Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`Before the
`FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C. 20554
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Closed Captioning and Video Description
`ofVideo Programming
`
`Implementation of Section 305 of the
`Telecommunications Act of 1996
`
`-Video Programming Accessibility
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`REPORT
`
`1v1M Dock~t No. 95-176
`
`Adopted: July 25, 1996
`
`Released: July 29, 1996
`
`By the Commission:
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Paragraph
`
`I.
`
`Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Statutory Requirements . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Notice of Inquiry .................................... .
`
`IL
`
`Summary of this Report
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Scope of this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Summary of Findings ................................. .
`
`Ill.
`
`Closed Captioning of Video Programming ........................ .
`
`A.
`B.
`c.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Audiences that Benefit from Closed Captioning
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Methods of Closed Captioning ........................... .
`Cost of Closed Captioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Current Availability of Programming with Closed Captioning . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Funding of Closed Captioning
`The Quality and Accuracy of Closed Captioning ............... .
`
`1
`
`2
`5
`
`8
`
`8
`11
`
`25
`
`25
`29
`38
`46
`56
`84
`87
`
`19214
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 1 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`I
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`IV.
`
`Video Description of Video Programming .........................
`
`94
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`94
`Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Audiences that Benefit from Video Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`96
`Methods of Distribution of Video Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
`Cost of Video Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`106
`Funding for Video Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`110
`Current Availability of Video Description
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`112
`Obstacles to Video Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`119
`Statutory Considerations
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`127
`Conclusion
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`13 8
`
`v.
`
`Administrative Matters
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`143
`
`Appendix:
`
`List of Commenters
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Section 713 of the Communications Act of 1934 ("Act"), as amended by the
`1.
`Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"), directs the Commission to conduct inquiries into
`the accessibility of video programming to individuals with hearing and· visual disabilities. 1 This
`report is issued in compliance with this statutory requirement.
`It is based on information
`submitted by commenters in response to a Notice of Inquiry ("Notice") in this docket and publicly
`available information. 2
`
`A.
`
`Statutory Requirements
`
`Section 713(a) requires the Commission to complete an inquiry within 180 days
`2.
`of enactment of the 1996 Act to ascertain the level at which video programming is closed
`captioned. A report on the results of this inquiry shall be submitted to Congress. Specifically,
`Section 713(a) directs the Commission to examine the extent to which existing or previously
`published programming is closed captioned, the size of the video programming provider or
`programming owner providing closed captioning, the size of the market served, the relative
`audience shares achieved and any other related factors. The Commission also is required to
`establish regulations and implementation schedules to ensure that video programming is fully
`
`Section 305 of the 1996 Act, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), adds a new Section 713, Video
`Programming Accessibility, to the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 613.
`
`2
`See Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Notice of Inquiry, MM Docket No.
`95-I76, FCC 95-484, II FCC Red 49I2 (1996) ("Notice"). Commenters are listed in the Appendix. We also
`received numerous letters and infonnal filings in this proceeding.
`
`19215
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 2 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`accessible through closed captioning within 18 months of the enactment of the section. 3 The
`Commission will initiate the rulemaking required by the Act with the issuance of a notice of
`proposed rulemaking in the next several months.
`
`Section 713(f) requires the Commission to commence an inquiry within six months
`3.
`after the date of enactment of the 1996 Act "to examine the use of video descriptions of video
`programming in order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual
`impairments. "4 The Commission must report to Congress on its findings, including an assessment
`of the appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace,
`technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition of programming for which
`video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deems
`appropriate.
`
`Section 713 is "designed to ensure that video services are accessible to hearing
`4.
`impaired and visually impaired individuals. "5 The legislative history of this section states that
`it is Congress' goal "to ensure that all Americans ultimately have access to video services and
`programs particularly as video programming becomes an increasingly important part of the home,
`school and workplace. "6 The House Committee recognized that there has been a significant
`increase in the amount of video programming that includes closed captioning since the passage
`of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 ("TDCA").7 Nevertheless, the House Committee
`expressed a concern that video programming through all delivery systems should be accessible
`to per8ons with disabilities. 8
`
`B.
