Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

REPORT
of

The National Coalition of Blind and Visually Impaired Persons
for Increased Video Access

Report and Proposals of

The National Coalition of Blind and Visually-Impaired Persons

For Increased Video Programming Accessability

Introduction

A Short History of Video Description

Mandates Are Necessary

Need for Commission Action

Basis for FCC Mandate

Broadcasting

Non-broadcast radio licensee

Non-radio video distributors

Phase-In of Requirement Over Reasonable Seven Year Timeframe

Primetime

Children's Programming

Additional Programming

Public Safety Messages

Analog vs. Digital

Copyright Issues

Quality of Descriptions

Technical Issues

Issues Related to Transmission and Reception of Video Description

The SAP Channel

Open Description

Simultaneous Radio

Issues Related to In-Plant Routing and Distribution Encoding

In-Plant Routing

Satellite Distribution

Issues Related to the Future of Television Broadcast and Distribution

APPENDIX

Dr. Margaret Pfanstiehl, Donald J. Evans, Dr. Barry Cronin

Organizations comprising the National Coalition of Blind and Visually Impaired Persons For Increased Video Programming Accessability.
Information from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, London, U.K.23 October 1996
The European Audetel Project
IV. Audio Description and Digital Television
Audio Description in Germany - Bavaria Taking the Lead
VI. World Blind Union Resolution - Access to Digital Television

INTRODUCTION

Margaret R. Pfanstiehl, Ed.D

Donald J. Evans

In its Report in MM Docket No. 95-176, issued last summer, the Commission responded to a Congressional mandate to study the advisability and prospects of making video programming accessible to the blind and visually-impaired. The Commission was required to "assess appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition for programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deems appropriate." 47 U.S.C. Sec.713 (f).

The Commission's Report in large measure declared itself at a loss to propose any of the methods, schedules, standards or definitions that Congress sought. Rather, the Commission invited members of the blind community and affected video providers to submit further information as a basis for the next step toward implementation of video description in this country. Report at Para. 24.

In the months since the Report was issued, the visually impaired and blind community has recognized the need to develop specific proposals which are both practical and acceptable to the broad spectrum of people and organizations involved. To this end, a Coalition of seventeen leading organizations of and for the blind and senior citizens was formed. The Coalition, acting under the chairwomanship of Dr. Margaret Pfanstiehl (an Emmy award winner for her pioneering work in the video description field), has elicited comments, support and suggestions of the blind community. The 17 organizations in the Coalition are listed in the Appendix. Together, these entities represent millions of blind and visually impaired persons, as well as the family members and others who live and work with them.

The urgency for action here in the United States has been underscored by recent developments in the United Kingdom. There legislation has been adopted mandating video description on a phased-in, common sense basis similar to the plan outlined below. Although the television delivery system in the U.K. differs in some technical respects from that employed here, the British model serves as a powerful reminder that the technical and financial cavils which have delayed the broader availability of described programming in this country can be overcome. The United States should not fall behind other industrialized nations in delivering the most basic information services to its people.

In addition to incorporating a broad range of views from the blind community on the specifics of implementing description on a broad scale, the Coalition has also reached out to key segments of the video production and delivery industry, including major feature film and television producers, home video distributors, public broadcasting entities, and non-traditional wired video distributors such as local exchange carriers. The objective was to take into account the practical and technical difficulties involved in making wide-spread delivery of described programming a reality. While we cannot report that we have achieved consensus with Hollywood on mandating described programming, useful meetings have been held which have at least helped each side to understand the problems and concerns of the other. In formulating the proposals set forth below, the Coalition has taken into account these discussions.

At a minimum, we believe that there is now a universal agreement that described programming is desired and needed by a segment of the American public that is anywhere from 10 to 25 million people strong, a segment which to date has been denied full access to the most dominant medium in American culture. The remaining question is how and under what circumstances that access should be ensured. For the moment, Congress has left it to the FCC to develop an implementing plan to accomplish that goal. The following proposals represent concrete steps which can be taken immediately to that end:

1. Described programming must be mandated for all video delivery systems over which the FCC has jurisdiction (broadcasting, cable, open video systems, MMDS, DBS, and any other delivery systems through which video is mass- distributed).

2. The mandatory provision of described programs must be phased in on a reasonable seven year schedule that takes into account both the present and projected capacity to produce described versions of programs and the high priority need for described programming for children..

3. Existing statutory and Regulatory guidelines for undue burden would be utilized to exempt appropriate categories of video programs from mandatory description.

4. An audible signal should be mandated to alert blind members of the video audience to critical public health and safety bulletins which are now presented only in-video format.

5. The quality of video descriptions must be maintained so that the benefits of described programming are not lost through shoddy or inadequate descriptions which meet the letter of the law but fail to illuminate.

6. Issues regarding the technical facilities needed to distribute described video must be resolved. The basis for each of these proposals will be set forth in greater detail below. The attached Appendix includes biographical information on the authors of this Proposal, a list of participating Coalition members and information regarding the mandatory description program which has been initiated in the United Kingdom.

A Short History of Video Description

Video description (sometimes also referred to as audio description) refers to a means of making television, movies (particularly on home video), and other video programming accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. It consists of verbal (audio) descriptions of key visual elements which are inserted into natural pauses in the program's dialogue, without interfering with the original audio of a program or movie. The narration enhances understanding and enjoyment of a video program by providing verbal descriptions of essential visual elements such as settings, action, comparative size, gestures, body language, scene changes, graphics, subtitles and costumes. The verbal descriptions are permanently encoded and can be delivered as a separate audio component interspersed within pauses in the program's dialogue. To receive video described PBS programs on television, a viewer must have a stereo TV or a stereo VCR that includes the Second Audio Program (SAP) feature, standard on most newer stereo televisions and video cassette recorders. Inexpensive receiver that allow the SAP channel to be heard can also be purchased. The process is entirely invisible to viewers who do not choose to monitor the aural supplement.

The ancestor of what we now know as video description was born in 1981 when The Metropolitan Washington Ear, a radio reading service for the blind which operates in the Washington, DC area, developed "audio description" in connection with theatrical productions at Arena Stage and then other theaters in the Washington area. The FCC was extremely helpful in getting that initial service off the ground since experimental authority was needed to transmit the descriptions to special receivers worn by blind members of the theater audience. With the Commission's timely cooperation, that single project became the model for described theater and opera productions in scores of cities and literally hundreds of stage-theaters across the Untied States. Until the audio descriptions were actually made available to audiences of blind and visually impaired persons, very few suspected the degree to which such a service was essential to full access to the living theater. The creators of the concept were surprised at the degree to which people who are not legally blind but who have difficulty seeing also have been able to make very effective use of the service.

