Just heard that Congress is considering a bill (HR 3101) about internet captioning. Got excited! Did some checking — the few blogs that I found only had vlogs talking about it, or simple blurbs. Very limited information for me to cut my teeth on.

So I decided to do research and detailed analysis. Found the actual bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3101/text

The bill will basically do the following:

1. Increase FCC powers so they can mandate accessibility for devices that provide verbal/audible communications
2. Require VO-IP providers to also pay into the TRS fund
3. Enables FCC to establish standards for accessibility in regards to communications-based devices/software
4. Strengthen Lifeline and Link-Up federal-provided discounts
5. Require all video-playback devices above 13 inches to support captioning
6. Require, after inquiry by FCC, all video-playback devices below 13 inches to support captioning
7. Require internet video containing audio, that are comparable to television-based video programming provide captioning

-
This bill was introduced into Congress by Representative Edward Markey (Democrat, 7th district, Massachusetts). Two other representatives signed on as sponsors: Representative Barbara Lee (Democrat, 9th district, California), and Representative Linda Sanchez (Democrat, 39th district, California).

If you’d like the in-depth analysis of the bill and the people behind the bill, go ahead and jump into my blog post!

Before we start digging into the bill, let’s check out the people behind the bill.

Let’s look at the raw stats here: Edward (who has 100% failure rate in sponsoring bills) is sponsoring this bill, Barbara (99.41 failure rate in co-sponsorship) is co-sponsoring the bill, so is Linda (99.34% failure rate in co-sponsorship). I don’t know about you guys, but that’s pretty damn discouraging when you consider the stats. Maybe Edward would be better off passing this bill on to a more accomplished speaker so the bill has a chance of passing? He should ask someone who’s a toastmaster (usually someone who’s a very good orator) as well as have excellent stats when it comes to getting bills passed to take over the bill.

At this point, the bill doesn’t have very good of surviving passage throughout the House of Representatives, much less the Senate. Remember; as much as we may want this bill to pass, Congress caters to special interests (such as corporations) — and those very same special interests would be most likely against this bill because this “places undue fiscal burden” (quote mine) onto them in order to have any internet media captioned. Basically the corporations are whining that this will cost them money. According to special interests, anything that costs them money is automatically bad, regardless of how good the reason may be.

That being said, let’s dig into the bill itself!

The bill makes frequent references to the Communications Act of 1934, so if you want, you can also refer to it for the sake of being able to follow what the bill is talking about. Or you can just let me do the dirty work for you.

H.R. 3101: Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009 — To ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to emerging Internet Protocol-based communication and video programming technologies in the 21st Century.

Just from the title, I’m intrigued. Reading on… The start of the bill proposes to amend a couple of definitions, basically defining a couple of words. Standard for any bill. Moving on…

‘(C) to the extent technologically feasible, all customer premises equipment used to provide advanced communications that provides voice communication via a built-in speaker (typically held to the ear) and that are manufactured in the United States (other than for export) more than one year after the date of enactment of the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009, or are shipped in interstate commerce in the United States more than one year after such date,’. (Link to section)

Okay, so they’re setting it up so the FCC can more effectively regulate the telecommunications devices to make them more accessible, basically generalizing it so not just telephones are covered, everything else (speakerphones? GPS with spoken directions? etc) that provides verbal communications would suddenly be open to be mandated to be accessible to the deaf by FCC if the bill is passed. Interesting that. I don’t know if the deaf community has realized the implications of this part of the bill– apparently this bill has hidden teeth that may be very beneficial to the deaf community. If this bill is passed, it most definitely has alot of potentially far-reaching implications for the future of the deaf accessiblity.

Now this part, I absolutely love, and know for sure will send most (if not all) VO-IP provider howling up and down the walls:

‘Within one year after the date of enactment of the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009, each interconnected VoIP service provider and each provider of non-interconnected VoIP service shall participate in and contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund established in section 64.404(c)(5)(iii) of the Commission’s regulations (47 C.F.R. 64.404(c)(5)(iii)), as in effect on the date of enactment of such Act, in a manner prescribed by the Commission by regulation to provide for obligations of such providers that are consistent with and comparable to the obligations of other contributors to such Fund.’. (Link to section)

That section essentially closes a loophole long exploited by VO-IP providers. Currently, the telephone service providers are required to pay into a fund that funds the TRS (text relay services) and the VRS (video relay services. This is pretty much how Sorenson, Snap!VRS, Viable, Purple Communications, and so on manage to generate revenue and keep many deaf people employed. At this time, all VO-IP providers are exempt because they technically are not telephone service providers in the sense that they do not operate based on telephone wires, they operate via the internet. Different method, same thing. That proposed amendment would pretty much make it inclusive, thereby mandating VO-IP providers also pay into the fund. The VO-IP providers most likely will go the same route as the telephone providers and pass on the tax onto their customers. I have VO-IP via Vonage for my hearing family, which means I’d end up being one of those customers paying taxes. Personally, I don’t mind — it’d increase funding for the VRS, which I make use of extensively. Anything that increases it would potentially enhance the quality of service and products the VRS providers could give to the deaf community is excellent.