`
`Notice of Inquiry
`
`On December 1, 1995, prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act, the Commission
`· 5.
`adopted the Notice in this proceeding. It sought information consistent with the legislation that
`was pending at that time and comment on a wide variety of issues relating to closed captioning
`and video description of video programming. This inquiry was intended to gather the information
`needed to assess the current availability, cost and uses of closed captioning and video description.
`In the Notice, the Commission asked specific questions regarding the importance of closed
`
`See Section 713{b)-(e), 47 U.S.C. § 613(b)-(e), which are specific provisions relating to the rules the
`3
`Commission must adopt.
`47 u.s.c. § 613(f).
`
`4
`
`Conference Report, H.R. Report 104-458 (1996), at 182.
`
`6
`
`Id. at 183.
`
`7
`House Report, H.R. Report 104-204, Part 1 (1995) at 113. As enacted, Section 713 adopted the House
`provisions on video accessibility with modifications. Conference Report at 184.
`
`House Report at 113-114.
`
`19216
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 3 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`captioning to persons with hearing disabilities and of video description to persons with visual
`disabilities and sought information on other population groups that could benefit from the
`availability of these services. We requested data on the availability of video programming, both
`new and previously published, with closed captioning and video description. In the Notice, we
`asked questions regarding the availability of suppliers of closed captioning and video description,
`the costs of including these services and how they are currently funded.
`
`The Notice also sought comment on the appropriate means of promoting wider use
`6.
`of closed captioning and video description in programming delivered by broadcast television,
`cable television, and other video providers. In particular, we sought comment on the general
`form any mandatory closed captioning or video description rules should take, if they are deemed
`necessary, including technical standards, quality standards, exemptions for classes of programmers
`or delivery systems, appropriate timetables for implementing any mandatory requirements and the
`scope of the Commission's jurisdiction to impose mandatory closed captioning or video
`description requirements on video service providers and program producers and owners.
`
`Because the 1996 Act adopted the provisions concerning the availability of video
`7.
`programming with closed captioning and video descriptions which formed the basis of the
`Commission's December 1995 inquiry, the Commission decided to use the comments filed in that
`proceeding for the inquiries it is required to conduct pursuant to Sections 713(a) and (f) of the
`Act. In an Order adopted February 27, 1996, the Commission announced this decision and asked
`that commenters direct their comments towards the specific provisions of the statute.9
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF TIDS REPORT
`
`A.
`
`Scope of this Report
`
`This report addresses each of the issues the Commission is required to examine
`8.
`under Section 713 with respect to closed captioning and video description of video programming.
`We examine the extent to which programming is currently closed captioned (Section III) and the
`amount of video description of video programming currently provided (Section IV). With respect
`to closed captioning, the statutory mandate directs the Commission to study the current status of
`this technology and its uses. Thus, we provide a general description of closed captioning, the
`population groups that can benefit from its availability, the methods and costs of closed
`captioning, the amount of programming now available with captions, current funding of
`captioning and a description of the quality and accuracy of today's closed captioning. In this
`report, we do not address issues raised in the Notice regarding proposals for specific rules,
`standards and implementation schedules for closed captioning, as they go beyond the scope of
`the inquiry requirements of Section 713(a). These matters will be considered in the context of
`a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking that we will issue to consider proposed rules to fulfill
`
`See Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Order, MM Docket No. 95-176,
`9
`FCC 96-71, 11 FCC Red 5783 (1996). The Commission also extended the time for filing comments.
`
`19217
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 4 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`the Congressional mandate that the Commission adopt rules to implement closed captioning
`requirements by August 8, 1997 .10
`
`Section 713(f) focuses the Commission's inquiry on the appropriate methods and
`9.