The description of pre-produced video material became a reality on a very limited basis in 1982. Described television began regularly scheduled service in 1988. Yet after nine years there are only seven weekly described series on PBS and a few classic movies and classic series are available each week on the Nostalgia and Turner cable networks. Commercial broadcast networks provide no access at all. WGBH Educational Foundation, one of the principal providers of video description services, began exploring the technique in 1985. It created Descriptive Video Service (DVS) in 1988. DVS was launched nationally in 1990. DVS is carried by 139 PBS stations reaching 75% of U.S. households. DVS Home Video, started in 1991 with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, now has 145 titles.⁽¹⁾

With the exception of the above, there has been no progress as a result of voluntary efforts. Description access remains only a sample service.

Video description did not flourish as did closed captioning because the Federal government did not fund start-up costs and does not continue annual contributions to the extent allotted to closed captioning. Closed captioning was launched with $7 to $8 million and now receives some $13 million annually compared to video description's $850,000 for starters and $1.5 million annually. We believe that only mandatory description (as with mandatory closed captioning) will guarantee increased access for people who have little or no vision. This would prime the pump for video description for the waiting market of millions.

The most natural and most economical way for described versions of video productions to be created is at the source. It has generally been agreed that a described track for a video program can be produced for about $2,000 -$4,000 per program hour. To date, most described programming has been created as a post-production process in which the description is added on to what was already a finished product. We anticipate that eventually the addition of the video description will become part of the normal post-production process of making a film or television show, much like the credits. In the overall budget of a feature film or television program (which normally reaches well into the millions of dollars), the cost of video description will be in the noise level, a budget item ranking next to coffee and sandwiches for the crew. In this context, the cost of describing newly produced works is virtually negligible.

While the FCC has no direct Jurisdiction over program producers, we anticipate that the mandates we propose here will be indirectly imposed on the producers by the downstream entities who would be required to describe the programs they distribute. Thus, for example, if broadcast television stations are required to transmit a certain percentage of their programs with description, the networks who order the production of the programs will simply require the program producers to deliver them with video descriptions included. The producers will have no direct mandate to produce described features, but since their prime target market will demand this service, it will be provided voluntarily in order to meet the demands of the market. The process would be similar to the production of "edited for television" versions of motion pictures the producers recognize that the decency restrictions applicable to television broadcasts are different from those applicable to theatrical releases. In order to avoid being frozen out of the secondary television market, therefore, movie producers gladly produce an edited version which meets broadcast television standards. The exact same process is likely to work here, to the benefit of all.

Of course, once the described version of a program is created, it will be available for all purposes - home video release, cable, even perhaps theatrical screenings using equipment similar to that used now for audio description of live dramatic productions. The process first initiated 15 years ago in a single theater in Washington, D.C. will then have come full circle, sweeping the video world into its embrace along the way.

B. Mandates Are Necessary

Over the last year and a half, representatives of the Coalition have had a number of meetings, under the auspices of MPAA, with members of the Hollywood video production community. While the video producers have generally been sympathetic to the circumstances of the blind and visually impaired, they have, for the most part, been unwilling to commit themselves to add descriptions to their features. The problem seems to be that the blind and visually impaired are largely an invisible market. Our needs, our numbers and our buying power (go largely unrecognized because we do not fit into any easily segregable market niche. Because the market for described video programming, is difficult to measure, the producers are unwilling to commit even the relatively tiny amounts of capital needed to describe new motion picture and television shows. We therefore view the imposition of mandates as a necessary priming of the pump.

As with anti-discrimination laws, environmental laws, and energy conservation laws, a mandate which was imposed because it was good later came to be recognized as good business as well. As noted above, no one suspected how many people who are not blind but who simply have difficulty seeing would benefit by described theatrical productions. As the American population ages, we anticipate that there will many millions of people who are sighted in the technical sense but who will want and need described programming as their vision deteriorates. In order to get to that point, however, it is essential that the Commission use its authority to require video description.

1. Need for Commission Action. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress chose not to mandate the provision of video description itself but rather to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commission. As the Commission noted in its Report, however, Congress stated that its goal in enacting Section 713 of the Act was "to ensure that all Americans ultimately have access to video programs and services. . ." H.R. Conf Report 104-458 (1996) at 183 (Emph. added). The marketplace has adopted a wait and see approach, and if that approach is tolerated, video programming access may never become a reality, True accessibility of video programming to the blind, therefore, cannot be ensured by anything less than a strong, federal mandate.

2. Basis for FCC Mandate. The authority for FCC action in this field is found in the most fundamental well-springs of the mandate issued by Congress in 1934. The very purpose of the creation of the Commission was "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service. . . " 47 U.S.C. 151 (Emph. add) The Commission and the Courts have returned again and again to this basic mandate when examining the Commission's role in cable television regulation⁽²⁾ and other services.⁽³⁾ Not only the Communications Act, but the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") charges the Commission with responsibility for ending discrimination. As the Commission stated, "The ADA's purpose is to provide a clear national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to ensure that federal entities such as[the] Commission play a central role in enforcing the standards established in the ADA on behalf of individuals with disabilities." In the Matter of Telecommunications Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 56 FR 36729 (1991). This charge embraces all of the Commission's regulatory activities, but radio facilities licensed by the Commission are also subject to the "public interest" standard; this represents an independent basis for Commission action. 47 U. S. C. Section 309.

(a) Broadcasting. The Commission's authority to require broadcast licensees to transmit described programming can be approached from several different perspectives. First, as we have noted, the licensing of broadcast stations is subject to the public interest standard. The Commission could, and should, specifically find that it is the policy of the United States that video media should be fully accessible to ail persons. Such a finding would be consistent not only with the purpose expressed specifically in the legislative history of Section 713 of the 1996 Telecom Act, supra, but also in the national purpose expressed in the ADA and affirmed by the Commission many times since Community Television of Southern California v. Gottfried, 459 U.S. 498, 3 RR 2d 271 (1983). As was stated in Gottfried, ". . . [T]he public interest would be served by making television broadcasting more available and more understandable to the substantial portion of our population that is handicapped..." Id at 276.

Since video description is necessary to make TV fully accessible to the blind, the Commission could follow the Children's Television model of encouraged but not mandated programming: it would ordain that broadcasters who meet the timetable set forth below for minimum described programming will be afforded a safe harbor at renewal time. This approach maximizes the discretion of broadcasters but is less satisfactory from the standpoint of the visually impaired since it does not ensure that described programming will be provided.

