With its publication in the Federal Register, the comment deadlines for the Federal Communications Commission's request for input on making multichannel video programming distributors' (MVPDs) closed captioning settings more accessible have been set.

Initial comments are due February 17 and replies March 4.

The FCC is revisiting a 2015 proposal to require manufacturers and MVPDs to make closed captioning display settings on TV sets “readily accessible“ to deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers and whether to expand that potential mandate beyond TV sets to the wealth of other video display technologies in an IP, over-the-top world.

Among the issues on which the FCC’s Media Bureau wants comment on is whether both device manufacturers and MVPDs should be responsible for making sure consumers can find and use the closed captioning display setting controls.

The FCC proposed the display rules in 2015 under Democratic then-chairman Tom Wheeler. The initial comment period closed, though, and the agency took no action on the item in the ensuing six years. Under new chair Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC‘s Media Bureau is reopening the issue to “refresh the record,” signaling action could now be taken.

Also: FCC Convenes Forum on OTT Closed Captioning

The FCC adopted a mandate in 1990 that TV receivers have the circuitry to display closed captions, and in 2000 adopted display and performance standards to allow users to customize captions by changing font, size, color and more.

In 2010, Congress passed the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), which expanded the closed captioning display and function requirements to any “apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound,” which now covers a host of technologies for accessing traditional and online video. But while the rules require equipment functionality, they do not mandate how those must be provided to the user.

Also: Advocates, Industry Spar at FCC Over Strict Caption Mandates

The FCC said there are ongoing complaints about the difficulty of accessing those settings via a remote or on-screen menu.

Enter the 2015 proposed rules to mandate ready access, on which no action was taken but which drew a lot of comment from industry players who questioned the FCC's authority to impose new device mandates.

The FCC wants new input on that authority issue, as well as, given the complaints it has received, “to what extent are manufacturers and MVPDs currently ‘making caption display settings accessible via mechanisms reasonably comparable to a button, key or icon,‘ such as ‘a button on the remote or access through the first level of a menu.‘” ■

The Federal Communications Commission is revisiting a 2015 proposal to require manufacturers and MVPDs to make closed captioning display settings on TV sets “readily accessible“ to deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers and whether to expand that potential mandate beyond TV sets to the wealth of other video display technologies in an IP, over-the-top world.

Among the issues on which the FCC’s Media Bureau wants comment on is whether both device manufacturers and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) should be responsible for making sure consumers can find and use the closed captioning display setting controls.

The FCC proposed the display rules in 2015 under Democratic then-chairman Tom Wheeler. The initial comment period closed, though, and the agency took no action on the item in the ensuing six years. Under new chair Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC‘s Media Bureau is reopening the issue to “refresh the record,” signaling action could now be taken.

Also: FCC Convenes Forum on OTT Closed Captioning

The FCC adopted a mandate in 1990 that TV receivers have the circuitry to display closed captions, and in 2000 adopted display and performance standards to allow users to customize captions by changing font, size, color and more.

In 2010, Congress passed the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), which expanded the closed captioning display and function requirements to any “apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound,” which now covers a host of technologies for accessing traditional and online video. But while the rules require equipment functionality, they do not mandate how those must be provided to the user.

Also: Advocates, Industry Spar at FCC Over Strict Caption Mandates 

The FCC said there are ongoing complaints about the difficulty of accessing those settings via a remote or on-screen menu.

Enter the 2015 proposed rules to mandate ready access, on which no action was taken but which drew a lot of comment from industry players who questioned the FCC's authority to impose new device mandates.

The FCC wants new input on that authority issue, as well as, given the complaints it has received, “to what extent are manufacturers and MVPDs currently ‘making caption display settings accessible via mechanisms reasonably comparable to a button, key or icon,‘ such as ‘a button on the remote or access through the first level of a menu.‘ ” ■

The Federal Communications Commission is getting video streamers, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and others together to talk about the state of closed captioning for online programming.

It has scheduled a Dec. 2 forum with a keynote address from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for greater communications accessibility as author of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).