`schedules for phasing video description into the marketplace and standards for this technology,
`including technical and quality standards for video descriptions. In Section IV we provide a
`general discussion of the availability of video description and general information regarding the
`population groups that can benefit from its availability, the methods and costs of adding
`descriptions to video programming, the amount of programming now available with description
`and the current funding of this technology. As directed by the statute, we then address methods
`and schedules for phasing video description into the marketplace, including appropriate regulatory
`and technical requirements.
`
`This report encompasses all types of available video programming with closed
`10.
`captioning and video description delivered to consumers through existing distribution technology.
`We report on the availability of broadcast commercial and noncommercial networks, basic and
`premium cable networks, syndicated and locally produced broadcast and cable programming with
`closed captions and video description. In addition to over-the-air broadcast television service and
`cable television service, we examine the availability of the delivery of closed captions and video
`descriptions to consumers by other multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs").
`Among these distributors are direct-to-home ("DTH") satellite services, including direct broadcast
`satellite ("DBS") services and home satellite dishes ("HSD"), wireless cable systems using the
`multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), instructional television fixed service
`("ITFS") or local multipoint distribution ("LMDS"), satellite master ante~ television
`("SMA TV") and local exchange carrier ("LEC") video services. 11
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Findings
`
`J.
`
`Closed Captioning
`
`Captioning of video programming has existed since the early 1970s. Through the
`11.
`efforts of Congress, government agencies and a variety of private parties, captioned video
`programming has grown over the past 25 years so that it is now a common feature associated
`with the vast majority of popular prime time broadcast television programming. Congress'
`
`10
`Section 713(a). Specific requirements the Commission must consider when adopting regulations are
`specified in Sections 713(b)-(e) and comments directed at those provisions will be considered in the Notice of
`Proposed Rulemaking.
`
`11
`See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,
`Second Annual Report, CS Docket No. 95-61, FCC 95-491, 11 FCC Red 2060 (1996) ("1995 Competition Report'}
`This report provides detailed information regarding all available video distribution technologies.
`
`19218
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 5 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") 12 requiring the closed captioning
`of federally funded public service announcements, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990
`("TDCA") 13 and the 1996 Act reflect a continuing national commitment to ensuring "that all
`Americans ultimately have access to video services and programs particularly as video
`programming becomes an increasingly important part of the home, school and workplace." 14
`
`Beneficiaries of Closed Captioning: The principal beneficiaries of closed
`12.
`captioning are the approximately 22.4 million persons who are hearing disabled. In 1995, 25
`million decoder-equipped television sets were sold in the U.S. It is estimated that between 50
`and 60 million U.S. homes can currently receive closed captioning.
`
`Technology: Closed captioning is distributed on line 21 of the vertical blanking
`13.
`interval ("VBI") of broadcast and other analog television signals. Commission rules reserve line
`21 for this service. Pursuant to the TDCA, since July 1, 1993, all television receivers with screen
`sizes 13 inches or larger must be capable of receiving and displaying closed captions. Cable
`television systems retransmitting broadcast signals must pass through closed captioning to the
`receivers of all subscribers. For those whose television receivers are not capable of decoding and
`displaying closed captioning, separate decoders may be purchased. Existing technology, however,
`can only decode Latin based alphabets and symbols, so captioning of some non-English language
`programming (Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Arabic, etc.) is not possible using this system. This
`transmission and display system is generally well established and functions effectively. Digital
`transmission systems under development are being designed to include closed caption capabilities.
`
`Notwithstanding the capabilities of this transmission system, a variety of problems
`14.
`can occur in the captioning process. Captioning of prerecorded programming involves adding
`a written transcription or description of the spoken words and sounds which is generally carefully
`prepared and checked for accuracy. In the case of live programming, however, the real time
`stenographic process of adding the captions increases the number of mistakes.
`
`In addition, as programming is duplicated or prepared for transmission, improperly
`15.
`adjusted signal processing equipment can delete line 21, introduce errors or result in captions not
`being synchronized with the video portion of the program. Time compression of programming
`to fit it into specific time blocks may destroy captions. Finally, interference and poor quality
`reception may impair caption quality, sometimes causing individual letters to appear as square
`white blocks. Closed captions may also cover other written information on the screen, such as
`emergency weather or school closing announcements.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1990) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).
