UK Council on Deafness

UK Council on Deafness draft response to the Ofcom draft Code on Providing Television Access Services.

Q 1: Is overall audience share a reasonable proxy for the benefits to people with hearing or visual disabilities or is there a practicable and better alternative based on objective data?

Audience share seems to be a reasonable way to assess the benefits of access services.

Q 2: Is the audience share threshold of 0.05% appropriate as the basis for determining whether channels should, in principle, provide television access services or should it be set higher or lower?

This threshold is acceptable providing it is subject to annual review in terms of the audience share and channel content. It may well be the case that a channel has a small share of the audience but its programmes may contain information which would be helpful to users of access services. Such channels should be encouraged to provide access services even if their audience share is less than 0.05%. Some broadcasters have voluntarily made some provision for subtitling in the past and Ofcom should actively encourage broadcasters to consider making access provision, especially for those channels broadcasting nationally that are set to soon reach the threshold of 0.05%. Additionally, prior to confirming exemption of the requirement, organisations representing deaf people must be consulted.

Q 3: Is the approach to exempting services on grounds of technical difficulty appropriate?

No. Technical difficulty is not a relevant or appropriate reason for exemption.

Additionally we are dismayed that Ofcom has included for exemption provision of subtitling for music programmes where copyright laws prevent this, and for live discussion programmes including Parliamentary proceedings. Live discussion programmes and Parliamentary proceedings are vital elements in ensuring deaf people are able to exercise their civil and human rights. Both categories of programmes are currently subtitled - and have been for many years - accordingly we do not consider there are any grounds on which they should be listed for possible exclusion and would strongly object to such a proposal.

Similar observations apply to subtitling of music programmes - Top of the Pops has been subtitled for years. Music programmes feature on a number of channels and are greatly appreciated by the audience. The claim that music programmes are subject to copyright laws has not previously been upheld and we are surprised that Ofcom has listed them for possible exemption from subtitling quotas.

Shopping channels that provide detailed information in vision may possibly meet access requirements in this way. Decisions on exemption would need to be taken individually, taking into consideration the way in which the channel provides information.

Q 4: Is qualifying revenue a reasonable proxy for affordability on the part of television service providers, or is there a practicable and better alternative based on objective data? And

Q 5: Assuming it is appropriate, is the proposed limit on expenditure for access services of 1% of qualifying revenue reasonable, or should the limit be higher or lower?

These Questions are linked.

Ofcom should not consider proposing a limit on expenditure on access services as it could militate against high quality service provision across the board. If expenditure on access services is subject to a ceiling, it could lead to competition between the three services in terms of quality and quantity.

For approx 500,000 people, subtitles replace the sound and without subtitles the television picture is meaningless.

Q 6: Does the proposal to set interim targets at the end of years one and five strike the right balance between securing immediate and growing benefits for people with disabilities, and allowing flexibility for broadcasters to shoulder this new regulatory burden?

The targets set out by Ofcom are unacceptable because the suggestion that subtitling should be limited to 10% of programmes for the first four years fails to meet the spirit of the Act. The statement that "Ofcom is seeking to facilitate the ability of broadcasters to manage a gradual transition themselves...." is questionable, the Act states that Ofcom has a duty to consider the needs of citizens as well as broadcasters, and in our view these proposals fail to address citizens' needs. The minimum target at commencement should be 20% and increase by 10% per annum, similarly there should be a gradual increase towards 80% by the tenth anniversary.

Although the main provisions are directed towards broadcasters who have not been subject to regulation in the past, this requirement was confirmed in the Communications White Paper published in 2000 - more than three years ago.

Further consideration is that when the 1996 Broadcasting Act was on the Statute Book, the ITC issued its Code on Subtitling, Sign Language and Audio Description for DTT. This clearly stated that:

"No category of programme will be excluded from the minimum statutory requirements. ........ The specified minimum proportions to be subtitled and signed by the 10th anniversary of the commencement of the service are: subtitling - 50%, sign language 5%." Many digital terrestrial services commenced broadcasting in 1998, therefore the subtitling requirement for those channels should be 25% from 2004. In Q7 we point out that digital broadcasters who ceased to broadcast on terrestrial channels following the demise of ITV Digital were remiss in failing to continue to provide access services on other platforms.

Similar concerns apply to the sign language target, which should also be required to produce a gradual increase towards the 3% and 5% targets, both of which are very low.

Q7: Is it appropriate to set lower level requirements for those broadcasters deemed unable to meet the full requirements of Level One or should such broadcasters be exempted completely?

