Audio description on television: past, present and future. RNIB policy ...

<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> on television:
past, present and future
Policy paper
By Professor Richard Collins

Logo – RNIB supporting blind and partially sighted people
Registered charity number 226227
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> on television:
past, present and future
Policy paper
By Professor Richard Collins

This policy paper was written by Professor Richard Collins, Visiting Professor
in the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism at City University, London in
May 2012 for RNIB. This paper contains policy recommendations from the
named author.
Royal National Institute of Blind People
105 Judd Street
London WC1H 9NE
ISBN 978 1 4445 0113 1
© RNIB, 2012
Registered charity number 226227
rnib.org.uk
1

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................... 3
1. Development of audio <strong>description</strong> on UK television ................................. 4
1.1. Current regulation and implementation .............................................. 4
1.2. Historical development of audio <strong>description</strong> in the UK ...................... 8
1.3. Overseas experience ....................................................................... 14
2. The Challenge of Video on Demand (VoD) ............................................ 16
2.1. The state of VoD .............................................................................. 16
2.2. The current regulation and access services on VoD ....................... 17
3. Future regulation of access services ...................................................... 20
3.1. The need for a new regulatory framework to regulate access
services for VoD ..................................................................................... 20
3.2. Future regulation of provision of audio described programmes on
linear television ....................................................................................... 23
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 24
Acknowledgements .................................................................................... 26
References ................................................................................................. 26
About the author ......................................................................................... 30
Footnotes ................................................................................................... 31
rnib.org.uk
2

Introduction
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> of television programmes helps blind and partially sighted
people share experiences which sighted people take for granted.
Comprehensive and effective audio <strong>description</strong> is vital if blind and partially
sighted people are to share experiences which sighted people take for
granted. Ofcom defines audio <strong>description</strong> (AD) as, “a separate audio track in
which a narrator uses gaps in the original soundtrack to describe what is
happening for the benefit of people with visual impairments (c2 per cent of the
European population); like subtitling, the service can be turned on or off”
(Ofcom 2010: 5).
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> in the UK is available only on digital TV which, by the end of
2012, will be in all UK TV households (after the completion of analogue
television switch off/digital switchover). New initiatives to assist blind and
partially sighted people's access to television services continue to be
developed: notably Text-to-Speech (TTS) applications (eg RNIB’s 1 Smart
Talk box and Panasonic’s 2012 range of televisions). These improve access
by providing a spoken interface as an alternative to visual menus and
information – particularly programme listings and programme information
such as Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) data and spoken subtitles (see
DTV4All 2011 and Looms passim). 2
Please note that footnotes appear at the end of this document.
rnib.org.uk
3

1. Development of audio <strong>description</strong> on UK television
1.1. Current regulation and implementation
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> of a proportion of broadcast television programmes was
first mandated in the 1996 Broadcasting Act which looked forward to, and
paved the way for, digital television. The act, in Section 20, required audio
<strong>description</strong> of 10 per cent of all programmes screened, not later than the
tenth anniversary of the relevant date for each channel. These provisions
were carried forward into the Communications Act 2003 (sections 303-308)
which also mandated Ofcom to publish a Code on Television Access
Services including audio <strong>description</strong> and subtitling and signing. Broadly, two
models are used in the UK to deliver audio <strong>description</strong>: broadcast-mix and
receiver-mix. The latter requires less bandwidth (and thus less spectrum,
thereby reducing the broadcasters’ costs) and offers users extra flexibility
(notably the ability to control the volume of the audio <strong>description</strong>
independently of the original soundtrack).
Ofcom’s Television Access Services Code was first published in 2004 and
Ofcom regularly reviews the state of access services (most recently in 2012).
The Code follows the Act’s access services prescriptions: ie 10 per cent of all
programmes broadcast on qualifying channels 3 must be audio described; 80
per cent must be subtitled and 5 per cent signed not later than the tenth
anniversary of the relevant date (usually first licensing) for each channel. This
Ofcom Code applies only to linear broadcast TV (ie not to EPGs 4 , “red button”
or Video on Demand services) and counts repeats as qualifying programmes
against the 10 per cent quota.
Ofcom additionally capped channels’ funding liability for access services at 1
per cent of relevant turnover – though broadcasters are required to do as
much as they can within this funding envelope. Television channels directed
to audiences outside the UK are exempted from access services
requirements (though encouraged, as Ofcom is required to do under the EU
<strong>Audio</strong>visual Media Services Directive, to provide them) as are those services
which have a viewing share of less than 0.05 per cent.
In 2012, 69 channels were required to provide audio <strong>description</strong> and these
channels account for over 90 per cent of UK television viewing (Ofcom 2011:
1) 5 . To further improve blind and partially sighted people’s access to
television, RNIB asked that broadcasters audio describe 20 per cent of their
content. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky have undertaken to exceed their
formal targets and audio describe at least 20 per cent of programming (with
rnib.org.uk
4

