Narrower IP Caption Rules Than FCC Proposed Are Sought by Many in Industry

Commenters including Google sought no technical standards, agreeing with what the notice proposed, while the CEA, MPAA, Starz Entertainment and others sought the same standard. Industries also differed over whether the commission took the right approach in proposing that video programming distributors (VPD) and video programming providers (VPP) should have some obligation to ensure video put online is captioned. Google was among backers of the agency’s proposal, while the MPAA and many groups advocating for the deaf said the obligations ought to remain with VPDs and VPPs, not with video programming owners (VPO). The CTIA asked the FCC to exempt mobile devices from captioning rules. “Video content over mobile devices is an entirely new method of distribution and is fundamentally different than distributing video programming over traditional broadcast, cable or satellite services because of the diversity of wireless network and device capabilities,” it said (http://xrl.us/bmgji2).

NAB and the NCTA were among those that sought to extend some of the FCC’s proposed deadlines for when different types of programming that are online should have captions. Those associations and others said the agency shouldn’t adopt its proposal to require online captions be as good as they were on the original video. Several groups said the rules the FCC proposed go beyond what Congress envisioned in the act. “The Notice in this proceeding raises the specter of Commission regulation of a wide range of heretofore unregulated entities, such as copyright owners, websites, and a multitude of Internet entities,” the NCTA said (http://xrl.us/bmgjim). “The Notice in several respects strays beyond what is necessary to accomplish Congress’ limited directives in ways that impose significant unnecessary burdens on this developing video programming platform."

Making VPDs and VPPs have responsibility beyond passing along the captions they get from VPOs was opposed by the NCTA and some other industry filers. “The Notice puts the cart before the horse” the NCTA said, because “the Internet environment is significantly more complicated than the Notice reflects, and the ability of an end user to obtain captions depends on the actions of many different entities in the ecosystem.” Unlike VPOs, Google said VPPs and VPDs aren’t “in a position to determine whether programming is subject to closed captioning” rules. “Systems generally do not enable a VPP or VPD to review video content, determine whether it is required to be captioned or exempt, and then create and add captions,” the Internet company said (http://xrl.us/bmgjiu). “It would require an extraordinary allocation of resources by a VPP or VPD to review each content file in order to determine the nature of the programming.”

The FCC should stick to current TV captioning rules in the new, online ones, where the company that distributes content is responsible for making sure it has captions, the MPAA said (http://xrl.us/bmgjj5), as did nine disabilities groups. It disagreed with the notice’s plan for whoever “owns the copyright of the video programming to bear responsibility for sending program files to video programming distributors or providers with all required captions.” The “proposal ignores the reality of the current marketplace,” the association said. “Not only can there be multiple production companies behind the creation of a movie or show, but individual components of an audio-visual work can be separately copyrighted.” The notice’s definition of VPO doesn’t “adequately account for the complex ownership and licensing arrangements involved in the creation of video programming,” said the National Association of the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America and others (http://xrl.us/bmgjko).

Google asked the FCC not to require any technical standards, as the agency had proposed. Microsoft likewise backs “any technical standard for captioning adopted by an open, transparent process by a recognized industry standard-setting organization” (http://xrl.us/bmgjiy). Others sought a requirement that the Society of Motion Picture and TV Engineers Timed Text standard be used. “Adopting SMPTE-TT as a safe harbor standard appropriately balances the goals of efficiency and consumer access with the needed flexibility to continue to innovate,” the CEA said. “Manufacturers of covered apparatus cannot be expected to support any and every possible delivery format."

The FCC’s captioning quality proposals were opposed by MVPDs and the CE industry. “The Commission should adopt specific minimum technical requirements to help ensure functionally equivalent but flexible IP captioning, instead of adopting the proposed ambiguous (and potentially overbroad) mandate that captioning for IP-delivered content be of ‘at least the same quality’ as captions shown on television,” the CEA said. The NAB asked the commission to consider requiring the SMPTE-TT standard and not approve quality mandates. It said the notice “raises many related issues that the Commission should not address until it has more information regarding the process of distributing captioned programming online.” The NAB wants six more months for all stations “to comply with the captioning requirements for live, near-live, and prerecorded, unedited programming,” it said (http://xrl.us/bmgjjv). The delay is needed because “broadcasters must coordinate with multiple entities that are involved in the complex IP ecosystem of broadcast websites, including third party website hosts, software manufacturers, and content delivery networks,” it said.