Requiring Emergency Video Description over IP on Mobile Is Challenging, Beyond FCC Authority, say NAB, Others

Providing emergency description for video accessed over Internet Protocol on mobile devices would present “tremendous technical challenges,” said NAB and other industry groups in reply comments filed Thursday. The comments responded to the commission’s rulemaking on emergency video description, released with the video description order in April (CD April 10 p6) as part of the agency’s implementation of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. The industry groups also challenged the FCC’s right to make the proposed mobile device rules. “The CVAA authorized the commission to reinstate its previous video description rules, but not to extend those rules to include IP-delivered video programming of any type,” said the Entertainment Software Association.

Arguments against the commission’s authority to require emergency description over IP echoed comments from DirecTV and CEA earlier in the proceeding (CD July 25 p18), but NAB and others also cited technical problems with the proposal. There isn’t “sufficient equipment or software” to support a secondary audio stream for the many kinds of IP devices, and there’s “very limited capability” to include a secondary audio stream in linear programming delivered via IP, said NAB. While technology might improve to change that, an FCC requirement in the meantime could “impose rigid regulations that could stifle developments,” said NAB.

Emergency video description for video streamed on mobile devices is also problematic because emergency information typically has a specific geographic focus, said the industry groups. “The vast majority of IP delivered video programming is not primarily intended for residential use, or even for a particular geographic area,” said the Information Technology Industry Council. A broad emergency video over IP requirement could cause confusion for viewers receiving information on emergencies occurring far away from them, said ITIC.

If the commission does require emergency video description over IP, that requirement should apply to multichannel video programming distributors rather than device manufacturers, said ITIC. Such devices typically receive programming through apps, said the council, and device manufacturers don’t control MVPD software applications. Device manufacturers don’t “control access to the content, decide which content is available, secure the content (via encryption or other mechanisms), or contract with content owners” to add video description, ITIC said.

Although the American Foundation for the Blind didn’t file reply comments in the proceeding, Paul Schroeder, vice president-programs and policy, said emergency video description on mobile devices would be an important tool for the visually impaired. Mobile devices are “the one constant and accessible information device,” he said. While a person who can see might be able to get emergency information on a public TV or other alternative if it’s not available via mobile phone, a visually impaired person has fewer options, he said.