`
`Pub. L. No. 101-431, 104 Stat. 960 (1990) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 303(u), 330(b)).
`
`14 Conference Report at 183-184.
`
`19219
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 6 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`Cost: There is a wide range in the cost of closed captioning that reflects the
`16.
`method of adding the captions, the quality of those captions and the entity providing the captions.
`Organizations and suppliers that charge the most for their services are reported to provide the
`highest quality and most accurate captioning. For prerecorded programming, the captions are
`developed off-line using a script of the actual program. Estimates of the cost of this type of
`captioning range from $800 to $2500 per hour of programming. Captions for live programs can
`be created by specially trained stenotypists. Live captioning costs are estimated to be between
`$150 and $1200 an hour. Off-line captioning is typically more expensive than live captioning
`because additional resources are expended to edit and proofread the captions. Another method
`of captioning live programming uses computer software that converts a script into closed
`captioning. This method, known as electronic newsroom captioning, is virtually cost free once
`the equipment and software are purchased at a cost generally estimated to be between $2500 and
`$5000. For high budget programming that is distributed nationally and reused many times, such
`as theatrical films that may receive network broadcast, subscription, syndication, cable television
`and video tape distribution over a period of years, the costs involved represent only a minor
`portion of the total production expense and revenue flow. For less expensive programming, such
`as local cable originations, the cost of captioning could be a significant proportion of total
`expenditures.
`
`Amount of captioning: There has been significant progress in the delivery of
`17.
`closed captioning of video programming, but the goal of making video programming through all
`delivery systems accessible to persons with disabilities is not yet realized. Virtually all nationally
`broadcast prime time television programming and nationally broadcast children's programming,
`news, daytime programming and some sports programming, both commercial and noncommercial,
`is captioned. New feature films produced in the U.S. that will be distributed by broadcast
`networks, cable networks, syndicators and local stations following their theatrical release are now
`captioned at the production stage. Many local stations caption their newscasts, at least the portion
`that is scripted. Many of the national satellite cable programming networks distribute
`programming containing closed captions. Cable operators also appear to provide some limited
`captioning of their local and regional programming. Other MVPDs essentially distribute
`programming that is produced for broadcast and cable use, and they generally deliver the
`programming with the existing captions intact.
`
`Certain types of programming, however, are unlikely to be captioned, including
`18.
`non-English language programming, home shopping programming, weather programming that
`includes a large amount of visual and graphic information, live sports and music programming.
`Captions are less likely to be included in programming intended to serve smaller or specialized
`audience markets. Programming (e.g., sports), which is considered perishable because it may
`only be aired one time, is less likely to contain captions than programming that can be rerun by
`the original distributor or redistributed by others (e.g., in the syndication market).
`
`Economic Support: There are four principal sources of economic support for
`19.
`closed captioning. Financial assistance provided by the Department of Education ("DOE") funds
`represents approximately 40% of the cost of all captioned video programming. This funding is
`
`19220
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 7 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`available only for programming that reaches the largest audiences -- national news, public affairs,
`children's programming, movies and prime time specials. The remaining support comes from
`a combination of directly credited corporate advertising support, charitable and foundation support
`and producers and distributors of programming. Public service announcements produced or
`funded by the Federal government must be captioned, pursuant to Title IV of the ADA.
`
`Little information appears to be collected in any systematic fashion about the size
`20.
`of the audience for closed captioned programming or about the economic demand for captioned
`programming when programming is distributed on a subscription basis. Not all advertisers
`caption their own advertisements even when the advertisements appear in conjunction with
`programming that is captioned. Some distributors, such as those offering subscription based
`services (e.g., HBO, Cinemax), appear to believe that the inclusion of captions is rewarded by
`It also is likely that all
`the marketplace as they are able to attract additional subscribers.
`programmers and program providers could increase their audience shares if their video
`programming is accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing community and therefore benefit
`economically through the inclusion of captions. 15
`
`2.