The 1 p.m.-3:45 p.m. event is co-hosted by the FCC‘s Media Bureau and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. It will feature two panels of speakers, including streamers academics, consumers advocates and cable operators.

Also: Keeping Closed Captioning Ahead of the Curve

“Consumers currently access video programming from providers that range from traditional entities, such as broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), to a growing number of online streaming service providers, including those that operate social media platforms,” said the bureaus of the need for the event. ”The Video Programming Accessibility Forum – Online Closed Captioning will explore the state of closed captioning availability for online video programming and discuss ways to enhance accessibility, including the Commission’s authority to adopt new rules. The Forum also will explore current and prospective best practices and other existing or possible voluntary efforts that could enhance the availability of closed captioning online.”

Back in April, the FCC officially sought input on what changes it might need to make to video accessibility rules given that some of the requirements may have been "overtaken by new technologies."

Disability advocates have argued that one of the technologies the rules fail to capture is over-the-top video.

The FCC‘s rules implement the CVAA and apply closed captioning and audio description requirements to a boatload of communications technologies in addition to TV, including advanced communications services like interconnected and non-interconnected voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP), electronic messaging, interoperable video conferencing and browsing the net on smart phones.

Those advocates want the FCC to seriously consider how to apply captioning and audio description mandates to video streamers. ■

The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau says ViacomCBS's Pluto TV has agreed to pay a $3.5 million civil penalty over claims that Pluto TV streamed off-TV video on some platforms without the availability of the requisite captions, in violation of FCC rules. The company has also admitted to liability for its actions.

ViacomCBS conceded as part of the settlement that Pluto had violated the FCC's internet protocol TV (IPTV) rules and will adopt a compliance plan to make sure that does not happen again. Also as part of the settlement, and absent any future violation, the regulator said it would not hold a hearing on ViacomCBS's basic qualifications to hold “any” FCC license, which would have put the CBS-owned TV station licenses in play.

The FCC adopted closed-captioning rules for IPTV but said this is the first enforcement action against an online video streamer related to the rules.

Also Read: Tom Ryan on ViacomCBS's Streaming 'Super Funnel'

Pluto TV had sought a waiver of the rules for some platforms, but according to the FCC, continued to deliver its video programming to those platforms even though it did not pass through the requisite captions.

The FCC rules implementing the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) “require the closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming and impose requirements on certain apparatus that receive or play back video programming (including certain recording devices). All non-exempt, full-length video programming delivered using Internet Protocol must be provided with closed captions if the programming was previously shown on television in the United States with captions or is live programming being shown on television in the United States with captions.”

Also Read: FCC Asked to Consider Extending Accessibility to Streaming Video

The Enforcement Bureau said it had confirmed that Pluto did not comply with those rules on “numerous platforms,” and did not provide contact information for any complaints about captioning. The upshot, said the FCC, was that hearing disabled viewers were not able to access the captioning when viewing Pluto TV over some platforms.

Of about two dozen comments and replies to the FCC’s public notice seeking to update the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), the initial input includes a predictable split between organizations speaking for the hearing-impaired and other disabled communities, who want more federal oversight, and industry groups that contend that current rules are working well.

Throughout the treatises from both camps, there are frequent compliments for the FCC’s support of captioning rules, with both sides agreeing on the value of the assistive services. But there were also areas of disagreement:

• The group identifying itself as “Accessibility Advocacy and Research Organizations” (nearly two dozen organizations representing the deaf and hearing-impaired, plus academic and research institutions) contended that the FCC should update video programming accessibility rules and accelerate efforts to encourage audio-description features. 

Also Read: New Tech Brings New Tools to Captioning

• Communications and technology lobbyists, including the National Association of Broadcasters, NCTA-The Internet and Television Association, ACA Connects and the Consumer Technology Association, said existing FCC regulations and industry actions sufficiently support the goals of CVAA, and it is premature to establish audio-description rules. 

Although the FCC has not set a timetable for its CVAA procedure, the examination is likely to become a rallying point for disabled communities. The advocacy/research coalition, in filings, emphasized the “growth in popularity” of assistive service but insisted that the success of FCC rules “cannot be measured by individual examples of accessibility.”

