I was wondering which organization the nfb would get into bed with on this
issue.  For sure the cable television industry, as I have their petition
as well.  But here is the recent petition from the nfb asking for a
reconsideration of the fcc ruling on descriptive video.  Jim Gashel has
crafted his words to once again redefine what descriptive video means.  He
uses the term "described entertainment" to mean the entertaining
programming on television, not that important for safety and education,
and the term "information access" to mean life threatening information
such as storm warnings.  He put identifying the voice of the presidential
candidate into this category of "information access", since, apparently to
Jim, we blind folks still are unable to identify either of the two major
candidates for president by voice.  We need a verbal statement that this
is Gore or that is Bush.  Of course, those less educated people, naturally
gravitating to entertainment, wouldn't care so much about the "information
access" issues.  This whole nfb approach smacks of self-righteousness and
a holier than thow attitude.  It completely ignores the needs of blind
elders who may actually enjoy television from time to time, and kid
programming, which could be enhanced educationally with good descriptive
video.  It must be very hard for Mr. Gashel to reconcile high goals of
education and the entertaining aspects of childrens' programming.  Would
he place childrens' programming in the category of "described
entertainment" or "information access".

Here's the petition.

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of Video Description of
Video Programming
)
)
)
)
)
)
MM Docket No. 99-339
INTRODUCTION:
The National Federation of the Blind hereby petitions the Federal
Communications Commission for re-consideration of its final rule concerning video
description of video programming. The Commission in issuing its proposed rule was
apparently unaware that description of prime-time shows is a mere portion of the overall
issue concerning access to television for the blind. The comments received by the
Commission raised the rest of the issue: description of information printed on the
television screen and not voiced and the priority of devoting resources to information
and/or to entertainment. Though the issue was fully raised in comment, the Commission
ignored the broader issue and finalized its proposed rule without ever giving the public
the chance to participate fully and fairly in a review of the entire issue.
In this petition, the National Federation of the Blind urges the Commission to act
responsibly and in accordance with the law by reconsidering its final rule; finding that the
rule was not in accord with the breadth of the issue as revealed by the comments;
rescinding the final rule; and beginning the proceeding again to embrace and fully review
the entire issue of access to television for the benefit of the blind. Without a new

beginning, the process which brought about the final rule stands as a stark example of
how not to conduct federal rulemaking since it was characterized by rigid refusal to
address forthrightly new matter raised by the public and by rigid adherence to the belief
that whatever the Commission proposed must have been right regardless of comments.
BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1. The Commission's final rule is fundamentally flawed.
When considering the issuance of a proposed rule requiring voiced description for
television, the Commission responded to one body of interest representing advocates for
video description. These advocates urged the Commission to require description of
prime-time television shows. In this petition, this will be referred to as ``described
entertainment.'' There is undeniable support for described entertainment among blind
people and advocates on behalf of the blind. However, described entertainment is not the
only issue involving access to television for the blind.
The Commission must have been unaware that there was any other issue
involving access to television, since its proposed rule dealt exclusively with described
entertainment. The existence of another profound issue involving access came to light
through public comment, but the Commission failed to adopt an adequate response. In
brief, the Commission gave priority to described entertainment over requiring
information printed on the screen to be accessible. This will be referred to as "accessible

information." This failure to address half of the issue--accessible information--with an
equal priority to described entertainment results in a final rule which is fundamentally
flawed.
2. The Commission was unaware of the lack of access of the blind to information printed
on the screen.
Study of the proposed rule leads to the inescapable conclusion that the
Commission was unaware of the other profound issue concerning television and the
blind--that is, the need for accessible information. Had the Commission been aware of
this part of the total issue of accessibility, it would surely have included accessible
information in the proposed rule.
It is inconceivable that the Commission would have known about both issues--
described entertainment and accessible information--but decided that described
entertainment should have priority over accessible information. That would imply that the
Commissioners are interested primarily in entertainment and do not appreciate the
importance of assuring full access for blind people to emergency, health, safety, and
citizenship information. We conclude instead that the Commission was unaware of the
need for accessible information.
3. The process of public comment on the proposed rule brought its flaw to light.

Through public comments, the Commission learned of the need for accessible
information. The National Federation of the Blind and many other individual
commenters brought this to light, pointing out that accessible information is fundamental
to effective television viewing. The comments referred to information scrolled across the
bottom of the television screen without interrupting the ongoing program. This
information includes hazardous warnings and other emergency information; local and
national news bulletins; information from both local and national advertisers; phone
numbers for health and safety information printed on the screen and not voiced; and
citizenship information such as the identities of speakers on regular and special news
programs printed at the bottom of the screen and not voiced.
One example: a blind viewer is watching a prime-time program while a
thunderstorm rages outside. Suddenly the television beeps. The blind viewer does not
know whether a new thunderstorm watch is being issued for the local area, whether a
tornado has been spotted 100 yards away, or whether an international figure has just been
assassinated. The only information is a "beep" while sighted viewers may be running for
their lives.
Another example: a nightly news show introduces a tape by saying that one of the
presidential candidates spoke today about an issue, but not naming the candidate. When
the tape rolls, the news show identifies the speaker by printing his name at the bottom of
the screen. Other voices then support or criticize the first speaker. At the conclusion of
the tape the news anchor takes a commercial break. This transaction often takes place
without any of the speakers being identified by voice. The blind person watching the