`
`Vuleo Description
`
`Current Status: Video description includes a narration of the actions taking place
`21.
`in the video programming that are not reflected in the existing dialogue.
`It requires the
`development of a second script and uses the second audio programming ("SAP") channel. Video
`description has not had as far a reach as video captioning. Video description is currently included
`only on some programs distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service ("PBS") and a few other
`programs distributed by cable systems. Not all broadcast stations or other video distributors are
`able to transmit the SAP channel and only about half of the nation's homes have a television with
`the capability to receive the SAP channel. Unlike line 21 of the vertical blanking interval, which
`is reserved only for captioning, there is no dedicated or reserved transmission capacity for video
`descriptions. As a consequence, it competes with second language transmissions, including
`Spanish language, for use of the SAP channel. According to the National Center for Health
`Statistics, there are approximately 8.6 million individuals who are blind or visually disabled who
`might benefit from video description.
`
`Because video description is a newer service there is a lack of experience with
`22.
`developing and assessing the best means for promoting its use.
`In addition, costs for video
`description are approximately one and a half times the costs associated with closed captioning
`similar programming. Video description also receives substantially less government funding,
`which has been a significant factor in promoting the development of closed captioning.
`Additional legal and technical issues exist. For example, video description requires the
`development of a second script, which raises creativity and copyright issues, and must use the
`second audio programming channel and thus must compete for use with other audio services,
`
`15
`
`See, e.g., National Association of the Deaf Comments ("N.A.D") at 28-29.
`
`19221
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 8 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`particularly the bilingual audio service. While it is expected that the implementation of digital
`technology may be more conducive to video description than the current technology because it
`will permit the transmission of multiple audio channels, given the high costs, lack of funding and
`unresolved copyright issues, video description is presently a developing service that faces many
`obstacles before it can become more accessible.
`
`Recommendation: In enacting this section of the Act, Congress intended to ensure
`23.
`video accessibility to all Americans, including persons with visual disabilities. The general
`accessibility of video description is dependent on the resolution of certain technical, legal, funding
`and cost issues. Any schedule for expanding the use of video description would depend, in part,
`on implementation of advanced digital television. Implementation of advanced digital television
`can make the distribution of additional audio channels feasible and facilitate the implementation
`of video description. In addition to these technical problems; funding remains a fundamental
`issue that will effect any schedule for the widespread use of video description since it appears that
`advertising support alone is unlikely to be sufficient to fund this service, given the costs involved.
`
`Congress has directed the Commission to assess the appropriate methods and
`24.
`schedules for phasfug video description into the marketplace and to address certain technical and
`quality standards issues. The present record on which to assess video description, however, is
`limited and the emerging nature of the service renders definitive conclusions difficult. Thus, we
`believe that, at this time, the best course is for the Commission to continue to monitor the
`deployment of video description and the development of standards for new video technologies
`that will afford greater accessibility of video description. Specifically, we will seek additional
`information that will permit a better assessment of video description in conjunction with our 1997
`report to Congress assessing competition in the video marketplace. This annual report is
`submitted in compliance with Section 628(g) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 548(g). In the context of
`this report, the Commission will be able to gather and evaluate information regarding the
`deployment of SAP channels and digital technology that will enable video providers and
`programmers to include video description. In seeking more information, we intend to focus on
`the specific methods and schedules for ensuring that video programming includes descriptions,
`technical and quality standards and other relevant legal and policy issues.
`
`19222
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 9 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`ID.
`
`CLOSED CAPTIONING OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`Closed captioning is an assistive technology designed to provide access to
`25.
`televisio.n for persons with hearing disabilities. Captioning is similar to subtitles in that it
`displays the audio portion of a television signal as printed words on the television screen. 16 To
`assist viewers with hearing disabilities, captions also identify speakers, sound effects, ~usic and
`laughter. Captions were first used in the early 1970s in an "open" format, transmitted with the
`video so that they were visible to all viewers. PBS developed closed captioning in the 1970s.