“Technology accessibility is a civil right,” the advocates said, urging the FCC to “press ahead and ensure that the many remaining gaps” are addressed “now … and into the future as communications and video technologies evolve.” The group’s comments focus on the “critical” need for the FCC to “ensure the accessibility of multimodal communications platforms,” including wireless and online video distributor (OVD) ecosystems. It also insists that “the record supports commission action to expand the availability of audio description on OVD platforms.” 

“Live captioning metrics” and “caption quality standards” should also be part of the FCC requirements, according to the advocacy organizations. 

TV Groups Seek Fewer Rules

The National Association of Broadcasters argues that TV stations “have successfully implemented the FCC’s rules governing closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming.” The broadcasters’ group dismissed the advocacy organizations’ call for an “overhaul” of the FCC’s captioning regulatory regime, focusing on the “crucial distinction between … ‘first-party’ platforms (e.g. a TV station’s website) and third-party platforms that are not owned, operated or authorized by a broadcaster.”  

“These requests ignore certain realities,” NAB said. “Requiring broadcasters to ensure that their programming includes captions when later shown on unrelated, third-party outlets would place broadcasters in an impossible situation.” The advocacy organizations themselves concede that the video distribution system to such outlets is “complex and lengthy,” NAB pointed out. 

NAB cites similar problems with audio-description requirements and suggests that, “Collaboration is more effective than enforcement for ensuring and improving accessibility to video programming.”

NCTA said the “cable industry has made substantial investments in accessibility,” citing among examples a Comcast partnership with a wearable technology startup to provide new ways for visually impaired customers to connect with content through virtual reality. NCTA also cited a Charter Spectrum Access App that enables real-time playback of audio description and closed captioning via a customer’s tablet or phone to offer a “more personalized and immersive television experience.” 

ACA Connects challenged proposals to require multiple Secondary Audio Program (SAP)  auxiliary audio channel availability, possibly by requiring cable operators to allot an expanded number of SAP channels. ACA Connects said that “navigation devices continue to evolve to deliver … multiple audio streams,” obviating the need for such service on legacy equipment. The group also contended it was “premature for the FCC to adopt audio description quality standards as rules.” 

As the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with exploring new rules for the expanding world of captioning and other assistive video technologies, more and more organizations are developing new tools and techniques for the expanding audience. They are working with voice recognition, artificial intelligence and new tools for audio descriptions for vision-impaired audiences. 

With the increased use of captions in web videos and commercials, 87% of organizations are captioning their content, according to 3PlayMedia, a Boston company that provides closed captioning, transcription and audio description services for digital platforms. 3PlayMedia’s analysis also found a 42% “increase in emotional response” from videos that include captions. 

Also Read: Keeping Closed Captioning Ahead of the Curve

While the debate continues about the value of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) versus human-input captions, both approaches are part of the fast-evolving process to caption live programs, which often have notoriously inaccurate captions. Chris Antunes, co-founder and co-CEO of 3PlayMedia, perceives that producer and advertiser interest in captioning has accelerated in the past two years.

“The tone has changed,” he said. “It had been a compliance issue, but in the past few years it has shifted to brand. It’s a core part of how people think about their products, and it has happened so rapidly.” 

Captions Can Boost Engagement

3PlayMedia has worked with Brightcove, Facebook, Vimeo, YouTube, Zoom and Amazon Web Services. The company said its closed captions for Discovery Digital Networks’ YouTube videos led to a 7.3% increase in overall views with a 13.5% spurt in increased views during the first two weeks.

Although 3PlayMedia has largely eschewed live captioning, Antunes indicated that the company is examining new options. He declined to identify prospects but said, “this autumn is a good time to enter the live market.” 

Antunes cited greater use of technologies to create captions. Most of them are not new, but they go far beyond the original stenographic writing that has been used to generate most closed captions. For example, recent advances in “voice writing” (also called “shadow speaking”) are now being used. Rather than trying to capture and convert the words of every reporter into text, a captioning presenter repeats the words, thus giving the ASR system a constant voice and accent (without location background noise) for more accurate transcriptions. The technique has been used for years in other settings, such as court reporting, and Antunes said he believes this factor will accelerate live captions’ accuracy and value. 