A second, more direct, approach would be to adopt a definition of "broadcasting," which explicitly embraces service to the visually impaired. By its very nature, a "broadcast" service implies and requires service which is generally accessible to the populace at large. Systematic exclusion of a sizeable segment of the American public by not describing the programming is not broadcasting in the truest sense. Because a broadcast license is issued for the purpose of broadcasting, a licensee would have to meet the Commission's definition of broadcasting in order to be using its license in compliance with the broadcast rules. The Commission could simply define television broadcasting to include the transmission of sufficient aural information to make the visual elements of broadcast programming accessible to the visually impaired. Regulations phasing in the description mandate, identifying exclusions, etc. would clarify the extent of this broadcast obligation.

(b) Non-broadcast radio licensee. Under the public interest standard identified above, all radio licensees could also be directed to require that video programming ultimately intended for reception by the public be described. This would sweep DBS licensees, cable operators who license their headends and CARS facilities, MMDS and LMDS operators, in to the Commission's jurisdictional net.

(c) Non-radio video distributors. The case for Commission authority over non-radio segments of the communications world is found in two distinct sources. First, there 'is precedent in the Commission's regulatory authority over cable television. It will be recalled that the Commission's authority to regulate cable TV was challenged in the early '60s. The Supreme Court ultimately sustained the Commission's Jurisdiction under the rubric of United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). That case presumed that the Commission had no radio licensing authority over cable but the Court found Jurisdiction nevertheless. This authority has formed the basis for the Commission's imposition of EEO, public access, must-carry, and fairness obligations on non-cable entities, all predicated on the Commission's "obligation of providing a widely dispersed radio and television service,"⁽⁴⁾ with a "fair, efficient, and equitable distribution" of service. 47 USC 307(b).

Section 255 of the Telecom Act of 1996 squarely imposes an obligation on all providers of telecommunications services to make their services accessible to the disabled. "Telecommunications services" are the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used." 47 U.S.C. Section 153(46). This definition is clearly broad enough to encompass cable television operators, video on demand providers, and even common carriers which transmit video programming for distribution by broadcasters.⁽⁵⁾ Video on demand offered by telephone companies will be an especially important source of described video material because it eliminates the need to travel to and from a video store often an obstacle for the visually impaired. Given a finding of a broad public interest in making video programming accessible to the blind, the Commission should have no difficulty asserting its authority to mandate described programming over all mass media video distributors who are otherwise subject to its jurisdiction.⁽⁶⁾

C. Phase-In of Requirement Over Reasonable Seven Year Timeframe

a. Primetime

One of the key issues which must be addressed in connection with mandatory descriptions is the schedule within which such descriptions would have to be provided. While there are some differences in the complexity of effort required to describe a program (as opposed to closed-captioning it), we believe that the implementation time frame applicable to closed captioning presents a useful model for this service as well. It took about eight years for all prime-time⁽⁷⁾television programming to be closed-captioned. We therefore propose that video description of prime-time programming be phased in over a seven year period. Commencing no later than the fall of 1998, broadcasters would be required to have at least four hours a week of described prime time programming. An additional three hours a week should be added each year for six years until all 22 hours of prime time (excluding live news broadcasts) are described. Of course, once a program has been described, there is no additional cost or burden involved in airing the described version in subsequent non-prime time showings or in syndication. Hence, any such airings of a previously described program would have to be in the described format. Similarly, the Commission should require all new "A" titles in a video-on-demand library to be described, while a minimum of 100 older titles in the video library should be added per year. We believe these modest additions to the current pool of described programs are well within the capacity of the describers, distributors and programmers to absorb.

b. Children's programming. In addition to prime time programs, we believe 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 Television.⁽⁸⁾We therefore propose that within two years television broadcasters should provide the three hours per week also beginning in 1998 of educational children's programming now contemplated by the rules on a described basis.

c. Additional Programming Once the infrastructure for video description is My 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.

Some programs require more description than others. However even a very few descriptive words can make all the difference between confusion and understanding. Accordingly to a study by the AFB funded by the U.S.Department of Education, drama, documentaries, mysteries, nature and science programs have the highest priorities even when they are not aired during prime time. This is not surprising, these are heavily dependent on visual elements not accessible to low vision and blind people. Because drama programs are important candidates for description, there may, for example, be early requests For described day time soap operas. Many older visually impaired and retired people mostly confined to their homes are fans of the soaps.

We recognize that describing live shows presents more of a challenge than describing prerecorded programs. This is particularly true of news and sports events.

Sports events have a lower priority because they are often available over radio where they are narrated for everyone. But there are notable exceptions in live programming such as the inauguration of the president (successfully described in 1993 and 1997) and the Olympics (although a great many prerecorded segments could easily be described). While recognizing the challenges of live programs, we do not view it as necessary to exempt this program category for now, since live events have been successfully broadcast with descriptions.

In making the determination of which programs outside of primetime and children's programming must be described, it would be appropriate for the Commission to take into account the undue burden that might be occasioned by describing categories of programming whose nature or financing would not justify producing a described version. In order to develop a consistent standard in this area, we would suggest that the Commission use the "undue burden" criteria established by Congress for closed captioning. 47 U.S. C. Section 713 (e).

D. Public Safety Messages

The use of print messages on the TV screen to alert viewers to serious public health or safety situations is a matter of critical concern. These bulletins are typically scrolled across the video screen without any aural indicator that a weather emergency or other dire circumstance is in progress. These are totally inaccessible to low vision and blind people who then cannot learn about important or vital information. An aural tone should be required to accompany the print messages to alert blind or visually impaired people to go to a radio, or turn on the SAP or a designated digital channel where the messages are spoken. Sighted viewers who do not happen to be looking at the screen would also benefit from the service.

E. Analog vs. Digital

One of the issues that was addressed in the comments in MM Docket 95-176 was whether video description should await the advent of digital television or be implemented immediately. The technical section discusses these issues in more detail. Since many people in the television field believe that it could be at least five years before the commercial networks have converted to digital systems, we strongly believe that the low vision and blind audience should not have to wait for described programming until this occurs.

Perhaps the networks could be motivated to make the switch sooner if there were a positive incentive coupled with the requirement to begin carrying described programs. Also, PBS has the capacity (for a fee) to become an interim technical provider by transmitting programs in digital form to commercial network affiliates. Local television stations, if they have converters, can air analog versions of programs originally received in digital form until they become digitally equipped. During the interim before networks and/or local stations have completed the transition to digital the SAP channel should continue to be the standard for transmitting descriptions.

