Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
) MM Docket No. 99-339
)
Implementation of )
Video Description of )
Video Programming )
)
COMMENTS OF THE SATELLITE BROADCASTING
AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
The Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (“SBCA”) is
pleased to submit to the Commission its comments in the above-referenced
proceeding. The SBCA is the national trade association which represents the
Direct-To-Home satellite industry. Its members include both the DBS service
providers which market and transmit television programming utilizing the Ku-Band
to consumer households, as well as the C-Band service which offers home
television service in the Fixed Satellite Service frequency band; and the major
program services which produce and license the programming that is carried
and distributed by the satellite platforms. SBCA’s interest in this proceeding
stems from the fact that it is principally its member satellite service providers (as2
“MVPDs”) who would be subject to the Commission’s rules on video description,
to the extent that they are applied to the DTH satellite industry.
1
Nonetheless,
as the Commission has recognized, it would be the program services and
program producers who supply the MVPDs who will embed video description
material into their programming.
I. Introduction.
Previously, the SBCA had responded to the Commission’s request for
comments regarding video description in the 1995 Notice of Inquiry, “Closed
Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,” (MM Docket 95-176).
In those comments, we suggested that the Commission “make a serious
investigation into, first, the technical ramifications of a more widespread use of
video description on distribution technologies of all kinds,” including the
economic costs of making it available. The SBCA comments also stated that, “it
is clear that video description constitutes a greater challenge to transmission
and channel capacity (compared to closed captioning) to the extent that it
requires greater bandwidth for the carriage of the necessary audio channel(s)
containing the descriptive information.”
2
Our views have changed little since that
time. The major issues which we raised in 1995 remain to be resolved, and we
will elaborate on them in these comments. We are particularly concerned about
the technological burdens video description will add in an environment where
1
The SBCA believes that, as a threshold matter, there is a serious question as to whether the
Commission has statutory authority to create and apply video description obligations to DTH
operators.3
there is limited channel bandwidth for program distribution. At the same time,
the Commission would not want to create constraints that would stifle the
competition among MVPDs to offer subscribers more diverse and attractive
program packages.
As SBCA stated in its original comments on video description, there are
more complex economic and technical forces at play in the imposition of video
description requirements as compared to closed captioning. The current NPRM
appears to be rushing the Commission headlong into a difficult and complex
area where more information on the infrastructure of different MVPDs must be
considered. SBCA urges the Commission to act carefully and deliberately as it
develops rules for video description so that the new competition that is emerging
in the video marketplace is not irreparably harmed by unseen consequences that
the Commission did not anticipate in its haste to enact its new rules.
II. Defining “Larger” MVPDs.
SBCA cautions the Commission with regard to its definition of “larger
MPVDs” for the application of its initial rules in this proceeding, in view of the
changing nature of the television program marketplace, and the new and intense
competition that has been developing between wire and wireless technologies.
While the DBS industry has made important strides as the primary competitor to
cable, its total subscriber base is only 11.5 million, compared to the
2
SBCA Comments, p. 11, March 15, 1996.4
approximately 69 million cable subscribers. However, the true competitive
impact of DBS is only now about to be realized because the principal element
affecting local market competition - the availability of local-into-local service -has
only recently been made available to DBS through the enactment of the
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. Thus acting too precipitously in a
complex area such as video description, which has substantial economic and
technical ramifications, could deprive consumers of the competition that
Congress has worked to create over the past two years and that the Commission
is so eager to engender.
Other developments are also taking place in the video marketplace which
could be affected by this NPRM. The over-the-air television broadcasters are
shifting to digital transmission format; new, foreign satellite entrants will be
distributing video material to U.S. consumers; and cable operators are gradually
migrating to digital distribution. It is important that all of these MVPDs, including
DBS services, have the opportunity and the time to perfect their technologies
and ensure that they can and will be competitive marketplace participants. The
Commission must find a balance between what it considers the public benefits
inherent in this NPRM and the technological burdens it could create that could
affect the ability of MVPDs to offer their services to subscribing consumers.
III. Channel Capacity Issues Must Be Resolved.5
While adding video description to television programming will enhance
some viewers’ enjoyment of the medium, there are technical issues which
interfere with program distributors’ ability to carry described programming. It is
not as simple as the carriage of closed captioning which had only to be inserted
into the vertical blanking interval of a television signal. Video description
requires a separate audio channel as a part of the aired programming, and there
are major ramifications to arbitrarily attempting to insert this new channel into a
video signal. We will address two issues encountered in adding video
description to satellite channels.
A. Adding video description to analog C-Band direct-to-home
programming signals would destroy audio security, leaving
all audio in the clear.
The approximately 1.6 million C-Band DTH consumers currently receive
their satellite television programming encrypted by the now de facto standard of
VideoCipher II.
3
Currently C-Band utilizes two encrypted audio channels within
a satellite television program signal for stereo reception. As a result, video
description could only be delivered to subscribers on an unencrypted audio
subcarrier. Since the video description channel contains all of the program
soundtrack, the audio of the program service would have to be distributed in the
clear, thereby compromising the security of the entire television service signal.
This same security issue has prevented a Spanish language audio feed
from being added to analog C-Band home satellite feeds. As the Commission6
well knows, developing a truly secure encryption standard for the C-Band
industry has taken many years, and has only become a reality following a bitter
and protracted battle against signal theft and at great cost to the program
services. They and other copyright owners should not be asked to forgo
protection of their works through a compromise or an impractical reconfiguration
of the existing encryption system.
B. Requiring video description for digital DBS programming channels
can displace services popular with consumers while actual demand
for video description remains unknown.
Currently, reliable digital compression allows for a fixed number of
programming services to be carried on digital DBS transponders, with two
encrypted audio channels carried on a subset of those programming services.
Because KU-Band technology allows the carriage of two encrypted audio
channels, some programming services have elected to include additional
channels, such as a Spanish-language audio track. However each additional
audio channel decreases the capacity available for program services to be
carried reliably on a transponder.
Here the Commission faces a policy dilemma. Adding video description
to programming on a DBS transponder may require the provider to delete an
entire video channel in order to accommodate the audio channels required for
description. SBCA does not question the desirability of providing broader
3
Encryption standard developed and employed by General Instrument, now the Motorola7
audience access to television programming, notwithstanding the technological
constraints on the signal as well as the programming. However in view of the
inherent technical burdens of incorporating description into a television signal -particularly
for those technologies where there is fixed or limited channel
capacity - the Commission should strive for a balance between what is desirable
public policy and what is economically and technically realistic in today’s video
marketplace.
In this regard, SBCA notes that DBS operators are already carrying video
description programming on a voluntary basis. The Commission should adopt
policies that encourage continued voluntary carriage of such programming,
which would have the practical effect of serving the public interest consistent
with the intent of the NPRM.
IV. Conclusion.
The SBCA reiterates the concerns it expressed in its original comments
on video description, now bolstered by further economic and technical issues
that have been outlined in these comments. Making television programming
available to as many diverse audiences as possible has great appeal and is a
worthy public policy objective to be pursued by the Commission. However, it
should be carefully crafted and balanced in view of the many new issues that are
at play in today’s video marketplace. The new and highly competitive climate
Broadband Group.8
among MVPDs, the arrival of digital transmission, and the fundamental technical
and economic burdens that video description would impose on MVPDs must be
carefully analyzed. The issues which we have raised, together with the
concerns expressed by other participants in this proceeding, must be adequately
and effectively resolved before the new rules are implemented.
_____________________________________
SATELLITE BROADCASTING AND
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
Andrew R. Paul
Senior Vice President
February 23, 2000