One barrier he sees: finding the staff to handle such live productions, as well as to oversee machine-based automated captions. 

Like other caption producers, 3PlayMedia has largely focused on working with producers of prerecorded programming and commercials. Among its clients is Sephora, the cosmetics retailer, for which the company captions online commercials. 3PlayMedia has also focused on enterprise and educational productions, which Antunes sees as a major opportunity: “the much larger, faster-growing content on the web.” 

Also based in Boston, the Media Access Group, a successor to the pioneering WGBH Captioning Center, agrees that the appetite for captioning is going in many directions. Its predecessor was established in the 1980s to create captions for many public TV producers. Now MAG’s clientele includes theatrical studios, commercial networks, cable programmers and streaming companies, GBH Media Group managing director Alison Godburn said. 

With a staff of about 50 people in Boston and Los Angeles, MAG generates “hundreds of hours per week” of captions and audio descriptions for real-time and offline programs, including about six to seven hours of live content daily for the PBS NewsHour and other local and network programs. (GBH is the rebranded name for the entity that holds the licenses for Boston public TV stations WGBH and WGBX, as well as other media properties.) 

Among its clients is CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, which MAG captions “live to air” during the nightly CBS transmission. 

“We work across all platforms,” Godburn said. “Platforms are changing.” 

Tim Alves, supervisor of technical services for the GBH MAG, describes a team of “highly trained sound captioners” who handle live audio, transcribing on stenography machines to create captions. They use both proprietary software and steno software from multiple vendors.

The range of productions means that sometimes “we have scripts,” while other times the captioners use voice recognition software for initial transcribing, but inevitably that requires “a human element” to tweak the verbiage, Alves adds. 

“One hundred percent accuracy is our goal,” Godburn said, citing “the big tech team” that is looking at new software to handle captions. GBH has “a linguist on staff to do translations” when necessary. 

Also Read: Advocates, Industry Spar at FCC Over Strict Caption Mandates

As for pricing, it’s “all over the board, depending on content and the process,” Godburn said. “Pricing is very different depending on workflow,” such as the use of voice recognition and whether the captioning is for a commercial or longform program.

Godburn has perceived a “greater awareness of inclusion,” which will drive the expansion of captions for more audiences. “There are so many advances in speech technology and we’re looking into them,” he said, such as automated voices for the audio description world, which creates “a visual script” for the sight-impaired. 

Alves believes such assistive services “will eventually become ubiquitous.”

“With everyone using streaming video, you’ll see more captions and more people will rely on them and expect them,” he predicted. “Now with everything going online, there’s a big boom.” 

IBM has built its extensive “Live Captioning” package as part of the company’s broader Artificial Intelligence for Media framework that incorporates capabilities such as Watson Speech-to-Text, Watson Media and Cloud Video, all of which are integrated with other IBM assets such as Cognitive Services, IBM Weather and Hybrid Cloud Services. Jay Hiremath, the lead partner in IBM’s Media and Entertainment Industry group, said the core capabilities for live captioning news programs and events incorporate AI and machine learning applied to speech-to-text, automated metadata annotation and other features. 

He characterized captions for broadcasting and streaming of news and sports content as a good match for IBM’s AI models which “could be trained and hyper-localized for specific TV affiliate stations.” 

The hybrid cloud-based architecture enables IBM to extend captions and annotate content on new platforms like NextGen TV (ATSC 3.0), mobile, eSports, gaming and EDGE-based applications, he adds. “Users can upload a glossary of specialized market-specific terminology that arms Watson with greater context and ultimately can help improve caption accuracy.” IBM declined to identify its broadcast and streaming clients.

Hiremath said the “ability to store these captions as annotated time-coded metadata enhance the monetization opportunities as well as provide additional content analytics.”  Hiremath pointed to news archives that need metadata annotation. Captions provide an opportunity “to monetize and develop new products and content experiences,” he said. 

He foresees future uses of captioning in creating augmented experiences for other disabilities like virtual sign language or augmented content for blind. 

