollywood budget. As a percentage of costs for feature films, then, description
represents a shrinking portion of the overall budget, perhaps 3 tenths of 1 percent for a $30
million film.
There is also evidence to suggest that economies are possible, even likely when description is
integrated into the normal post-production routine. Costly time for studios and technicians does
not have to be booked separately. The existing script is another source of cost-saving potential, as
it already includes much description from the screenwriter. The script, of course, is intended for a
reading audience, and provides through carefully written word descriptions, the kinds of sounds
and images the writer intends, in order to bring the project to life in the minds of the producers,
director, cast and crew.
Although usable description may vary from project to project, we anticipate that a significant
percentage of writing, originally done for screen direction by the screen writer, can further be
used for video description purposes, with little or no modification or sacrifice. In addition, once
aware of its added value as video description, television producers may easily plan to expand
description in the overall writing procedure, if necessary, to more accurately convey their creative
vision to those with visual disabilities. When producers realize that description is a required,
inherent part of the overall production process, parts of that process will undoubtedly be changed
to anticipate the video description requirement. It seems also quite certain that once description is
mandated by the FCC, companies will compete in the market for the added business. Other
producers will no doubt try to control at least some of the costs and creative process themselves.
Technology Issues
While we question the degree of hardship created by costs absorbed by broadcasters to become
SAP capable, we agree that initial requirements for video description should focus on larger
broadcasters and markets. This should not, however, absolve smaller stations from a requirement
to make a small modest investment in SAP transmission technology in order to better
accommodate special needs audiences (including Hispanic population). It is likely, even probable,
that the top 50 markets already have SAP capability. In an era when even small television stations
sell for staggering amounts, it seems curious to hear broadcasters concerned about SAP fees
which are less than $50,000. History shows that the studios and networks have proven remarkably
flexible as they adapt their libraries for television, beta, VHS, laser and now DVD.
Competing Uses of SAP Technology6
There has also been voiced concern about "competing" needs for SAP channels, especially with
regard to the Hispanic market. It is certainly true that the Hispanic market is enormous, and
growing, both in political and economic terms. Interestingly, however, the needs of the Hispanic
and visually impaired markets rarely overlap, and never to the degree where exclusion is a viable
alternative. Most general broadcast programs using the SAP channel for Spanish language
broadcasts tend to be live-action events, such as sports programming, awards shows, etc. Much
of the Hispanic format used in these instances is a simulcast with an existing Spanish language
radio broadcast. The visually impaired community is less dependent upon these forms of
programming, as viable alternatives already exist in the form of radio broadcasts. And in many
instances involving local sports, sighted viewers even prefer to watch television coverage of an
event while listening to the more popular local radio announcers. HBO has noted that perhaps as
much as 95 percent of its films are available with Spanish language alternatives via SAP. This
impressive commitment would have little impact or bearing on the visually impaired market and
their needs. For HBO, like PBS, relies on multiple airings of programs. It would be a relatively
simplex matter to schedule alternating presentations of SAP for Hispanic and Visually Impaired
markets.
Cost of Video Description
Closed captioning costs from $800 to $2500 per hour. Industry analysts generally concede that
video description in general costs 50 percent more than captioning. To a great extent, however,
this comparison is bogus because of the economies of scale enjoyed by captioning vs. the current
limited use of description on public television and a few home videos. Description today is indeed
an infant technology as compared to captioning. The cost of description could be readily absorbed
into the framework of ballooning production budgets with little impact on broadcasters or the
production and post-production studios. It is important to note that since WGBH introduced
descriptive video, more than a decade ago, not a single network broadcaster or major studio has
produced a single hour of descriptive programming voluntarily. It is more than a bit ingenuous,
then, for industry detractors to question the costs of description without ever having participated
in the process. As indicated above, there appear to be possible a number of areas of savings
possible through economies of scale and production efficiencies. It seems unlikely, as well, that
copyright issues should be more than a minor factor, as the producing entities also control the
copyright of their products.
Mandated Requirement for Described Programming
The DVS service of WGBH has described some 1600 PBS programs - less than 1 percent of all
programming. Not a single hour of television programming has ever included description
voluntarily by any network. Only Turner, in fact, has voluntarily embarked on a program to adapt
its impressive film library with description. It is clear that expecting a voluntary wave of industry
cooperation is not likely to materialize soon. We feel it would be more appropriate to try to work
within the industry's own challenges and limitations. It may not be appropriate, for example, to
require description of "test" products such as series pilots and short orders. These productions
maintain the highest possible costs at the greatest possible risks. It could be more judicious for a
network and studio to focus on describing "proven" products, such as already popular series.