news is left to wonder, never knowing who said what. That same viewer will be voting
in a few weeks without having access to the same information available to others.
All of these needs for accessible information were brought to the Commission's
attention during the public comment period on the proposal to mandate described
entertainment. At that point, the appropriate response in the public interest would have
been to rescind the proposed rule and start the process again with the entire issue on the
table. Instead of doing this, the Commission proceeded doggedly to finalize the proposed
rule on described entertainment. As part of that process, the Commission apparently
concluded that the need for accessible information had to be addressed. This led to
insertion of a section on emergency information in an attempt to appear responsive to the
weight of serious public comments. However, the substance of the provision which was
included in the final rule is not responsive and definitely not an effective solution. In fact,
it appears to be more of an afterthought than a serious attempt to deal with a genuine
issue.
4. There is no disagreement about the importance of voicing information printed on the
screen.
In general, the Commission received two types of comments in response to the
proposed rule on described entertainment. These were comments urging the Commission
to construct a meaningful rule on accessible information and other comments simply
urging adoption of the proposed rule but not opposing a rule on accessible information.
While some commenters supporting accessible information urged that it holds a much

higher priority in our nation's life than described entertainment, no commenters
supporting described entertainment opposed a mandate to require accessible information
as well.
In fact, as the discussion evolved within the formal comment process and around
the nation, supporters of described entertainment came to support both described
entertainment and accessible information. Like the Commission, they had not thought
through the implications of adopting a rule on described entertainment without also
giving equal or greater priority to accessible information. No one interested opposes
having a meaningful rule on accessible information. Some just want it in addition to
described entertainment, and some want it first. However, since the Commission in its
proposal had been unaware of the issue of accessible information, it was compelled either
to finalize the rule on described entertainment and end the matter there or to begin again,
issuing a proposed rule covering described information and going through another
comment period.
In the provisions of its final rule, the Commission casually recognized a bit of its
dilemma and tried to cover the problem with a small addition addressing emergency
information scrolled across the screen. Anecdotal information suggests that this attempt
by the Commission occurred because the issue came to light only at the last minute--very
shortly before the adoption of the final rule--even though the comments had dealt fully
with it months before. When the Commission realized that the accessible information
issue was serious, it grabbed for a Band-Aid solution by placing a requirement in the final
rule that any emergency information scrolled across the screen must be accompanied by a

"beep." How does that make the information accessible? The fact that it does not seems
to be of no consequence to the Commission.
5. The Commission's proposed rule made no mention of accessible information, placing
inclusion of accessible information outside of the scope of the final rule.
The Commission's hasty response during this rule-making makes clear why
Congress enacted the Administrative Procedures Act and why the Act requires public
comment. The inclusion of a small section which improperly addresses emergency
warnings and does not fully address the need for accessible information renders the entire
rule-making procedure and outcome invalid.
6. The Commission's choice of described entertainment over accessible information is a
misperception of the need coupled with an offensively meaningless solution to address it.

A. In commenting on the proposed rule, many blind individuals made an honest
and good-faith effort to inform the Commission about their genuine needs and deficits as
television viewers. Among the issues raised were the following: frustration with lack of
access to health or safety information, including the failure to verbalize addresses or
telephone numbers; the helpless feeling of blind viewers who do not know the identity of
a speaker on the national news; and the fear of blind viewers who hear a "beep" but do
not know the reason for it. Blind people made all these points to convince the
Commission to rescind its proposed rule and start again.
The response? A rule to "encourage" verbalizing of information printed on the
screen, coupled with a mandate for a "beep" in the case of hazardous conditions. Blind
people who commented on the need for accessible information are insulted by the
Commission's shallow response to "encourage" accessible information but to mandate
described entertainment.
B. Information printed on the screen comes from a variety of sources: local
stations; local advertisers; network broadcasts; national advertisers; and numerous
advertising and programming production companies, etc. From the short shrift which the
Commission gave to accessible information, it is obvious that the Commission did not
undertake a serious effort to learn the implications, limitations, and possibilities which
exist to address this issue. When the issue was raised in comments, the Commission
ducked.
Instead of re-opening the proceeding and airing the entire issue of accessible
information and its relationship to described entertainment fully and fairly, the
Commission took the position that it could resolve the matter merely by encouraging

broadcasters to verbalize information and requiring them to identify hazardous warnings
with a "beep." This not only gives short shrift to the blind, but also treats the television
industry as though it would naturally oppose a rule on accessible information just as it
was assumed to oppose described entertainment.
No one knows. Would the industry oppose an effort to accompany on-screen
information with spoken words? With Commission prodding, an inexpensive solution
might be found and implemented. Once the issue is fully raised, the industry might find
the solution itself. Based, on the current state of the record, however, we will never
know.
7. A single proceeding is the only way to address the entire issue of access for the blind
since described entertainment and accessible information may use some of the same
resources and technology and may also compete for them.
If the final rule is left as is, the Commission itself, the television industry, and any
new technology will essentially be devoted to the provision of described entertainment.
This is so because described entertainment is now a mandate as opposed to accessible
information, which is merely "encouraged." By the time anyone gets around to thinking
about accessible information--truly the more urgent need-- the available resources will
already be committed elsewhere. Procedures established for described entertainment will
have priority over accessible information because the Commission's mandate favors
described entertainment. Therefore, emergency, health, safety, and citizenship
information will be crowded out by described entertainment which, under the

Commission's rule, takes priority. In fact, the chance that accessible information will ever
be addressed as a serious issue is in doubt, especially since the industry is now required
to use resources for described entertainment. Both parts of the overall television-access
issue must be considered together so that priorities for resources can be established at one
time rather than in an incremental and haphazard manner.
Respectfully submitted,
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html