Internet Protocol captioning requests from CEA and the Digital Media Association...
Internet Protocol captioning requests from CEA and the Digital Media Association were opposed by three groups representing those with hearing impairments and a program at a university serving those with trouble hearing. CEA had petitioned the FCC to reconsider its…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
order, so removable media players need not display IP captions (CD May 3 p13). A lawyer for Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, National Association for the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America and Gallaudet University’s Technology Access Program reported their officials told Consumer & Governmental Affairs and Media bureau staffers of the concerns. The groups shared concerns about the association’s request that the commission clarify that Jan. 1, 2014, is when manufacturers must begin making compliant devices and not also selling them. “Consumers may rightfully expect, based on the Commission’s order in this proceeding, that the January 1, 2014 refers to the date that accessible apparatuses will be made available for sale,” the groups said in a filing posted Tuesday in docket 11-154 (http://xrl.us/bnaqnx). “The presence of noncompliant apparatuses on store shelves at that point may lead to serious consumer confusion.” Manufacturers could label products to say if they're compliant or not starting in 2014, the groups said. DiMA’s request for a 16-month extension of enforcing some rules for video programming distributors to caption broadcast TV and cable video when it’s sent by IP and a request for that same delay for VPDs not providing captions to render them (CD May 14 p13) is a “gross abuse of administrative process,” the deaf advocates said. DiMA is “impermissibly attempting to bend the Commission’s individualized waiver process to seek a blanket waiver for the entire industry,” they continued. “Because nearly all IP-delivered video must be rendered on devices, plug-ins, or applications provided by VPDs, extending the deadlines for rendering would effectively vitiate the six-, twelve-, and eighteen-month deadlines carefully negotiated by the industry and consumer representatives on the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee."