What follows are the original texts of letters and attachments received, converted to HTML.
Ref: Rapids 52181, 53751, & 53754
File Nº 7300-12, 7300-12-X
Dear. Mr. Clark:
We are writing in response to your letters of 8 April and 28 May and your email message of 26 July. As per your request in the latter, we are responding electronically, in a plain text format.
You have raised important issues in your correspondence with us regarding the role of distributors in making television more accessible to persons with visual impairments, and specifically about the substitution of undescribed Canadian signals over US signals that have description on the second audio program (SAP).
As Rogers points out in its letter of 22 May, under the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (BDU regulations), all distributors are required to substitute distant signals (most often from the US) with the signal of local (Canadian) television stations, where the signals are comparable and broadcast at the same time. Comparable is defined as two programs that are least 95% the same, excluding commercial messages and subsidiary signals. In effect then, the existence of description on the SAP signal of the US service has no impact on the current substitution requirements.
However, as you point out, there are circumstances in which the Commission can ask distributors to stop such substitution. For example, the Commission could determine that the deletion would not be in the public interest because the US program to be deleted includes “subsidiary signals designed to inform or entertain” that the Canadian signal does not include. (As specified in the BDU regulations at section 30(5).)
It would appear that video description, a service designed to make television programming more accessible to persons who are blind or visually impaired, falls into the category of informative and/or entertaining subsidiary signals that are in the public interest. But, on the other hand, as outlined in CHUM Television’s reply of 20 June, the Commission must recognize the importance and value of substitution to Canadian broadcasters.
The simultaneous substitution requirements recognize the legitimate programming rights acquired by Canadian broadcasters. They have also provided an important source of revenue for Canadian broadcasters, contributing to their ability to meet their programming commitments, including the production and exhibition of Canadian programs, as well as other important public policy objectives such as closed captioning and description.
Thus, the Commission must find a balance between the important but apparently competing public policy objectives of improved access versus simultaneous substitution.
As you noted in your 26 July email, the Commission expects broadcasters to make best efforts to acquire and broadcast programs with description, particularly in light of the increasing availability of US programs with description. This is certainly the long-term solution to the problems you have identified. In the shorter term, we note the replies of CHUM and the Global Television Network describing some of the challenges relating to acquiring US programs with description, as well as your own analysis of certain technical issues.
It is for all of these reasons that Commission staff has decided to expand its review of the issues raised in your letters.
As a first step, we are writing to the major English-language broadcasters asking them to address these issues, specifically why the Commission should not instruct distributors to cease substitution where the US signals contain description and the Canadian signals do not.
We are attaching a copy of our letter to the broadcasters for your information.
In addition, we are writing to the major Canadian distributors asking them to address issues relating to the pass through of described programming that is offered on the SAP signals of Canadian and/or American television broadcasters.
We are also attaching a copy of that letter for your information.
On another matter, we note that you have taken exception to the terminology that the Commission uses in respect of improved service to the blind. Let us take this opportunity to clarify the Commission’s approach and its rationale for the terminology that it has chosen.
The Commission has adopted two phrases to distinguish between different methods of improving access to television for people who are blind or visually impaired. In the Commission’s lexicon, we have adopted the phrase “audio description” to refer to voice-overs of textual or graphic information displayed on screen, such as sports scores, weather information, stock quotes, and so on. This type of description does not require special technology, just some sensitivity on the part of the broadcaster. The Commission has adopted the phrase “described video” or “video description” to refer to the narrative descriptions of a program’s key visual elements, which permit viewers to create a mental picture of what is happening on-screen, and which are generally made available on the SAP.
We have chosen to make such a distinction in light of the differing abilities of licensees to provide such features. All broadcasters can and should provide improved audio description, whereas the capacity of some to provide video description may be more limited, either as a result of their resources or the nature of the programming that they provide. We have found the distinction useful when imposing obligations on different types of licensees.
We hope you will find this explanation helpful.
For your information, all of the correspondence relating to your complaint, along with the correspondence relating to the two matters described above will be placed on the Commission’s “described video” file and will be available for consultation by the public in our public exam room.
Sincerely,
Jean-Pierre Blais
Executive Director
Broadcasting
CRTC File Nº 7300-12
Distribution list attached
Re: Simultaneous substitution and described video programming
As you know, effective 1 April 2002, US broadcasters began to fulfil their obligation to provide 50 hours per quarter of described video programming. On 8 April 2002, the Commission received a complaint from Mr. Joe Clark regarding the substitution by Rogers Cable of undescribed Canadian signals over US signals that had description on the second audio program (SAP). The complaint and subsequent correspondence have raised a number of important issues that Commission staff would like to explore further.