some exceptions – eg Sky Sports channels) (Ofcom 2011: 1). <strong>Audio</strong>
<strong>description</strong> is available in the Welsh language on S4C 6 . Ofcom’s most recent
report (for 2011) on provision of television access services (subtitling, audio
<strong>description</strong> and signing), on the 70 channels where access service
obligations apply, show that some channels significantly exceed the statutory
audio <strong>description</strong> norm (the figure below shows data only for the top 48
channels identified).
UK audio <strong>description</strong> obligations and delivery
Adapted from Ofcom 2012
Service
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong>
Annual quota Achieved (Q3 & 4)
BBC1 10% 15.01%
BBC2 10% 14.58%
BBC3 10% 25.15%
BBC4 10% 28.94%
BBC News 24
Exempt
CBBC 10% 24.32%
CBeebies 10% 19.85%
BBC HD 6.17% 24.15%
ITV 1 10% 20.09%
GMTV1 10% 13.80%
ITV 2 10% 29.52%
ITV 3 10% 27.12%
ITV 4 10% 35.86%
CITV 10% 30.35%
Channel 4 10% 24.46%
E4 10% 34.53%
rnib.org.uk
5

More 4 10% 25.04%
Film 4 10% 25.14%
S4C 10% 11.13%
Channel 5 10% 11.57%
5* 8.5% 14.47%
5 USA 8.5% 15.67%
Sky News
Exempt
Sky One 10% 27.92%
Sky Two 10% 29.01%
Pick TV 10% 32.94%
Sky Sports 1 10% 11.74%
Sky Sports 2 10% 11.10%
Sky Sports 3 10% 14.57%
Sky Sports 4 10% 22.96%
Sky Sports News
Exempt
Sky Movies Action/Adventure 10% 36.65%
Sky Movies Classics 10% 22.64%
Sky Movies Comedy 10% 38.44%
Sky Movies Drama/Rom 10% 35.16%
Sky Movies Family 10% 38.15%
Sky Movies Modern Greats 10% 24.01%
Sky Movies SciFi/Horror 10% 35.87%
Sky Movies Premiere 10% 38.92%
Sky Showcase 6% 47.97%
rnib.org.uk
6

Sky Thriller 6% 26.86%
Dave 10% 38.27%
Blighty 10% 37.48%
UKTV Food 10% 25.97%
Eden 10% 38.87%
Yesterday 10% 20.59%
Alibi 10% 22.35%
G.O.L.D. 10% 31.29%
Ofcom has estimated the average cost per hour of audio <strong>description</strong> to be (in
2009) £443 (Ofcom 2009: 19). The major work elements (and costs) include
time spent in preparation (normally, 2 or 3 previews are required); creating
the audio <strong>description</strong> script; voicing the <strong>description</strong>; transporting the audio
files to the broadcaster and integrating the audio <strong>description</strong> into the original
programme. An interviewee estimated that an hour’s audio <strong>description</strong> took a
day’s work (an estimate that is compatible with Ofcom’s monetary reckoning)
and estimated that the BBC spends in the order of c£25m per annum on
audio <strong>description</strong>.
The switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television meant that there
was no technological obstacle to broadcasters providing audio <strong>description</strong>
enabled services but not all digital television receivers have the capability to
receive audio <strong>description</strong>. An audio <strong>description</strong> capability was not made
mandatory for standard definition (SD) Freeview receivers 7 (though many
provide it 8 ) but audio <strong>description</strong> capability is mandatory for Freeview high
definition (HD) receivers (and also for Freesat receivers).
However, despite most UK digital households recently having gained the
capability to use audio <strong>description</strong> services, awareness of the service is still
relatively low among the blind and partially sighted people for whom the
service is designed. In 2009, Ofcom (2009a) found that only half of UK
visually impaired people were aware of audio <strong>description</strong> services (though
more than 60 per cent of those with severe visual impairment were aware of
them). The Ofcom Television Access Services Code (Ofcom 2010b) requires
rnib.org.uk
7