Description accessibility via the SAP channel must expand as quickly as possible, be it digital or analog or both. Low vision and blind consumers and their families hope that their local stations will continue to air programs in analog for at least the next several years so they won't immediately have to purchase expensive new television sets to hear description.

F. Copyright Issues

Under the regulatory scheme we propose here, we anticipate no difficulties with copyright protections of the original rights holders in the works to be described. To date, 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. We would expect that in the future copyright holders will continue to want to make their works accessible to the blind and, since their prime market will require descriptions to be added, any profitable licensing of broadcast or other use of non-described programming will be impaired. Thus, the market itself will serve to authorize appropriate copyright permissions.

G. Quality of Descriptions

Though descriptions are derivatives of the original programs, unfortunately there is wide scope for creating, poor descriptions even if the programs themselves are excellent. There are legitimate differences of opinion as to whether a description is poor or good. But there are also generally accepted basic criteria to measure the effectiveness of any description.

Good writing includes good editing. This is certainly true for descriptions. Editing costs money. When descriptions are required in greater volume than today, and when they are produced by new organizations which will spring up as business becomes available, there will be great temptation to economize by accepting hastily written, inadequate and ineffective work.

This can result in long silent intervals with little or no descriptions, impoverished vocabulary, repetitive and cliche phrases, and inaccurate or no identification of settings, objects, costumes, etc. Also, descriptions may be narrated by an unclear voice or in a monotonous monotone. Or a narrator might constantly step on program dialog.

Low vision and blind individuals would probably have little effect if they complain to program producers who may well say that if people don't like the descriptions they don't have to listen to them.

In a parallel situation the deaf community is concerned about poor quality captioning. This is among many tough questions to solve. However, objective criteria can be crafted.

We hope that producers and distributors will want their descriptions to match the quality of their productions. Perhaps the FCC might encourage the private sector to create an advisory body -- a group of fixed-term qualified knowledgeable blind and low vision consumers and professional consultants from established description producing organizations. The group would set minimum standards, maintain a list of description providers of acceptable quality and endeavor to improve the work of others.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

Barry J. Cronin

Since video description is currently being delivered to consumers on broadcast television, through satellite, and on cable, it can be said that there really are no barriers to the delivery of video description to consumers. Rather, current and emerging technologies (digital television) offer better opportunities for video description to expand coverage and increase ease of accessibility, (along with providing a host of other new services such as foreign language tracks, local weather and traffic updates, etc.)
In almost every instance, broadcasters, network administrators, and producers have cited the technology or lack thereof, as a reason for not delivering or carrying video description. But in every case, the issue was cost of delivery, not the lack of technological solutions. It is also clear that the cost of technology declines with widespread use. It is reasonable to expect then, that the costs of delivering and distributing video description will decline rather than increase regardless of the technology in use.

When referring to the technical issues of video description, discussion must be divided into two distinct areas: transmission and reception, and in-plant routing and distribution. Both areas are critical to the ultimate delivery of described programming but they represent distinctly separate technical issues and solutions.

The following discussion addresses the current and potential technologies by which video description can be delivered to consumers and distributed "in-plant."

A Issues Related to Transmission and Reception of Video Descriotion

Currently, there are two major methods of deliverina video description to consumers: SAP and Open Description. A third method, a radio-only version, does not include the video pictures which are important for partially sighted audiences, and so is not true video description.

The SAP Channel. PBS and Turner Classic Movies currently distribute described programming over the SAP channel of the MTS system. All stereo television receivers 13 " or greater and most stereo VCRs can receive the SAP channel. As new stereo televisions penetrate the consumer market, this technology emerges as a reasonable choice for delivering described programs to consumers.

The major pros to the use of the SAP channel include:

Readily available consumer technology

Expanding local and network capability to handle the SAP signal

The major cons that inhibit the use of SAP for video description include:

Only one SAP channel is available per broadcast channel at present, broadcasters must choose which service (such as Spanish soundtracks, Video description, Director's Notes, Traffic Reports, etc.) to run.

At this time a limited number of local stations equipped to transmit SAP, although this is changing.

We Recommend the following:

The growing base of television receivers capable of receiving SAP along with the increasing ability of stations to transmit at least stereo, if not SAP, provide the basis for mandalting that video description be made available on a rapidly increasing scale. There is no sound reason to wait for new, digital, technology.

PBS and others have demonstrated that SAP encoded description can be transmitted to stations via current satellite-based systems.

Local station investments in SAP inserters are relatively inexpensive ($600 - $1200), existing, " off-the- shelf' equipment. At least for delivery of national programming, stations need to make minimal investments in the technology.

Open Description. This requires no special receiver technology and is currently being employed by the Narrative Television Network through the Nostalgia and other cable channels. This service has gained acceptance in spite of the fact that the descriptions are heard by all viewers. Open descriptions are also used for home video distribution of current Hollywood movies.

The major pros for this service include:

No investment in technology is required either by sender or receiver. Video Description reaches wider audiences Including elderly, low vision people and broadens the potential of the service by exposing it to non-visually impaired audiences.

The major con for this service include:

Everyone must listen to the desciptions; it is not selectable as needed.

We Recommend the following:

Lack of ability to turn descriptions on or off is a serious drawback and should not be mandated.

Use of open descriptions, however, is an Inexpensive alternative which should be encouraged Particularly in cable and other services that regularly repeat programming. A percentage of that repeat programming with open desciptions is likely to attract new audiences rather than diminish existing numbers of viewers.

Simultaneous Radio. Some blind and visually impaired people in large communities have access to Radio Reading Services which provide daily readings of local and national newspapers and magazines. These services utilize FM subcarriers to deliver their signal to special receivers. Some Radio Reading Services broadcast only the audio portion of described TV programs.

This employs an existing network designed specifically to serve the needs of blind and visually impaired people and is inexpensive to distribute and transmit. However, the description may not be transmitted simultaneously with the television broadcast or cablecast. This, in turn, excludes any benefits that description provides for low vision people as well as opportunities for family viewing where the viewing audience contains both sighted and blind people. Also, this pre-empts normal radio reading service programming. As described television programming increases or when more than one described program is available at the same time, radio reading services may not be able to provided simultaneous or even delayed broadcast of described program audio.

Finally, radio reading services are not growing particularly as new technologies are emerging (text to speech, dial-in, etc.) to provide access to print. The use of such services cannot be considered a viable delivery system for video description.

B. Issues Related to In-Plant Routinq and Distribution

This section discusses issues related to the distribution of a described audio track within the network or program master control center, its transmission to affiliate stations and cable headends, and its routing and distribution at the local level prior to transmission to the consumer.

