bicker

HTNut

which doesn't make sense to me. If television sets intended for American audiences must have a system for closed captioning, then what makes it ok to avoid having to do something for streaming television content from the internet? i'm far from being tech savvy, but it can't be that difficult to distribute text data along with TV streams for computers or broadband TVs to decode.

1inxs

I don't see that additional regulation is the answer. Competition would be all that's needed. Distribution would have no affect on service to the disabled. Companies distributing programming are looking for viewership numbers, not alienating groups. Or do you think they would tend cherry pick subscribers rather than use available technologies?

What is currently mandated under the Americans with Disabilities Act in regards to OTA?

I found this
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal183.txt

bicker

The specificity in the regulation, unfortunately. There are numerous other exceptions as well, including an exception that exempts broadcasters from having to provide closed captioning for the first four years that they're operating. Theoretically, to side-step their responsibility to the disabled, broadcasters can simply become "reborn" every four years. (Yes, it goes by the life of network, not by the life of its parent company. That's why Universal HD didn't have to provide closed captioning until just a couple of years ago. Luckily, no channel has seen fit to exploit that loop-hole.) Another exception (though I'm not sure if this one is still in place) was for Spanish-language programming: If you were hearing impaired and Latino, you were basically out of luck.

It's actually a lot more difficult than it seems. It isn't a separate transmission. It must be integrated into your ATSC signal, following ATSC specifications. Beyond that, the actual captioning process itself is more costly than many distributors would like (I suppose especially since they get comparatively little ROI from that expense). The captioning services are also pretty ruthless in their licensing -- they actually maintain rights over the captions, so it isn't like the distributor could have EIA-608 (analog) captions applied, and then programmatically extract those captions and apply them as EIA-708 (digital) captions.

I've seen someone post the numbers in another thread. I'll try to remember where and see if I can find them.

O-O

I think they would cherry pick. Companies will do the least amount of work to generate the most profit.

bicker

I wish that was the case, but from what I recall of the numbers (as I mentioned above), there simply isn't a value proposition for distributors. If it wasn't for the regulations already in place, we likely wouldn't have the captions we have today. Most of the problem is that there are fewer people demanding closed captions than would be necessary to foster closed captions from a demand perspective. Even among the hearing impaired, I'm often shocked about how many of those who arguably need closed captions still refuse to use them (because they find the captions distracting, and I suppose they'd rather miss the dialog then have to read the dialog -- if you don't understand that then you're not alone: I don't understand their logic either).

Here is a fact sheet regarding the regulations that actually enforce the laws that the letter your link referred to.

Closed Captioning of Video Programming Fact Sheet

(By the way, as you can see, Spanish-language programming now has to be closed captioning, but by extension, programming in other languages does not.)

The essential issue is that despite numerous complaints from the hearing impaired community (including dozens from my wife personally), the FCC refuses to even entertain complaints against Netflix (Watch Instantly service), Hulu, or any network websites that stream episodes.

And time is of the essence because even after the regulations are changed, that'll give these services four years to come into compliance.