oadcasters to promote the service. Accordingly, in 2012, a four week
promotion of audio <strong>description</strong> by way of TV advertisements took place, fully
funded by the broadcasters required to provide audio <strong>description</strong>. The
awareness raising effort led to 54,467 views, of which 41,625 were unique
page views, on the RNIB audio <strong>description</strong> web pages which were identified
as a central information resource for people who saw the advertisements and
wanted to find out more.
The Equality Act 2010 (replacing the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) has
requirements (see Chapter 2 Section 20) relevant to the provision of
television access services (including audio <strong>description</strong>). The Equality Act
defines a general duty of making “reasonable adjustments” to ensure that
disabled people are not substantially disadvantaged. The UK Equality Act
2010 thus imposes wider obligations than does the Communications Act 2003
(extending to services such as Internet Protocol Television [IPTV], and Video
on Demand [VOD]) though these obligations have yet to be tested in court.
Though the Communications Act 2003 refers specifically, and only, to linear
broadcast television, the European Union <strong>Audio</strong>visual Media Services
Directive 9 of 2010 places a duty on Member States to encourage media
service providers (ie not just linear television broadcasters) to provide access
services, including audio <strong>description</strong>. However, this provision (at Article 7)
specifies that such services need only be made available “gradually”.
1.2. Historical development of audio <strong>description</strong> in the UK
From 1991 to 1995, RNIB participated in research (funded by the European
Union and with the collaboration of the BBC, ITC and ITV) on AUDETEL, an
experimental analogue audio <strong>description</strong> service, which, in 1994,
implemented a successful test service (for 100 blind and partially sighted
people) proving the technical feasibility of TV audio <strong>description</strong> and
demonstrating its value to blind and partially sighted people.
The AUDETEL research showed that (at a particular price point) more than
half of the blind and partially sighted research subjects would pay for and use
an audio <strong>description</strong> service which provided 10 hours of audio described
television a week. And in 2003, RNIB took delivery of a further research study
(commissioned jointly by RNIB, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4) by Taylor
Nelson Sofres Media on willingness to pay for audio <strong>description</strong>. 10 At a price
point of £170, Taylor Nelson Sofres Media found that 59 per cent of
respondents would be likely to buy (suggesting an achievable market size of
105,000 units of audio <strong>description</strong> capable hardware). Research, which RNIB
rnib.org.uk
8