`Closed captioning is hidden as encoded data transmitted within the VBI of the television signal,
`which, "when decoded, provides a visual depiction of information simultaneously being presented
`in the aural channel (captions)." 17 A viewer wishing to see the closed captioning must use a set(cid:173)
`top decoder or a television receiver with built-in decoder circuitry.
`
`The Commission has long sought to promote closed captioning technology. In the
`26.
`1970s, the Commission granted PBS a number of authorizations to conduct experimental
`transmissions using closed captioning, and in 1976, adopted rules that provide that line 21 ofthe
`VBI is to be primarily used for the transmission of closed captioning. 18 The Commission's rules
`specify technical standards for the reception and display of such captioning. 19 The Commission
`has also adopted technical standards for the cable carriage of closed captioning data that
`
`16
`
`See Implementation of Television Decoder Circuitry Act, Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 91-1, 6 FCC
`Red 2419, 2420 (1991) ("TDCA R&O"), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Red '2279
`(1992). Further background infonnation concerning closed captioning can be found in DuBow, "The Television
`Decoder Circuitry Act - TV For All," 64 Temp. L. Rev. 609 (1991), and on the World Wide Web home page of
`the Caption Center of
`the WGBH Educational Foundation
`("WGBH"):
`http://www.wgbh.org/pages/captioncenter/captioncenterhome.html. Copies of materials from the World Wide Web
`that are cited have been placed in the record of this proceeding.
`
`17
`
`See 47 C.F.R. § 73.682(aX22). In particular, closed-captioning information may be transmitted on fields
`one and two of line 21 of the VBI. Standard television pictures are transmitted at a rate of 30 frames per second,
`with two interlaced fields comprising each frame. Each field begins with a VBI of 21 lines, during which the picture
`scanning beam is turned off (blanked) and is moved from the bottom of the screen to its starting position at the top
`of the screen. There are two VB Is transmitted per frame, one in each field. The placement of data within the VBI
`is described in terms of the particular blanking line used and the field (one or two) in which it occurs. See
`Permissible Uses of the Vertical Blanking Interval, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92-305, 8 FCC
`Red 90 n.1 (1992).
`
`18
`
`See Captioning for the Deaf, Report and Order, Docket No. 20693, 63 FCC 2d 378 (1976) ("Captioning
`R&O"). See also Permissible Uses of the Vertical Blanking Interval, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 92-305,
`8 FCC Red 3613 (permitting enhanced closed-captioning and other broadcast-related information services on line
`21, field 2 of the VBI).
`
`19
`
`Id
`
`19223
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1024
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 10 of 62
`
`

`

`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 96-318
`
`accompanies programming carried on cable systems. 20 In addition, cable operators are required
`to carry the closed captioning data contained in line 21 of the vertical blanking interval as part
`of their must-carry obligations. 21
`
`To implement the TDCA, the Commission adopted regulations requiring all
`27.
`television broadcast receivers with screen sizes 13 inches or larger that were manufactured or
`imported on or after July 1, 1993, to be capable of receiving and displaying closed captions.22
`By mid-1994, decoder-equipped television sets were in nearly 20 million American homes.23 In
`1995, 25 million decoder-equipped television sets were sold in the U.S.24 It is estimated that
`between 50 and 60 million U.S. homes can currently receive closed captioning.25
`
`In addition to these efforts to promote closed captioning technology, the
`28.
`Commission, in 1976, adopted a rule requiring television licensees to transmit emergency
`messages in a visual form.at.26 In 1990, Congress passed the ADA which requires all federally
`funded public service announcements to be closed captioned. 27 Aside from these requirements,
`however, neither Congress nor the Commission has mandated captioning of television
`programming. Instead, Congress and the Commission have relied on the voluntary efforts of
`program producers and providers to make television programming accessible to persons with
`hearing disabilities. As far back as 1970, the Commission has urged broadcast television
`
`20
`47 C.F.R. § 76.606; Cable Television Tech