Encoding. Typically, a video description track is encoded in the master control facility that holds the broadcast- master videotape. To encode video description, unlike closed captioning, the mixed program and description soundtrack must be laid down on an available audio track on the program master tape. Current professional videotape equipment provides bandwidth for two audio tracks and a time-code track. In order to preserve the regular program audio in stereo, the description track must replace the track normally used for time-code. PBS has been using this system successfully for five years or more and has reported no transmission related problems. It is a proven technique. Time-code is not needed for broadcast. It uses existing technology. No special encoding equipment is needed.

However, time-code is wiped out. If the program master requires editing, the description track is lost and must be re-encoded. The description track is not tied to time-code and must be synchronized at the beginning of each encoding session. It is time consuming and not automatic. As discussed, the system works and can be utilized by any program supplier (network, master control, etc.) with appropriate scheduling and plan as evidenced by PBS's continued use of the technique. In the current analog-based video system, other encoding methods can be utilized, including routing systems that can regenerate time-code on the fly thereby preserving the videotape's ability to be easily edited when necessary. Re-encoding does not require new or specialized equipment. Once encoded, the videotape can be readily duplicated.

In-Plant Routing. Once a master videotape is prepared for broadcast, encoded with closed captioning data and video description track it must be able to be routed electronically throughout a master control suite. In the past, networks particularly, have indicated that the costs of adding sufficient audio lines to handle the distribution of a single, additional soundtrack would be prohibitive. This negative response was based more on cost than the need for any new technical solutions. Additional audio lines are standard and easily implemented at a much reduced cost when an entire plant is being upgraded. At the time the networks surfaced this issue, 1990 the networks and other distribution facilities had not upgraded to stereo. Six years later has seen significant increase in stereo capability and plant capacity, especially as these facilities upgrade to digital routing for inhouse distribution only. You see this imprint every evening when you see the logo promoting stereo.

It is reasonable to expect that the additional capabilities are now in place at least at the major network operations centers. Local stations may lag behind but do not represent sufficient reason to delay the wider introduction of video description on. television.

Satellite Distribution. Distribution of programming to local stations and/or cable MSO's is typically and almost universally done via satellite. Current satellite systems may have some limitations on bandwidth limiting the amount of additional audio information that may be transmitted with a program. It is unlikely that these limitations would affect the distribution of one additional soundtrack such as video description or Spanish. Only when a program supplier wishes to distribute both Spanish and Video description would this limitation emerge. In cases where this may be true, multiple feeds of the program would resolve the bottleneck until sufficient bandwidth on both videotape and satellite transponders was available.

Since current technologies permit only one additional (or SAP) channel of audio beyond stereo, multiple satellite feeds of the program would be necessary. Again, this is not a technological issues so much as a cost issue. There simply is not technological impediment to the transmission of a third audio track.

C. Issues Related to the Future of Television Broadcast and Distribution

The FCC's recent approval of a Digital Television Standard moves up the timetable for the implementation of a new television system. Reports indicate that new receivers and digital transmissions could begin as early as 1998. A number of broadcasters and program providers had urged that the FCC wait until digital television is approved before addressing video description requirements, citing the increased capability of that standard to carry multiple soundtracks as well as other information services.

That time has now arrived. While there are currently no real barriers to the implementation of video description, Digital Television standards now make it imperative that the FCC act now to insure that space is reserved for this service.

The phase-in of described programming should begin as soon as possible to begin to build up an inventory of accessible programming regardless of the issues, analog or digital.

This discussion of the technical issues related to the implementation of Video description has been drawn from numerous documents and comments already filed with the Federal Communications Commission (MM Docket No. 95-176 FCC 95-484).

MARGARET ROCKWELL PFANSTIEHL, Ed.D.

Dr. Margaret Pfanstiehl is a pioneer and innovator in creating accessibility to printed materials, theater and television productions, museums and exhibits for blind and low vision individuals.

In 1991 she created the first telephone dial-in newspaper and magazine service in the eastern U.S. The free service enables blind and low vision people throughout Maryland, Virginia and the D.C. to browse -- to skip and scan selected daily newspapers and magazines from any telephones any time of the day or night.

In 1990 the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences awarded her an Emmy for "Leadership and persistence in the development and implementation of television for the visually impaired".

In 1985 the Washington D.C. theater community honored her with the first Helen Hayes Humanitarian Award for making live theater accessible to visually limited patrons.

Also in 1985 she was the first to produce an atlas in braille, raise d line, and large type accompanied by audio commentary on cassettes. It is the first such arias of an entire state -- Maryland.

The Washingtonian Magazine named Dr. Pfanstiehl a "Washingtonian of the year" for 1982.

Reading print for the visually handicapped

Dr. Pfanstiehl established the non-profit Metropolitan Washington Ear radio reading service in 1974. The first in the National Capital area and the fifth such service in the world, it operates 14 hours a day.

For blind, visually limited and handicapped people who can not effectively read print, volunteers, drawn from a pool of 350, read daily and weekly newspapers for the closed-circuit radio station and the telephone dial-in newspaper and magazine service. The radio service also includes excerpts from 100 magazines, and the full texts of best-selling books. It provides pre-tuned receivers without charge to eligible listeners in homes, hospitals, and institutions.

All services of the Metropolitan Washington Ear are free to eligible users. The non-profit organization is supported by contributions from local governments, private grants and gifts.

Audio description for low-vision theater patrons

In 1981 with Cody Pfanstiehl she founded the Metropolitan Washington Ear Audio Description Service. During theatrical performances in the area's major theaters trained volunteers describe stage scenery, lighting, costumes, body language and actions through a tiny radio earpiece to visually limited patrons seated anywhere in the audience.

The idea has spread world-wide. Described performances are available at theaters 'in many U.S. cities as well as in Australia, England, Scotland and France. She and her husband train describers in the art of audio description throughout the world.

Audio description for television

In 1982 the Pfanstiehls began to pioneer audio description for television. They trained volunteers to describe two Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) television program series to create the first TV programs accessible to low vision and blind "viewers".

In 1988, under contract to WGBH in Boston, the Pfanstiehls added descriptions to sound tracks of the "American Playhouse" series on PBS. In January 1990 they trained the first describers at the new WGBH Descriptive Video Service (DVS) for regular production of described TV programs on PBS.

Audio description for museums
In 1986 she and her husband began to apply the audio description concept to museums and exhibits to make them accessible to visually limited and blind visitors. The Pfanstiehls have trained staff and docents in the art of audio description and/or produced tape cassettes for many venues including the National Park Service, the Statue of Liberty, Castle Clinton and Ellis Island.