had either initiated or had been an active participant in, had thus established
both the technical feasibility of audio <strong>description</strong> (quickly demonstrated in
practice by Sky’s introduction of audio described digital services) and that a
sizeable market existed for audio <strong>description</strong> enabled receivers priced at a
level at which manufacturers could profitably meet demand.
RNIB’s AUDETEL research was undertaken within an analogue television
framework. However, digital television has been planned to provide audio
<strong>description</strong> readily, and more economically, than did, and does, analogue
television. As policy and practice shifted towards digitising the UK’s terrestrial
television networks, RNIB lobbied government, hardware manufacturers and
broadcasters to implement digital audio <strong>description</strong> services. But, when digital
terrestrial television (DTT) was first introduced to the UK in 1999, receiving
equipment generally did not have audio <strong>description</strong> reception capability built
in. However, by 2000 between 2 per cent and 4 per cent (depending on
broadcaster) of DTT programmes were audio described (though, in general,
terrestrial viewers could not receive them until 2003) and by 2001 Sky’s
digital satellite services had begun to provide audio <strong>description</strong> for some
programmes, initially, on six channels. The (later aborted) ITV digital service
also experimented with audio <strong>description</strong> capable Set Top Boxes (STBs).
Accordingly, RNIB began a campaign to ensure realisation of the potential of
digital television to provide audio <strong>description</strong>. It established a campaign
planning group in 2000 and by autumn 2001 active campaigning was under
way as Government and Parliament progressed what became the
Communications Act 2003 and as the first UK digital terrestrial television trials
began. Campaigning was led by Caroline Ellis (then RNIB's Parliamentary
Manager) 11 and Denise Evans (then RNIB's Head of Broadcasting and
Talking Images), in parallel with a European level campaign led by Leen
Petré (then RNIB's European Campaigns Manager).
Throughout 2002, RNIB successfully built alliances with stakeholders such as
the European Blind Union and European standards bodies; it continued to
lobby Parliament (notably the All Party Parliamentary Disability Group), the
DCMS 12 and DTI 13 , UK political parties and the European Commission and
progressed research about demand for audio <strong>description</strong>. In April 2002, RNIB
published Get the picture (RNIB 2002a) which set out RNIB’s claims for
blind and partially sighted viewers, namely that:
rnib.org.uk
9

• All blind and partially sighted people have a right to full access to
television.
• All digital television receivers should provide the facility for a separate
sound channel for audio <strong>description</strong> and accessibility features for text
manipulation and non-visual navigation.
• Blind and partially sighted people must not be excluded from additional
services such as teletext, shopping, banking, health and citizenship which
are likely to be available on digital television (RNIB 2002a: 7).
Get the picture further identified audio <strong>description</strong> as the priority
broadcasting policy objective for blind and partially sighted people, and
stated:
“The current priority of blind and partially sighted people themselves is
for full access to audio described programmes on digital television.
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> is as vital to them as subtitling is to hearing impaired
people” (RNIB 2002a: 17).
The Get the picture briefing pack, and accompanying letter, was sent to
3,500 organisations and individuals encouraging recipients to contact MPs
and local media to further lobbying for provision of audio <strong>description</strong> and for
the adoption of standards and production of equipment which would enable
blind and partially sighted people to access audio <strong>description</strong> services.
By the end of 2001, in a parallel initiative, audio <strong>description</strong> had been
established in eleven UK cinemas in time for release of Harry Potter and the
Philosopher’s Stone (the first Harry Potter movie). By spring 2002, RNIB
had secured the support of Kim Howells MP (then Minister for Broadcasting)
and Philip Whitehead MEP (who put down a question on blind and partially
sighted people’s access to television) in the European Parliament. Despite
this activity, first drafts of the UK Communications Bill contained scant
recognition of access services, stimulating RNIB to lobby and present
evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Draft
Communications Bill, chaired by Lord Puttnam, which sat during the
Parliamentary Session of 2001-2002.
RNIB argued that the new regulator, Ofcom, which was to be established
under what became the Communications Act 2003, should not just be
enjoined to “have regard to” the needs of disabled people, but be given a
clear duty to secure their interests. RNIB specifically argued, in a
rnib.org.uk
10