Section 30 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the BDU regulations) requires distributors to substitute US signals with the signal of Canadian television stations, where the signals are comparable and broadcast at the same time. Comparable is defined as two programs that are least 95% the same, excluding commercial messages and subsidiary signals. Thus, under the current regulations, substitution should be performed even if the US signal includes description and the Canadian one does not.
However, the regulations contemplate circumstances in which the Commission can ask distributors to stop such substitution. Specifically, subsection 30(5) permits the Commission to notify distributors that deletion would not be in the public interest because the US program to be deleted includes „subsidiary signals designed to inform or entertain‰ that the Canadian signal does not include.
It would appear that video description, a service designed to make television programming more accessible to persons who are blind or visually impaired, falls into the category of informative and/or entertaining subsidiary signals that are in the public interest.
On the other hand, simultaneous substitution recognizes the legitimate programming rights acquired by Canadian broadcasters. The Commission is also aware that substitution has been an important source of revenue for Canadian broadcasters, contributing to their ability to meet important broadcasting policy objectives, including the production and exhibition of Canadian programming.
In several recent licensing decisions, the Commission has expected broadcasters to make best efforts to acquire and broadcast programs with description, particularly in light of the increasing availability of US programs with description. In response to Mr. Clark‚s complaint, however, CHUM Television and the Global Television Network described a number of challenges associated with acquiring the described versions of US programming, particularly at this early stage.
It is in this context that we invite you to comment on the issues raised in this letter, and specifically to address the following questions:
Please respond to the issues raised in this letter by no later than 25 October 2002.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Tandy Greer Yull at 819-997-4389 or tandy.greer-yull@crtc.gc.ca.
For your information, all of the correspondence relating to this matter will be placed on the Commission’s “described video” file and will be available for consultation by the public in our public exam room.
We look forward to opening a dialog with you on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Jean-Pierre Blais
Executive Director
Broadcasting
Cc:
CRTC File Nº 7300-12
Distribution list attached
Re: Pass through of described video programming on the second audio program (SAP)
As you know, the Commission has begun to impose conditions of licence and expectations on a number of Canadian broadcasters with respect to the provision of described video programming. Described video programming includes a narrative description of a program‚s key visual elements, which permits people who are blind or visually impaired to create a mental picture of what is happening on screen. Description is generally provided on the second audio program (SAP).
CTV and Global are now required, by condition of licence, to provide an average of two hours per week of described Canadian programming, beginning in their largest markets. Starting September 2003, they will be required to provide an average of three hours per week on all of their stations. TVA is expected to provide similar levels of described programming. Other broadcasters, including the CBC and several specialty and pay services also have certain expectations with respect to the provision of described programming. As part of their recent renewal proceedings, CHUM and Craig made commitments to described video commensurate with the obligations imposed on CTV and Global. Thus, description is becoming a reality in Canada.
In the US, effective 1 April 2002, most major broadcasters began to fulfil their obligation to provide 50 hours per quarter (4 hours per week) of described video programming in the top 25 markets.
On 8 April 2002, the Commission received a complaint by Mr. Joe Clark regarding the substitution by Rogers Cable of undescribed Canadian signals over US signals that had description on the SAP. The complaint and subsequent correspondence raise a number of important issues that Commission staff would like to explore further.
The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (BDU regulations) state that distributors may not alter or delete a programming service, except under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is for the purpose of deleting a subsidiary signal, unless the signal is, itself, a programming service or is related to the service being distributed.
In terms of described video programming offered on the SAP, the Commission has already determined that it ˆ like closed captioning on the VBI ˆ is a related programming service. This was announced when the Commission first published the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Public Notice CRTC 1997-150, 22 December 1997.
This means that distributors must pass through, unaltered, any video description that may be provided on the SAP of the television stations that they carry, American or Canadian.
On the other hand, Commission staff is aware that for some cable systems, there may be certain cost and technical issues associated with passing through the SAP channels of all affected Canadian and American broadcasters. As a result, we would like to explore the extent to which Canadian cable operators are able to pass the SAP through.
Therefore, we invite you to address the following questions:
Please provide your response to the issues and questions raised in this letter no later than 25 October 2002.
For your information, the Commission will also be exploring these issues with both ExpressVu and StarChoice in the context of their licence renewals.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Tandy Greer Yull at 819-997-4389 or tandy.greer-yull@crtc.gc.ca.
For your information, all of the correspondence relating to this matter will be placed on the Commission’s “described video” file and will be available for consultation by the public in our public exam room.
We look forward to opening a dialog with you on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Jean-Pierre Blais
Executive Director
Broadcasting
Cc:
You are here: joeclark.org → Captioning and media access →
CRTC →
Simultaneous substitution of U.S. described programming → CRTC response
Received 2002.09.20 ¶ Updated 2002.10.14