Audio description for films

In 1990 the Pfanstiehls were first to make big-screen IMAX and OMNIMAX films and National Park Service films accessible to visually impaired audiences.

First tactile atlas of the Washington, D.C. area

In 1981, with Prof. Joseph Wiedel of the University of Maryland, Dr. Pfanstiehl created for visually limited and blind people the first tactile and large print atlas of the Washington metropolitan area. With it she produced 11 one-hour taped radio programs, "Washington Neighborhoods: A History of Change," written specifically for blind and low vision listeners -- another first.

First tactile/large print/audio atlas of an entire state

In 1985, again with Prof. Wiedel, she produced for visually limited people Elie first atlas of an entire state -- Maryland. It includes 41 pages of Braille, raised line and large-print maps with index and descriptions of the ,geography, demography, and history of Maryland. plus four 90-mininute cassettes of verbal information. The project was part of Maryland's 350th anniversary celebration.

The Washington D.C. and Maryland atlases won certificates of merit for "outstanding achievement" from the American Cartographic Association of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.

In the mid-70's she served as treasurer and chairman of the Program Planning and Exchange committee of the Association of Radio Reading Services during its founding years.

In 1978 she received the Germaine Montiel Activist Award and in 1979 the Myrtle Wreath Achievement Award from Elie Greater Washington Chapter of Hadassah.

She married Cody Pfanstiehl on New Year's Day in 1983. Before retiring in 1982 he had been for 21 years the spokesman for the Metro public transportation rail and bus system. In 1981 he was chosen a "Washingtonian of the Year" by the Washingtonian magazine. In 1982 Dr. Pfanstiehl was chosen a "Washingtonian of the Year."

As a team, the Pfanstiehls accepted the 1983 Communications and Leadership Award from District 36 of Toastmasters International. In 1986 the Pfanstiehls were recognized by the D.C. chapter of the Retinitus Pigmentosa Foundation for their services for people who are visually impaired or blind. With her husband she is a member of the WGBH Descriptive Service Advisory Board. In June, 1987, Dr. Pfanstiehl was one of WJLA-TV's 7 Salutes Who Care" annual honorees.

Talking computers ...

Visually limited since she was a child, Dr. Pfanstiehl writes with a talking computer word processor, carries a small talking braille portable word processor, uses a talking thesaurus, dictionary, and calculator, and reads omnivorously with a small cassette player.

Johns Hopkins, Peabody, University of Maryland

Dr. Pfanstiehl was awarded the Bachelors degree from The Johns Hopkins University with a major in music at the Peabody Conservatory of Music. She was awarded Masters (1966) and Doctorate (1971) degrees in counseling and human development at the Institute for Child Study at the University of Maryland.

She has worked in public schools as a braille resource teacher for blind and visually handicapped children, as a counselor-tutor for Maryland Vocational Rehabilitation, a research associate at an institute concerned with man-machine communications for the visually handicapped, a professional marriage and family counselor at a local church, and consultant to the Montgomery County, Maryland, public school system conducting in-service training workshops for school counselors. She is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind.

A resident of the Washington D.C. area since 1940, Margaret Pfanstiehl was born Margaret Woodland on October 10, 1932 in Hilton Village,Virginia. She is the mother of one son and has three grandchildren. The Pfanstiehls live in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Curriculum Vitae

Donald J. Evans

Personal

Born in Kansas City, Mo. (1951)

Washington, DC resident since 1965

Three children

Officer and long-standing member of Mycological Association of Washington

Active in Caldwell Community (Radical-Progressive Christian community)

Education

Gonzaga College High School

Boston College, Magna cum Laude, B.A., 1973 (Presidential Scholar, Honors Program, Full Academic Scholarship)

Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1977

Professional

Evans & Sill, P.C. (Washington, DC) Principal since 1985 in boutique telecommunications law firm (formerly McFadden, Evans & Sill). Emphasis on wireless cable, broadcast licensing and transactions, cellular radio, radio common carrier and other commercial mobile radio services, international resale carriers, FCC formal complaints, administrative hearings, and microwave-based interexchange carriers. Clients range from GTE Mobilnet/ Contel Cellular to regional SMRs and RCCs to multi-station AM, FM and TV broadcasters and wireless cable licensees.

Dutton, Kappes. & Overman (Washington, DC Office of Indianapolis firm) 1982-1983. Associate in multi-faceted firm focusing on telecommunications, especially cellular radio. involved in- initial licensing of top ninety cellular markets, including major market comparative hearings. Contributed broadcast, common c arrier and wireless cable expertise and client base to start-up Washington office.

Law Offices of Leo George (Washington, DC) 1977-1982. Associate in small telecommunications boutique representing nation's largest wireless cable operator, major and small market broadcasters, MCI, major interexchange resellers, and air-to-ground radiotelephone providers.

Co-Chair for three years of Federal Communications Bar Association Adjudicatory Practice Committee

Author of "Joust in Time", published by ABA Journal and anthologized in America's Best Legal Humor.

Vita: Barry Jay Cronin, Ph.D.

Barry Cronin is a consultant on Educational Media and Technology. In that capacity he has served on the Technical Advisory Committee for the American Foundation for the Blind and has helped develop online and media applications for such companies as, Addison Wesley Longman Publishers, Nefield Publications and Colliers Multimedia Encyclopedia.

Prior to that Dr. Cronin was Editor, Children and Education, for News Corp/MCI Online Ventures. He developed online information and entertainment for children on the World Wide Web. Before joining New Corp he was Executive Director for Technology at the WGBH Educational Foundation in Boston. Having been at WGBH for I I years, he was a pioneer in developing closed captioning services for hearing impaired people as well as having created the Descriptive Video Service (DVS) which makes television and movies understandable to blind and visually impaired people and the CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media. He also established the Interactive Technology department at WGBH, developing interactive videodisks and CD-ROMs based on WGBH-produced programs such as NOVA and the American Experience.

Barry has a Ph.D. in communications from the University of Missouri and has held numerous educational positions including Academic Dean for a Boston junior college.

American Association of Retired Persons

American Council of the Blind

American Foundation for the Blind

American Library Association

Association for Education and Rehabilitation

of the Blind and Visually Impaired

Association for Macular Diseases

Blinded Veterans Association

Foundation Fighting Blindness

Gray Panthers

Macular Degeneration International

Metropolitan Washington Ear

National Association of Parents

of Visually Impaired

National Association for Visually Handicapped

National Council on the Aging

National Organization on Disability

Prevention of Blindness Society

World Institute on Disability

Coordinators:

Dr. Margaret and Cody Pfanstiehl

126 Branch Drive

Silver Spring MD 20901-2617

Phone (301) 593-0120

Pfax (301) 593-7398

RNIB

Challenging Blindness

224 Great Portland Street

London Wl N 6AA

Central Fax 0171-388 2034

Dear Margaret and Cody

Thank you for your fax of 14th October. It sounds as though you had just got back from a lovely trip.