Although that’d probably piss off the majority of customers, which may discourage other congressmen from voting for this bill since this would impose a tax which most likely would be passed on to customers. Personally, I think it’s about time we become inclusive when it comes to telecommunications.

Section 716 would pretty much add more teeth to the part of enabling FCC to mandate that communication-based devices be more accessible to the deaf, but also expands the description to also include software. Video games with captioning? This definitely appeals to the gamer inside me! That section also says that any device or software must absolutely not cause any interference to any existing accessibility devices; such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, videophones, etc. Good one, that. Wouldn’t want people screwing up my hearing aid or my videophones.

However, like any part of the ADA and many other accessibility bills, the stuff inside this bill keeps appending the text “unless the requirement of this subsection would result in an undue burden.“. This basically gives a loophole for a company to opt out of providing accessibility by saying “dude, this is too hard for me to do, it can’t be done! Bankruptcy! End of the world!”, then FCC would pretty much let them off the hook. Yep, there’s no defintion of “undue burden” anywhere in this bill. Nor is there in the Telecommunications Act of 1934, or in the Americans with Disabilities Act. So that part is pretty much open to interpretation. But I can see why they left it open for interpretation– with no such loophole, those bills would have been much harder to pass with the corporations sinking money into fighting those bills as if their very lives depended on it. Now you understand why I said “undue fiscal burden” earlier above. I was referring to this loophole.

But I digress. Back to the bill.

Ahhh, this part is worth noting:

‘(e) Regulations- Within one year after the date of enactment of the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009, the Commission shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to implement this section. In prescribing the regulations, the Commission shall– (Link to Section)

So if this bill passed, it would pretty much weak and virtually unenforcable for a year, before it finally kicks in and the FCC can start kicking asses and taking names. Makes sense, give the industries time to figure out (and get the money) to bring themselves into compliance with this act before this act suddenly sprouts teeth and the FCC goes out barking at people. Maybe this will placate the special interests into letting this bill pass. Mmmm. Nahhh, don’t think so. Still would cost them money, so they’d naturally be against it anyway regardless of how reasonable it was.

That section also would enable the FCC to develop standards to ensure wide compatiability between equipment used for communications by the deaf. That already exists to some degree, but it can’t hurt to codify this so the FCC has an additional tool in their arsenel if they need it next time a few businesses decide not to play nice and it’s harming accessibility for the deaf.

Bloody hell! I love what the bill just did here!

‘(g) Definition- For purposes of the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009, the term ‘undue burden’ means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the requirements of any provision of this section would result in an undue burden, the factors to be considered include–

‘(1) the nature and cost of the steps required to develop and manufacture the product in question;

‘(2) the impact on the operation of the manufacturer or provider;

‘(3) the financial resources of the manufacturer or provider; and

‘(4) the type of operations of the manufacturer or provider. (Link to Section)

Only problem here, the word “sigificant” in this context has not been defined, so once again, that’s open to interpretion. So the loophole is still open. Weaker, but still open. But still, I’m glad that phrase has been codified! If the bill passes, it’ll be harder for businesses to beg out of compliance.

Section 717 also sets it up so the bill doesn’t grow teeth until a year after the bill becomes law. The section also sets it up so there’s no fee for anyone to file complaints with FCC against someone or a business for a violation of this amendment, and also requires that the petitioner be provided a reciept (proof that he/she filed a complaint).

The section also provides opportunity for people/businesses to defend themselves against complaints (allegations of violations of this amendment if it becomes law).

The section also gives FCC the ability to tell people/businesses to stop being jerks (Cease and Desist Orders, if engaged in an act prohibited by law, such as intentional interference to a device intended to provide accessibility to the deaf). Basically.

This part of the section would require businesses providing communication services to maintain documentation and report to FCC about their efforts to bring themselves into compliance with this act. This alone probably will piss off special interests– more work for them to do. Heh.

At this point, I’m halfway through the bill and analyzing it.