C-SPAN’s extensive captioning activities represent both historic objectives and cross-platform purposes, along with a sometimes-complicated production process. For more than 20 years, the public-affairs programmer has been integrating real-time caption transcripts with archival value. 

C-SPAN’s core video feeds — live sessions from the floors of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — include real-time captions that are produced by each chamber and embedded into their video feeds, which C-SPAN passes through. The network’s three long-term vendors (Media Captioning Services, National Captioning Institute and Vitac) create captions for C-SPAN’s mix of live events and recorded productions, such as committee or agency hearings, Book TV discussions and call-in talk shows. Much of the programming goes into C-SPAN’s searchable archive, in which the captions become the basis for a search.

C-SPAN VP of digital media Richard Weinstein said the system is “unique” in the way it “leverages captions on the website and as part of our video library,” which now includes 268,000 hours of content — all of it searchable via captions. Indexing the captions in a searchable database enables them to become the basis for finding what a politician said. He explained how a researcher could, for example, enter the name of a senator and a term such as “oil pipeline” and find out exactly when that person used those words, thanks to the time stamps on all the captions. That capability dates back to content produced since 1994. Starting in 2010, “we added it on our website as a search tool,” Weinstein added. “Captioning is a very important aspect of giving us the ability to build our video library.” 

C-SPAN’s captioning vendors rely almost exclusively on live, human production, although Weinstein said some of them are exploring speech-recognition technology to create captions. He acknowledged the challenge of producing accurate captions, especially during heated debates when argumentative politicians are talking over one another. 

Automated, Broadband Options 

The recent strides in voice recognition and artificial intelligence are another major factor in captioning juggernaut. 

The National Captioning Institute, a pioneer in broadcast caption services, has introduced its CaptionSentry Automated Captioning Solution (ACS), originally developed for real-time live streaming and broadcasting use but which can also be used for prerecorded programs. NCI said its automated CaptionSentry systems can take over from humans and vice versa, including a “fail-safe feature” that can be activated to allow for CaptionSentry to send captions if the human captioner loses their connection and stops sending data.

NCI also has created an auto-translation system to convert English and Spanish captions into more than 40 languages. 

Cognitive Accuracy, a measurement standard devised by NCI, is another feature that may figure into the FCC examination. It is based on the ability of the viewer to comprehend the intended meaning of the captions using audio comparisons. It has not been vetted by the FCC, and NCI said it will not try to establish it as an industry standard.

The emerging NextGen TV standard (ATSC 3.0) incorporates SMPTE-Timed Text (SMPTE-TT) as its captioning standard. SMPTE-TT is an XML-based caption codec that has flexible features such as handling languages that  read right to left and enables caption data to be displayed with the “original look and feel” for more advanced display capabilities. It allows captions to include some attributes traditionally associated with subtitles, including foreign-alphabet characters and some mathematical symbols. The FCC has declared SMPTE-TT a “safe harbor interchange and delivery format” that complies with Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accesibility Act  (CVAA) regulations.

The FCC’s broadband captioning rules — another target of the current examination (see sidebar) — don’t require closed captions on movies or consumer-generated videos unless they have been previously “shown on TV with captions.” 

Endorsing caption services does not necessarily mean that a broadcaster will actually deliver the service, as ITV in England found out during “Deaf Awareness Week” this spring on its This Morning program. Although the show’s opening had a visually signed “Hello, good morning,” the program proceeded to run a special segment about hearing impairment but failed to include any closed captions or interpreter — a lapse that was noticed, and loudly criticized, by its target audience. 

Closed captioning is not just for the hearing impaired, which may be a major reason behind the Federal Communications Commission’s current re-examination of its decade-old rules for captioning and related assistive services.

About 80% of viewers who use captions — on all platforms — are not hearing impaired, according to a survey by Publicis Media and Verizon Media. A similar number of respondents said they are more likely to watch an entire video when captions are available. Analysts have pointed to a variety of reasons for the growing use of captions, ranging from mumbling actors to Surround Sound audio mixing, when the background music overwhelms spoken dialogue.