The new broadcasting legislation that I mentioned is the 1996 Broadcasting Act. This became law in July this year and its Main Purpose is -to outline how digital terrestrial television will develop in the UK. (It does not cover satellite broadcasting, for which we do riot have any legislation.) There will be a change in the way terrestrial television operates as a two-tier system of licensing and regulating will be introduced.

As the first Stage companies will have to tender to run a multiplex. This means that a company can have a number of broadcasting companies providing material for Its overall output. There organizations will be the programme service providers. Both the multiplex owners and the programme service providers will operate under a licence issued by the Independent Television commission, which will be the regulatory body for the legislation. The ITC currently regulates commercial television in the UK (Channels 2, 4, 5, and Cable). The existing broadcasters Channels 3, 4, 5 and the BBC are guaranteed places on the multiplexes for their existing services, 'which they will run simultaneously with their analogue services. They can offer new, digital only services, if they want to widen their output.

Digital terrestrial television is expected to be available in mid-1 998 and viewers will need a special digital receiver ("set-top" box). This will connect to existing television sets to provide better quality pictures and sound, and many additional channels. in addition some, if not all, receivers will have AUDETEL capability. This is not built-in to the legislation but will come about from our discussions with broadcasters and the receiver manufacturing industry. Audio description will be carried by a sound channel. This is a considerable advantage over the AUDETEL system we had expected to adopt with our, current, analogue television system which would have used 9 teletext line. In due course digital television sets will be available but initially these will be very expensive. Analogue services will continue to run for a number of years but eventually will be switched off, This timescale has not been set but is expected to be 10-15 years after digital starts.

This Act contains a clause (Clause 20) which addresses the needs of visually impaired, and deaf and hard of hearing people. The ITC has the responsibility to draw up a code of guidance, with relevant organisations such as RNIB, on the implementation of the Act.

The code needs to identify "the extent to which digital programme services and qualifying Services should promote the understanding and enjoyment by persons who are blind or partially sighted, of the programmes to be included in such services, and the means by which such understanding and enjoyment should be promoted". The main provision is that "at least 10% of so much of the service as consists of programmes which are not excluded programmes in relation to audio description for the blind is to be accompanied by such audio description". Although the Government introduced the idea of excluded programmes, it has not identified them, leaving this to the ITC to do with the relevant organisations.

Unfortunately this provision was not included in the earlier stages of the Bill so we were not able to prepare for this in advance. We do not approve of excluding any programme categories. although some programmes do not obviously lend themselves to audio description. In addition a separate clause does allow for the Secretary of State, at some later date, to substitute the percentage we assume that this means an increase.

I have had one informal meeting with a representative of the ITC on the code, where he outlined the categories that the ITC thinks could be excluded. We did not agree on many! We started to discuss the 10% quota and how much programming could be audio described in the early stages of digital television. We did not get very far with this as, once again, we had differing views on start-up figures, and subsequent increases.

I have a meeting later today with an AUDETEL working party (representatives from RNIB, National Federation of the Blind, Guide Dogs Association and the Retinitis Pigmentosa Society) to discuss the issues before a formal, negotiating, meeting is convened with the ITC.

In December some sections of the UK's Disability Discrimination Act come into force. Whilst this Act is not ideal it should offer some improvements in the provision of goods, facilities and services for visually impaired people. Broadcasting is covered in the services section so between them these two new pieces of legislation should make a considerable difference to visually impaired people in the UK over the next few years.

In addition to the work that am doing on AUDETEL I am developing RNIB's audio described video service. We have currently 19 titles available, with three more being released in December and four in the pipeline for next year. We have established a good working relationship with Buena Vista Home Entertainment. which is extremely supportive. Whilst we have provided a few titles from other companies it has been much more difficult to get the same level of co-operation. Whilst I get some income from RNIB's fund raisers specifically for the videos it is not enough to develop the service as quickly, with as wide a range of titles, as we would like to achieve.

We provide the videos for two purposes. One is to provide an audio described home video service in its own right, the other is to provide demonstration material for raising awareness. This letter point is becoming more important as we got nearer to the Introduction of an AUDETEL service, as we are trying to make as many visually impaired people aware of audio description as possible. This will, I think, be essential when trying to convince people to invest in the digital receiver.

I was very interested in the work that you mentioned In trying to get the audio description of films done at the time of production. Last year two colleagues and I put together a paper for RNIB management addressing all aspects of audio description. This was in a bid to get some funding to get someone in to research all the elements necessary to have a cohesive audio description policy: This paper included the need of addressing the film industry and the cinema chains. Unfortunately we did not get the necessary funding but the issue has recently been raised again and I hope that this time we can seriously address the situation. I believe that the way to get widespread audio description for the recorded medium is to have it done at time of production so that The description can accompany the film for cinema rental and sell-through video, and satellite, cable and terrestrial television. I would, therefore, be very interested to hear more about your work to date, and your plans. I was wondering if you would like to write a piece for the next AUDETEL Newsletter on this issue.

I have asked Jaclyn Packer if she would like to provide a summary of the "Who's Listening" research for the Newsletter. If you are able to provide a piece I would like about 400 words, by Friday, I 5th November, and the two pieces would give a good overview of what is happening currently in the USA. It will link also. to a piece that I will be doing on our latest video releases.

I hope that the overview of the legislation will be helpful and that you will be able to do a piece for the Newsletter. If I can provide any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. (For information I am in the office this week, until about 1500 on Friday, but on leave next week.)

I look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

(Denise Evans)

Broadcasting Officer

THE EUROPEAN AUDETEL PROJECT: AUDIO DESCRIPTION ON TELEVISION

In this issue of the Newsletter

- digital television developments

- audio description in Germany

- the World Blind Union resolution on television

- developments in the USA

- audio described videos from RNIB.

AUDIO DESCRIPTION AND DIGITAL TELEVISION

In July the 1996 Broadcasting Act became the first piece of UK legislation to include targets for audio description, linked to digital terrestrial television transmissions which are expected to start in mid- 1998. The main provisions:

- licensing of terrestrial television multiplexes and digital programme services

- teletext services

- promotion of equal opportunities and fair treatment

- licensing of terrestrial sound broadcasting multiplexes and providers

- the merging of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council to form a new Broadcasting Standards Commission.