‘(4) INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES- Notwithstanding subsection (j), the Commission shall authorize Lifeline and Link-Up assistance programs and other Federal universal service support mechanisms to be used for those telecommunications services, Internet access services, and advanced communications that are needed by individuals with disabilities, who are otherwise qualified for such programs or mechanisms, to engage in communication with one or more other individuals in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of individuals without disabilities to engage in such communication.’. (Link to Section)

This part will simply add additional authorization for use of the federally-provided discounts via Lifeline and Link-Up. Those discounts/assistance methods are already in effect, that part will simply make it more official. For more information on those discounts/assistance programs, check this site out.

Annnnnd now the much vaunted section 201 that has the deaf community in an excited uproar! Internet Video Captioning!  This is 2/3 way down in the bill. Someone get me coffee. And a toasted english bagel. With blackberry jelly on it. Pretty please?

The first part of that section basically just describes closed-captioning, video description, how it works via captioning formats, software commonly used to provide captioning via mediums including those using the internet. Now, I love Edward for having the foresight to add this part: “(or a successor protocol)”. He basically made sure that if there’s something newer than the internet, the deaf will have a way to fight for accessibility on that new medium since it’ll have been included via that clause. It also describes captioning via digital wireless services — in other words, it also includes cell phones. Captioned videos on iPhone anyone?

But again, it’s just saying that stuff will need to be discribed by FCC. Describing is not the same thing as mandating it.

This part is cool, but also pisses me off:

‘(u) Require that apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming (as such term is defined in section 713(g)) transmitted simultaneously with sound, when such apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States and uses a picture screen that is 13 inches or greater in size– (Link to Section)

13 inches? What the hell? There’s netbooks that’re less than THAT size, DVD players with built in LCDs smaller than THAT size! Better to avoid citing sizes, just be inclusive for all sizes. So much for iPhone video captioning. And besides, that’s already in effect– anything bigger than 13 inches already has built in captioning capability. It’s the **MEDIA** that needs to be captioned.

This section apparently was written for people like me who got pissed off by the part above:

‘(v) Require, after inquiry, that apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming (as such term is defined in section 713(g)) transmitted simultaneously with sound, when such apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States and uses a picture screen that is less than 13 inches in size–

Nice try buddy, not being fooled here. Notice the part where it says: “after inquiry” (emphasis added by me)? Alright, good, Edward included those less than 13 inches in size, but specifically said “after inquiry”, and failed to impose a time limitation on how long this said “inquiry” will take, and when this “inquiry” will take! Cmon, if you’re going to impose conditions, don’t be open-ended! The FCC can easily just ignore this section by saying “we’ll do the inquiry. eventually. like, 1,000 years from now. Or maybe later. And when we do it, it’ll be about 200 years before we finally finish the inquiry”. Get it?

I’m seeing stuff about video captioning, but nothing about actual INTERNET video captioning. But still, at least the end-devices such as iPhones, etc will support captioning. But supporting it, when the media itself has no caption in the first place is a whole another story and pretty much defeats the point of supporting captioning in the first place.

Aha! Now for the internet-based media captioning part!

‘(2) VIDEO PROGRAMMING- The term ‘video programming’ means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station, even if such programming is distributed over the Internet or by some other means.’. (Link to Section)

Nice! Except I see two problems with that.

One: Edward made a bad move and used it in the television programming context– which means this would be only applicable to businesses such as Hulu.com, Joost, etc.

Two: Too specific– needs to be broadened to include all video media on the internet provided by businesses that include audio. The vast spectrum of the internet video media that contain audio would be left out because the businesses that own the content would essentially be able to argue they aren’t providing content comparable to television programming.

The rest of the bill is just talking about accessibility to user interfaces of playback-capable video media containing audio (which already exist and are widely used), and accessibility for video programming guides and menus by the blind.

Yes, it means I just finished reading the entire bill.

All in all, this bill has a couple of good features, doesn’t effectively cover all of the non-consumer-generated video media on the internet, and doesn’t really effectively address the need for captioning on devices smaller than 13 inches.

But again, this bill could be considered a “starter bill”, something to provide a base for future bills to build on.

I’d also like to point out that this bill is still in committee (specifically House Energy and Commerce, 59 members on it- their site can be found here), so the bill can still be modified prior to being presented to the floor for a vote by the committee. Their chairman is Representative Henry Waxman.

Conclusion: While I think this bill has quite a lot of potential in it — when I take into account the sponsor and cosponsors’ stats, as well as the high potential of interference by special interests, I doubt this bill has much of a chance for survivial. But I’d absolutely love it if this bill does manage to become law.