Each network should be required to ensure description of the top 20 percent of its series7
programs, including dramas and comedies and children's programs with an additional 20 percent
of programming brought into compliance over a total of five years. With respect to so-called
"long-form" programs which typically bear higher production costs and longer lead times, we
recommend that any long-form production started 12 months after the Commission adopts its rule
must include description. This timetable gives the production entities ample time to plan, schedule
and budget description as a factor. In these productions, costs for description are almost certainly
one of the smallest line items in the budget. With respect to feature releases on the rental or
network sales after-market, a special rule should apply. Currently the studios realize the majority
of their revenues - some 56 percent--as the result of rentals through such entities as Hollywood
Video and Blockbuster. Another significant source of revenue remains the aftermarket sale of
films singly or in packages to broadcasters. Accordingly, any feature film released 18 months
following adoption of the Commission's rule may not be eligible for broadcast in any form unless
it includes description. With respect to long-form programming, The FCC minimum hourly
requirements should not apply to this type of programming (including movies of the week,
miniseries, and feature films). These forms of programming are accorded larger production
budgets, expanded schedules and guaranteed air times with promotion. To permit these to be
included in the basic minimum hourly programming would risk the possibility of a station
satisfying much or all of its minimum requirement through long-form programming.
There may be some who are concerned that the FCC may be establishing policy for an industry
not normally viewed as under its jurisdiction. The facts suggest otherwise, however, for virtually
every product of the studios is destined at some point for sale to television. For the studios to
suggest otherwise would run counter to their long established procedures for recouping costs and
maximizing profits through sales of packages to networks. Our recommendations takes into
consideration film production schedules and ensures that none would face "unexpected"
description costs, or costs incurred after budgets and schedules are negotiated and set. With
feature films today often costing upwards of $25 million, and even conceding the highest cost for
description (with no allowance for potential economies of scale), description represents less than
five one-hundredths of one percent of the budget. As one industry insider observed, asking for
anonymity: "We probably spill more than that." Indeed, such numbers would rank well below
catering costs for coffee and donuts.
In summary: Our goal, as stated previously, is to encourage the commission to establish a
timetable to ensure inclusion of the millions of blind and visually impaired Americans at a rate that
is both meaningful and which addresses the industry's most pressing concerns about budgets and
scheduling. The more aggressive timetable would focus on the productions least impacted by
costs of description. Productions at the lower end of the financial spectrum--television series--could
start with the top 20 percent of each major broadcaster's schedule, adding 20 percent per
year and establishing a five-year timetable for total integration of description (for entertainment).
Such a rule, which focuses first on success, may create a gap for a one-year-only or a first-year
show. This could be easily covered by requiring that any syndicated series including 24 episodes
or more, with the first episode produced (wrapped) after June, 2001, may not be aired or rerun on
any broadcast station unless the product includes description. Note that such a provision ensures
that the product must include description, but allows a (temporary) loophole for those smaller
stations needing time to include the technology for broadcasting such description. By adopting8
these or similar rules we feel people who are blind or visually impaired will achieve greater access
to television programming with the least detrimental impact on broadcasters and producers.
Feasibility
If we adopt a more ambitious schedule for description, is it feasible? Some critics have suggested
that there are not enough professionals capable of adapting that much product. WGBH, the
pioneer in this technology, notes that given the FCC''s likely timetable, they feel confident they
could "ramp up" to meet much if not all of the potential increased demand. This is just one
production entity. It is extremely likely that some companies will try to do at least a portion of the
descriptive process in-house, or as part of the normal production and post-production process. In
addition, we already have indications that new services are likely to arise and compete in the
marketplace. The technology is not really a factor, as the process uses the same technology which
is already an inherent part of the post-production process for any comedy, dramatic series, movie
of the week or motion picture. Rather than breaking new ground, we are asking the industry to
simply adapt its existing technology and procedures in much the same way WGBH has done for
years.
Enforcement
An enforcement framework and procedure should be established subjecting noncompliant stations
to economic redress and potential loss of license.
Conclusion
The American Foundation for the Blind appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
Commission proposed rule and believes that our recommendations balance the competing
interests of greater access for people who are blind or visually impaired with the interests of the
industry. Please contact the undersigned for additional information or if we may be of service in
any way.
Respectfully Submitted
Alan Dinsmore
Governmental Relations Representative
February 23, 2000