Within the provisions for digital terrestrial television there are clauses that relate to the audio description of television programmes. The Act provides for the Independent Television Commission (the regulatory body) to draw up a -code of guidance relating to "the extent to which digital programme services and qualifying services should promote the understanding and enjoyment by persons who are blind or partially sighted".

Clause 20 of the Act outlines how television programmes can be made more accessible by audio description (and by the provision of sub-titling and signing for deaf and hard of hearing people). By the tenth anniversary of a digital programme service provider's licence at least 10% of non-excluded programmes each week must have audio description. The Act does not outline how this target is to be achieved or what constitutes the non-excluded programmes. These issues will be determined by the ITC in collaboration with relevant organisations. The code of guidance will be available in early 1997, in a range of formats, and will be given to all licence holders.

Targets were included in the Broadcasting Act after considerable campaigning by organisations and individuals. As the Bill did not contain specific details when it was first published organisations of and for visually impaired and deaf and hard of hearing people joined forces to campaign for targets. Although considerable representation was made during the various stages of the Bill in the House of Lords, there was no improvement in the situation.

However, the lobbying gained the support of Robert Hughes (MP for Harrow West) who led a successful campaign to get targets introduced at Committee Stage in the House of Commons. The target for audio description was 50% of programmes by the tenth year of the licence! However, the Government felt that this percentage was too high and made a counter-proposal, which was accepted by Robert Hughes.

So, whilst disappointed that 50% was not the final figure, RNIB was very pleased that for the first time in broadcasting legislation in the UK broadcasters have a specific target for the provision of audio description.

In addition, Clause 21 does provide for the Secretary of State to substitute the percentage, by order - hopefully with an increase!

As well as providing AUDETEL, digital television offers better quality pictures and sound and the opportunity to receive many more channels. In the UK the existing terrestrial television channels (BBC-1, BBC-2, Channels 3, 4, and 5, S4C) will be able to transmit their analogue programmes digitally. They will be able also, if they wish, to set up new services. In addition, new programme service providers are expected to take the opportunity to bid for the multiplex licences, so there is the potential for a wider choice of programming.

Of course, terrestrial television is not the only I digital development. Digital satellite television is expected to start in the UK in the autumn of 1997 with a launch by BSkyB. Elsewhere in Europe Canal Plus and the Kirch Group have already established digital satellite services.

AUDIO DESCRIPTION IN GERMANY: BAVARIA TAKING THE LEAD

Elmar Dosch, of the Bavarian Blind Union reports:

Bayerischer Rundfunk could be the first of Germany's regional broadcasters to allocate a specific budget to audio description. The final go-ahead has not been given yet but is expected imminently. There are plans to give around DM 100,000 (E40,000) to the description of several TV programmes . Visually impaired people in Bavaria, who are very keen on audio description, would be delighted.

The Bavarian Blind Union has conducted a survey on audio description of television. Results show a strong interest in audio description. Questionnaires were sent to 2,600 visually impaired people aged 20-60 and nearly half responded. The key findings are:
97% own a television set

81 % watch television regularly

90% would like audio description of television

92% would like the Bavarian Blind Union to promote regular audio description of television programmes

Respondents would like audio description for specific programme categories:
19% for talk-shows

31 % for magazine programmes

36% for Westerns

38% for news programmes

39% for sports programmes

52% for documentaries

60% for police drama series

82% for television films

How should we read these provisional figures? There have already been several described programmes on German television and the Bavarian Blind Union has given audio description in the cinema a high profile over the past few years. But many respondents will never have experienced audio description. They all have a personal experience of television viewing and of difficulties experienced in following a programme. They express an understanding of the usefulness of additional description for television programmes. Direct experience of description tends to skew perceptions toward broader endorsement of audio description on television.

The figures establish the value of audio description and strong consumer demand. Also they reinforce and validate key findings of surveys on audio description of television made in other countries.

WORLD BLIND UNION RESOLUTION 'Access to Digital Television'

The WBU has passed a resolution which calls on legislators, broadcasters, and receiver manufacturers to make an active commitment to audio description.

"Whereas television plays an important role for education and social and cultural integration, and is a highly popular pastime of visually impaired people; and

Whereas visually impaired people miss out on crucial information due to the high visual content of television programmes; and

Whereas audio description (a narration describing action, body-language, facial expression and scenery) already enables thousands of visually impaired people to enjoy television in some countries; and

Whereas national surveys show that the vast majority of visually impaired people want and need audio description of television programmes; and

Whereas article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right of everyone to take part in the cultural life of the community and to benefit from scientific advancements; and

Whereas in some countries broadcasting legislation already recognises the right of visually impaired people to enjoy television with audio description; and

Whereas the advent of digital television (which will make many more channels available) provides a technical solution for the transmission and reception of audio description; and

Whereas digital receivers must be easily usable by visually impaired people in order for digital television to-be accessible to them,

This Fourth General Assembly of the World Blind Union, meeting in Toronto, August 26-29 1996, resolves to:

(i) call on broadcasting legislators to recognise the right of visually impaired people to enjoy television and to dedicate a portion of digital transmission capacity to the audio description sound as and when digital television is being introduced; and
(ii) call on broadcasters to make a commitment to their visually impaired audiences to introduce audio description services as soon as a method for the transmission of the audio description sound becomes available; and
(iii) call on the co-operation of receiver manufacturers to incorporate the needs of blind and partially sighted people into the design of digital receivers."

1. The United Kingdom has recently legislated a mandatory program for video description for 10% of the programming broadcast in the U.K. See attached information.

² See e.g., United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649 (1972); Allied Video Transmission Corp.

³ For example, Common Carrier. See, Amendment of Section 64.702, Second Computer Inquiry, 44 FR 39513 (1979)

4. Rept. No.923, 86^th Cong., 1^st Sess.

5. A copy of this report is being submitted for inclusion in WT Docket No. 96-198, a notice of inquiry in which the Commission is considering the scope of its obligations and various telecommunications service providers' obligations under this section of the Act, 16 RR 2d 234 (1969).

6. We note in passing that some commentators have argued that mandatory described programming raises First Amendment issues. Given that a mandatory description requirement would not dictate the content of the material but only the manner in which it is presented, we perceive no obstacle on this ground. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).

7. Prime-time is 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET daily, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday.

8. See, e,g, 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 Children's Television Programming, FCC 96-335, 3 CR 1385 (1996)/

Click Here to return to Audio Description Restoration Act