National Working Party on Captioning submission re. the

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Issues Paper for the inquiry Closed Captioning of Television Material

 

Response to summary of issues for discussion

Demand and priorities for captioning

Is further information available on demand and priorities for captioning in Australia among

•deaf people •people with hearing impairments •people with learning disabilities •older people •children and young people •people in rural or remote areas •non-English speaking background people •adult literacy learners •indigenous people •other television users? (3.3)

This is an issue of equal access. There are 1.7 million Deaf and hard of hearing people in Australia. Caption watchers do not want to have other people ‘choosing’ programs for them. All programs that are broadcast should be accessible with captions.

 

Financial barriers

What level of cost should be regarded as involving unjustifiable hardship in the various circumstances of television service providers? (5.1)

Would it be appropriate for the Commission to adopt a percentage level of revenues as indicating or determining unjustifiable hardship and reasonableness issues? (6.1)

How far does a fixed budget for captioning necessitate a more or less fixed level of captioning? (6.1)

How far are major efficiencies possible in this area in Australian circumstances as found by overseas regulatory authorities? (6.1)

The Australian television networks posted combined profits of more than $700 million last year. Any suggestion that there is a financial barrier to total captioning of programs is laughable and insulting.

The Americans recognise the relatively small cost of captioning. In implementing the 1996 Communications Act - a timetable to achieve accessible fully broadcasts - a US Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission stated that 2% of gross revenue being spent on captioning was not unreasonable.

In the US an exemption is granted where the programmer has an annual revenue of less than $US3 million.

If there are some concerns about the cost of captioning a regional news bulletin, one solution is to provide a ‘captioning fund’. The ABA could charge a captioning levy as part of license fees. This ‘subsidy’ could then be provided to regional and smaller operators to enable them to comply with their captioning obligations.

 

News captioning

Is further information available regarding appropriate timetables and targets in a scheme for phased implementation of captioning? Will further information become available through DOCA's review under the digital conversion legislation? (6.2.1)

How should such a scheme be recognised for DDA purposes? (6.2.1)

At its National Conference, 9/10 November 1998, the NWPC revised its goals. These revisions took into account overseas timetables for implementation of mandatory captioning; the previous NWPC goals; recent increases in prime-time captioning on some networks.

NWPC revised goals

Does the "Electronic News Room" (ENR) method for captioning offer a viable and acceptable means of achieving captioning of news programming, whether generally or as a short or medium term solution or a solution for some types of programming or some types of provider? (6.2.1.1)

Should ENR captioning be recognised as satisfying captioning requirements under the digital conversion legislation? If so, should this be complete but temporary recognition subject to review and revision to more demanding standards as with the FCC rules, or partial recognition,  as counting at a reduced rate towards a required level of overall captioning? (6.2.1.1)

The NWPC is not really interested in the method used to provide the captions. We want news bulletins that provide captions for all of the stories that are accurate and reflect the soundtrack as closely as possible. It should be left up to the broadcaster to decide how they will achieve that as long as they meet the standards.

 

Are there any other low cost captioning methods available which avoid some of the identified limitations of the ENR method? (6.2.1.1)

What possibilities are there for using computer voice recognition, as contemplated by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in its 1995 decisions? (6.2.1.1)

Again it is up to the providers to devise the most cost efficient means of caption production while ensuring that standards are retained.

Do alternative methods of captioning such as ENR offer any solutions to difficulties of captioning regional and local news? (6.2.2)

Again, a potential solution to this argument is an ABA levy which subsidises smaller and/or regional providers.

Sports captioning

Is further information available on overseas experience in captioning of sports programs? (6.2.3)

Sports programs are successfully captioned overseas, and must be captioned here also. The caption viewer should have the choice to ‘read’ the captions if they want to, in the same way as hearing viewers have the choice to listen to the commentary if they want to.

Should the Commission accept that captioning for Olympic events must draw on an existing captioning budget for the network concerned? What account should be taken of sponsorship and other funding sources for these events? (6.2.3)

This is a major national event for all Australians and as such should be captioned. It should not use up all of the budget either. The importance of the Olympics is reflected in network advertising revenue which can be used to cover the cost of captioning. Captioning should be measured by the number of hours captoined not the cost to a broadcaster.

What implications do overseas captioning requirements have for captioning of television coverage of major international sporting events produced in part for international markets such as the US, UK and Canada, in particular, Olympic events and international cricket? (6.2.3)

In some cases an international commentary team is used for all locations. In this case there would be some savings associated with sharing the cost of captioning. Nevertheless, the sports programs must be captioned, and the captions must match the soundtrack as closely as possible.

Other live material

To what extent do the difficulties and expense of captioning live material constitute unjustifiable hardship for DDA purposes? (6.2.4)

Again, the profit levels of the television networks suggest that captioning would never be an ‘unjustifiable hardship’. Channel 7 has demonstrated that live programs can be captioned (such as NBC Today) using technical solutions. The problem is that in the majority of cases there is a reluctance to find solutions, only to devise reasons for why something cannot be done.

Non-English language material

Is closed captioning of subtitled material necessary? (6.2.5)

Yes, because subtitles do not include colouring, positioning, sound effects. Australia’s 1.7 million Deaf and hard of hearing people do not want a winding back of standards.

In what circumstances would it involve unjustifiable hardship to require captioning of retransmitted overseas news bulletins such as those presented by SBS WorldWatch where this material is not captioned in its country of origin? (6.2.5)

NWPC accepts that retransmitted overseas news bulletins would not require captioning unless shown in prime time.

Children's television

Do the provisions of the HREOC Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child require the Commission to promote priority for access to children's programming in performing functions regarding closed captioning under the DDA, including in considering complaints or exemption applications? (2.5)

Is further information available on the reasons for the omission of children's television from the subject area covered by the digital conversion legislation? (3.5)

Should the Commission make specific recommendations regarding captioning for children's television? (3.5)

The NWPC believes children's television is a category worthy of distinct treatment. Omission of children's programming is a flaw in the Act. There are laws dictating that a certain amount of children's programming be broadcast. This should be extended to include captions so that this programming is fully accessible. All children's programs should be captioned by 2002.

Are programs such as Playschool exclusively aimed at and used by pre-reading children? (6.2.6)

Is captioning possible and worthwhile for pre-school programming? (5.2.6)

What weight should be given to desire or need of deaf or hearing impaired parents to understand children's TV material? (6.2.6)

Parents who are Deaf or hard of hearing have a right to know what their children are watching, and be able to participate in their child's learning development.

Music video

Does the finding of the Canadian Commission regarding scarcity of captioned music video remain current? Is it applicable in Australian circumstances? (6.2.7)

Is more information available on captioning of music videos in Australian circumstances? (6.2.7)

Many music videos are captioned in the US and UK. Surely these can be easily accessed. Australian music videos should also be captioned.

 

Quality of captioning and pass through of existing captions

What if any actions should the Commission take or recommend regarding quality of captioning? (8)

What if any actions should the Commission take or recommend regarding pass through of existing caption files? (8)

It is imperative that present high standards are maintained. Programs made in Australia must be captioned to Australian standards.

 

Responsibilities of producers

Are specific legislative requirements on producers necessary, or would requirements from stations on what programs they will fund or purchase be equally effective? (9)

Is the allocation of responsibility in the first instance under the DDA (and the United States FCC rules) to television stations rather than producers the most appropriate, efficient and effective approach? (9)

As long as the end result is that networks broadcast the required levels of closed captioning, the NWPC has no position on whether the networks or producers are responsible. However, if captioning can be integrated earlier along in the production process, say at film or video stage, then captions will be available earlier. The important thing is to decide who is responsible for captioning so that there is an accountability if captioning requirements are not met.

 

Advertising

What actions should be taken by the Commission, by other regulatory bodies, or by the governments concerned, regarding captioning of government information and advertising? (10.2)

Are there any circumstances in which captioning of advertisements would impose unjustifiable hardship under the DDA? (10.3)

Can the Australian Broadcasting Authority regulate captioning of advertisements on broadcast television under its existing powers? Should it do so? (10.3)

There should be a uniform Australian law which requires that all Government information and advertising be captioned. Some States have such a policy, but it must be extended to cover all States.

We understand it costs tens of thousands of dollars to create a commercial, millions to buy media, and only hundreds of dollars to caption it. Therefore, there is no reason why a commercial shouldn’t be captioned.

Television receivers with caption decoder capacity

Would it be appropriate for Australia to have regulation comparable to the US and UK requirements that television receivers above a certain size have caption decoder capacity be appropriate, and if so in what form? (11)

Yes, the same should happen here. This will mean that the caption broadcasts are able to reach the greatest numbers of people, and can be used by viewers away from their home set - at hotels, public venues etc.

 

Videotape captioning

What recommendations should the Commission make and what actions should it take regarding captioning of videotape material? (12)

Video material should be accessible. As much of the video material in Australia is captioned in its country of origin, that material should be made available with captions here. This would require that the decoding equipment for closed captioned video material be available, possibly incorporated into digital decoding equipment, along with the teletext decoder for reading closed captioned television captions.

 

Self regulation: codes of practice

Should the Commission regard the current draft FACTS code of practice as a sufficient self regulatory regime for DDA purposes? (13.2)

If so, what form of recognition would be appropriate? (13.2)

The progress of captioning under the FACTS Code of Practice has been slow. There is no timetable for periodical increases, no targets for full captioning, no reference to standards. This is totally inadequate.

If not, what modifications might be made to this code of practice such that the Commission should regard it as sufficient? (13.2)

There should be proper targets that are binding, standards should be included, and a specified date for total captioning.

What relevance does the DDA have to the ABA's decision to register a code of practice? (13.2)

No comment

What self-regulatory regimes exist or could exist in areas not covered by the FACTS code? How should the Commission relate the DDA to such regimes? (13.2)

The Pay TV and video industries should be similarly regulated to ensure that they have targets to total captioning

Market based approaches

What actions should the Commission take and/or recommend regarding market based approaches in support of requirements for television captioning? (13.3)

The networks made over $700 million dollars in profit last yea. They should caption all of their programs.

 

DDA Standards

Should the power to make Disability Standards be expanded to cover television captioning and related issues? (13.4)

Should exercise of such a power be considered? (13.4)

If there is no power to enforce such standards then they serve no purpose. Captioning is best treated as part of television, video and pay TV legislation.