Modern television increasingly relies upon visual effects and scenes to convey important elements of the plot, in contrast to older programming that was more dialogue-oriented. For the nation's 8 million to 12 million visually impaired people, video description is the equivalent of closed-captioning for the deaf. Video description is where a narrator describes visual elements of a program during the natural pauses that occur in dialogue to let a person not able to see the screen know what is happening. These elements can include actions, costumes, gestures and scene changes. On television, the narration and descriptions come over a secondary audio programming (SAP) channel that is normally off unless switched on by people who want to hear it. Most televisions manufactured after 1993 have the SAP capability built in.
In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission required the major networks and cable channels in the top 25 television markets to present at least four hours of described programming per week. The FCC further required that audio described programs be made available where TV stations not in the top 25 markets had the equipment to do so. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association successfully challenged that order in court, saying that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exceeded its authority. The court stated that Congress, in the Telecommunications Act, ordered the FCC only to issue a report on the feasibility of video description on television. By contrast, it authorized the FCC to require closed-captioning. The Video Description Restoration Act would restore the FCC's video description rules, expressly granting the FCC authority to restore its minimum requirements, with increased access over time. It also expressly states that vital information such as weather alerts, public service announcements and emergency information flashed up on the screen during newscasts must be made accessible to blind and visually impaired viewers.
Currently there is a residual amount of video description on television, made available from the time when the FCC mandate went into effect in April 2002. However, according to our sources, this described video programming has decreased by 75%, indicating that a voluntary standard is insufficient. The FCC order came only after the commercial industry had essentially ignored the access issues for those 15 years. Now it appears that much of the television industry is ignoring it again.
The infrastructure to support video description is already in place and has been since the FCC mandate. No major effort is required of the industry to continue the service. Furthermore, producers of the service currently charge between $2,000 and $4,000 for an hour of programming, a relatively inexpensive price tag within the industry. Television plays a critical role in our society as a vital source of news, information, local and community affairs, education, and entertainment. The nation has a compelling public interest in furthering the safety, security and well being of persons who are blind and visually impaired by ensuring, to the fullest extent made possible by technology, equal access to the television medium.
We are asking that Congress restore the authority of the FCC to establish rules and regulations to require video description that they might provide a clear and comprehensive mandate for the provision of access to video programming by persons who are blind and visually impaired.