The basis on which the list of television channels required to provide television access services has been compiled is unclear. The Level One list omits several channels which for years have provided subtitling on a voluntary basis - the Disney Channel, for example, has an excellent record in providing subtitling and the Cartoon Network has provided sign language access and subtitling. Sky Travel appears to have been omitted from any category. Granada Plus and other ITV Digital channels been omitted from all list but should be in Level One not least because a large amount of its output consists of programmes which have been screened with subtitles on terrestrial TV and it is time all broadcasters found a way of editing the programme and subtitles to enable the subtitles to be re-used.

A considerable proportion of UK History output consists of terrestrial repeats, and should not be in Level Three.

Turner Classic Movies provides a lot of subtitling on a different page, it should be a straightforward matter for TCM to also transmit them on 888.

In conclusion, we are strongly opposed to any differential grading for provision of access services, all channels should be required to adhere to the full targets from day one. Indeed many channels provided subtitling when ITV Digital was up and running and it is most unfortunate that those channels failed to continue to provide subtitling when they continued to broadcast on other platforms.

Q8: Is it appropriate to assess average qualifying revenues across channels in common ownership, where this would deliver more channels with access services, while retaining the option of assessing channels on an individual basis if this would be more advantageous to disabled audiences?

This seems to be the best way of assessing channels in common ownership.

Q9: Is the mechanism proposed for mid-year reviews of changes in audience share and qualifying revenue a reasonable means of identifying the need for consequential changes to obligations, or is there a better alternative?

This proposal is reasonable but would be a concern if it resulted in reducing the number of channels required to provide access services.

Q10: Are the provisions of the draft code relating to the provision of information and publicity about television access services appropriate?

Ofcom's recognition of the importance of creating awareness of access services and the need for EPGs to provide information about them is most welcome.

Clause 11 of the Communications Act requires Ofcom to promote media literacy. Ofcom must encourage the media to use common symbols to indicate availability of access services.

Conclusion

Some of the proposals in the document have the potential to reduce deaf people's access to TV whereas the Communications Act clearly requires Ofcom to ensure it is increased. All broadcasters should be reminded that subtitling is used by at least 1m people a day and that the majority of those viewers will not watch a programme which is not accessible. There should be wider recognition that providing high quality access to programmes has the potential to increase broadcasters' share of the audience.

Section 2, Clause 21 refers to affordability of providing TV access services. There is a conflict between "Ofcom's general duty to secure the availability of a wide range of television and radio services" and "[Ofcom's] belief that it would not be appropriate to force providers to leave the market if they cannot afford to provide television access services". This implies that Ofcom views profitability a higher priority than accessibility, which is discrimination. Additionally, we do not think licences should be granted to broadcasters who claim they cannot afford to provide access services because the cost is only a very small proportion of expenditure on programmes. The costings given in Clause 10 of Annex D are on the high side. Given the figures in Clause 13 of Annex D, the estimated total cost to industry of £15m per annum is very modest in comparison with broadcasters' annual expenditure on programmes.

Section 2, Clause 27 indicates that Ofcom proposes that television service providers should be required to observe current standards on subtitling, sign language and audio description. These standards have not been re-assessed for many years and Ofcom should set in train a Consultation to see what needs to be done to improve the quality of subtitling across the board. Additionally there is a need for a monitoring panel to be set up to ensure that ongoing complaints about quality and reliability of service are quickly noted and addressed because reliability continues to give rise to considerable concern. Ofcom should regularly publicise the subtitling output figures for all channels in order to flag the importance of the service and to enable viewers to know what is - or should be - available.

In Section 2, Clause 30, Ofcom indicates that "it is generally accepted that signed programmes may need to be shown late at night and recorded by deaf viewers". This is an additional form of discrimination against a sector of the deaf community. Ofcom should require broadcasters to transmit some signed programmes at a time when people can reasonably be expected to watch it live. It might not be possible to require transmission in peak hours but transmission at unsocial hours is totally unacceptable.

Annex C The footnote indicates that "some subtitling is already provided on cable" but fails to mention satellite channels, a number of which also provide subtitling.

The BBC is to be commended for its commitment to providing 100% subtitling output by 2008 it would be most unfortunate if the BBC sees the low subtitling quotas proposed by Ofcom as an opportunity to renege on this commitment.

Sky is to be commended on voluntarily providing access services well in excess of those proposed in this document and it is hoped that they too will continue to maintain and increase current levels of output.

The statement in Annex A, Clause 3 which indicates that is Ofcom's policy it to make the document as simple and concise as possible is welcome. However the text in public consultation documents should also be easy to read and in this document it is not.

Note: The term 'deaf' is used to refer to the full spectrum of deafness including deaf, Deaf, deafened, hard of hearing and deafblind people.

[Back to top]

[Back to Consultations Page]

UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448

Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy Statement

© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.