Lise Hamlin, director of public policy at the Hearing Loss Association of America, said the group constantly hears “from people with a milder loss, or an untreated or even unrecognized loss, who look to captions when speakers have heavy foreign accents or … when there is interfering sound.”

“In one case, someone who had no recognized hearing loss told me he watched The Sopranos with the captions on because it sometimes telegraphed what he should be paying attention to — for example, if a sound was off camera or a bush was rustling,” she recalled.

Anecdotally, many viewers cite the need for captions in order to understand the pronunciation in British dramas.

Big Players Seek Automated Options

Whatever the reasons, closed captions and the rules governing them are drawing attention, especially as more big providers, such as IBM and Google, bring advanced, automated technology to the service and as hearing-impaired viewers demand captioning capabilities on streaming platforms (including Zoom and other video calling services), as well as on broadcast and cable channels.

Part of captioning’s popularity stems from increased viewing in public venues, whether on a mobile device or in open settings such as bars, restaurants, health clubs, airports or other venues that are being repopulated in post-pandemic times. The Publicis study found 69% of people watched video with the sound off when in public areas.

In April, the FCC set a vague agenda for a wide-ranging update of the 2010 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) in a process that involves three FCC bureaus (Consumer and Governmental Affairs, Media and Wireless Telecommunications). The deadline for comments has been extended a few times, with public and industry input due during June and July. (Highlights of the comments will appear in part two of this report in the August B+C/Multichannel News.)

The FCC’s examination also seeks to update February 2014 rules that mandate quality standards such as accuracy, timing, completeness and placement for captioning. The public notice emerged about a month after nine organizations representing hearing- and sight-impaired groups met with acting FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and her staff. 

In its ex parte description of that meeting, which they called “Accessibility Priorities for New Commission Leadership,” the group said it wants the FCC to issue guidance and metrics for automatic speech recognition (ASR) for video programming, expanded audio description capabilities, increased accessibility for advanced communications services and clarified standards for the transition to ASR-based captions.

The FCC “played a leading role in convening conversations with industry leaders and consumers, developing substantive policy and rules around accessibility,” the group pointed out, asking the commission “to reassert its leadership and re-energize the CVAA.” 

Is Caption Quality Declining?

The hearing- and sight-impaired group emphasized that “consumers are reporting a decrease in the quality of closed captions as ASR begins to replace human captioners for live programming.”

“Captions generated by machine often miss context and leave out critical information,” they said. “Members of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community have specifically complained about captioning during major live televised events such as the Super Bowl, the presidential inauguration and COVID-19 press briefings” — emphasizing that viewers of different networks saw “varying levels of quality.”

“This oversight is pertinent as broadcasters continue to rely more frequently on ASR for live programming,” the advocates contended.

Setting the stage for an examination of audio description processes, the group said: “Over the next four years, audio description will be required in markets reaching approximately 87% of broadcast television consumers, though that still means there are 13% of people without access.”

They also encouraged “expansion of audio description in non-English languages” and requiring captions on internet programming.

Moreover, they complained, “Streaming services are currently not covered under commission description rules … [hence] many streaming apps that are not native to the video hardware are inaccessible.”

HLAA’s Hamlin emphasized, “Captioning is hugely important to people with hearing loss, whatever platform it appears on: broadcast television, cable, movies and now over the internet, on our smartphones, when using telehealth or video conferencing platforms at work or to simply chat with friends and family.” During the pandemic, she said, “captioning has been our lifeline to connect with others, to enjoy entertainment, to keep our jobs, to get access to live saving emergency information from our governors or local leaders.”  

“Captions must be accurate and usable,” HLAA’s Hamlin insisted.

Captions Have Been Here Awhile

Captions have been part of American television since the 1970s, starting with use on shows such as ABC’s The Mod Squad and PBS’s The French Chef. The FCC has kept an eye on captioning technology for nearly four decades. 

Until the passage of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act in 1990 — which required that all new TV receivers built after July 1993 include built-in capability and that all broadcasters transmit closed captions in Line 21 of the analog Vertical Blanking Interval — captioning was handled via a set-top box. The 1996 Telecommunications Act expanded the law to include captioning receivers in all digital TV sets as of 2002. Program distributors have had to carry closed captions for Spanish-language video programming since January 2010. In 2010, the CVAA expanded the requirement to include TV shows distributed via the internet.

Under current rules, all programs must include English or Spanish captions, with exceptions for new networks, networks with less than $3 million in revenue, certain local programs or in cases where networks would have to spend more than 2% of their income on such captioning. There are also hardship waivers.

It is unclear whether the FCC seeks to override local mandates for captioning, such as the one adopted in Seattle two years ago. The city council enacted a law in 2019 to require bars, restaurants, gyms, stadiums and other places of public accommodation to activate captions on their television sets during business hours.

When it issued the call for input to the current public notice, the FCC conceded that many of the captioning rules “have not been revisited … some since initial adoption.”

“Given changes in technology and industry practices, as well as taking into account consumer experiences, we seek comment on whether there is a need to update these rules,” the FCC said. It said the exploration to update the 2010 CVAA will include audio description, closed captioning of internet protocol-delivered video programming, accessible emergency information and accessible user interfaces plus video programming guides and menus.

The agency also invited suggestions about “other initiatives the commission could undertake to improve access to video programming and communications services.”

Among the topics that the FCC could explore is another problem of automated captioning. Some stations for newscasts and other live programs create captions directly from teleprompter scripts. But critics contend such captions have “as low as zero percent accuracy,” with spoken dialogue not matching the displayed words. They cite the problems of a scripted teleprompter during a weather broadcast when conditions are changing rapidly and the on-screen text could put hearing-impaired viewers in danger if they see outdated information.

Academic research, such as a report on “Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences,” has confirmed the value of captioning as a visual reinforcement for audio tracks that help children learn and support foreign-language speakers and other non-disabled viewers in improving their comprehension of video programming. Another U.K. study found that watching captioned films can help viewers learn foreign languages.

Improving Audio Descriptions, Too

The National Federation of the Blind used the FCC comments procedure to encourage the agency to include audio description requirements as part of its current CVAA update, citing the growth of online streaming services that “outpace the current accessibility requirements of the law.” In particular, the NFB said Audio Description of Video Programming rules should extend to channels such as Netflix
and HBO.

NFB president Mark A. Riccobono pointed out that paid subscription channels such as HBO, Disney Plus and others “have significant viewership but are not subject to the same requirements as non-paid subscription channels” such as broadcast and cable channels. He also cites examples of multichannel video programming distributors that carry multiple secondary audio programming (SAP) services for Spanish-language simulcasts but not audio descriptions that would be of use to sight-impaired audiences. 

“An example of this is WWE Raw, which airs on the USA Network and has audio description, but is often only available with a Spanish simulcast because Spanish is considered more important to viewership by the network,” Riccobono said.

The NFB also wants the FCC to add requirements that streaming services and subscription channels must purchase the audio-described content when they buy the rights to distribute film and television programming from producers and distributors. Riccobono points to two examples of existing shows being sold for distribution without existing audio descriptions.

“Friends originally aired on NBC, complete with audio description,” he said. “However, when Netflix, and eventually HBO, purchased the series distribution rights, audio description was not, and is still not, available.” Similarly, the 2015 feature film The Hateful Eight included audio description for the theatrical release, but “now that the movie is available on Apple TV, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, the audio description is not included.”

The NFB also asked the FCC to add a rule that would create audio description
quality standards, citing a 2020 agency plan to comply with Disability Advisory Committee proposals. 

The FCC released its agenda for next week's Feb. 18 monthly meeting, and access to video dominates the proceedings.

As expected, the commission is scheduled to vote on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's new set-top box (actually, "video navigation device") Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to open up cable box data to third parties.

In addition, the commission plans to vote on a notice of inquiry into the ability of independent programmers to access traditional and over-the-top distribution platforms, which FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn had sought.

Third is an order allocating responsibility for closed captioning video and determining how captioning complaints are handled. That will be the latest in a series of decisions related to implementation of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.

The FCC continues to work on a revamp of broadband Lifeline subsidies, which was not on the docket.