memorandum of June 2002 14 sent to the Puttnam Scrutiny Committee, that
Ofcom should:
• ensure universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest
quality as its primary objective;
• have a duty to ensure that disabled people should enjoy ready access to
future digital communication technologies and services at no extra cost
and to promote awareness of disabled people’s needs throughout the
communications industries;
• require EPG providers and set top box manufacturers to ensure equipment
meets the needs of blind and partially sighted people;
• ensure sufficient spectrum is reserved for audio <strong>description</strong> services;
• raise audio <strong>description</strong> targets to 50 per cent of programmes;
• establish “must offer, must carry” obligations 15 (at no cost) for public
service broadcasting.
And that the Government should:
• invest £3 million in bringing to market a DTT audio <strong>description</strong> module;
• require all UK manufactured televisions and set-top boxes to be audio
<strong>description</strong> capable;
• seek to secure an EU policy mandating set top boxes and digital TVs
capability to support access features (adapted from RNIB 2002).
RNIB’s lobbying was successful and the Parliamentary Joint Scrutiny
Committee on the Draft Communications Bill (the Puttnam Committee) stated
in its report that “Improved provision for sub-titling, audio-<strong>description</strong> and
signing is a necessity not a luxury” (House of Lords. House of Commons.
Joint Committee on The Draft Communications Bill 2002: 81) and
acknowledged, though without recommending an increased audio <strong>description</strong>
quota, that “The Royal National Institute for the Blind was less satisfied with
the ten per cent target for audio-<strong>description</strong>, which it viewed with “deep
disappointment” (House of Lords. House of Commons. Joint Committee on
the Draft Communications Bill 2002: 81).
In December 2003 five 16 joined Sky in providing audio <strong>description</strong> on its
satellite delivered signal (five was the first UK terrestrial broadcaster to do so)
and in the same month the first DTT STB capable of providing users with
audio <strong>description</strong> services came onto the UK market, the "Netgem
box(developed through close liaison between RNIB and Netgem). And
rnib.org.uk
11

further, in what RNIB called “a major breakthrough” (minutes of the Campaign
Planning Group meeting reviewing activity between November 2003 and
February 2004), the European Commission's Communication on The Future
of European Regulatory <strong>Audio</strong>visual Policy stated; "the Commission will
promote accessibility matters with Member States to co-ordinate and
complement national actions and measures in the Contact Committee
established by the TVWF Directive. In particular, enriching content with audio
<strong>description</strong>, audio subtitling, subtitling and sign language will be further
discussed” (Commission of the European Communities 2003: 11).
In 2004, after Ofcom had come into existence following enactment of the
Communications Act 2003, RNIB responded to Ofcom’s Consultation on
Access Services, launched prior to Ofcom’s drafting of a Television Access
Services Code. RNIB drew on the findings of AUDETEL research to testify to
the positive effect of audio <strong>description</strong> on blind and partially sighted viewers’
enjoyment of, and access to, television. But RNIB stated, “Two areas of
considerable disappointment in the current legislation are the continuing low
level of the audio <strong>description</strong> targets, and the more extensive criteria for
exempting services” (RNIB 2004: 3). It urged an audio <strong>description</strong> quota of 50
per cent (and referred to an EU Committee recommendation of 80 per cent 17 )
but accepted that, though universal provision of audio <strong>description</strong> was most
desirable, some channels might reasonably be exempted by reason of low
viewing share. RNIB concurred with Ofcom’s 0.05 per cent viewing share
threshold but asserted firmly that no programmes should be exempted from
the duty to provide audio <strong>description</strong> on technical grounds, though
acknowledging that certain kinds of programmes (eg live news) were likely to
be less in need of audio <strong>description</strong> than others. It urged that repeats should
count for quota only once, ie on the first repeat screening.
A real breakthrough in the inclusion of audio <strong>description</strong> capacity in Freeview
receivers came with the preparation for UK digital television switchover.
When the government took the decision to switch to digital television, RNIB’s
input was led by Leen Petré (then Head of Broadcasting and Talking Images
and also chair of the Government-appointed Consumer Expert Group on
Digital Switchover). The Consumer Expert Group, chaired by Leen Petré,
secured a digital television switchover government help scheme for those in
one or more of the following groups:
• aged 75 or over, or
• in receipt of certain disability benefits;
rnib.org.uk
12

• registered blind or partially sighted.
The help scheme’s standards for the equipment it would provide to eligible
beneficiaries included the capability to deliver audio <strong>description</strong> services. This
prescription, as well as RNIB’s demand for a general DTT audio <strong>description</strong>
capability, signalled to manufacturers that provision of an audio <strong>description</strong>
reception capability could be commercially beneficial. This, together with
falling costs of inclusion of audio <strong>description</strong> capacity in ever more capable
and powerful TV receivers, changed major manufacturers’ attitudes to audio
<strong>description</strong>.
As a result in April 2005 global giant Panasonic became the first company to
include audio <strong>description</strong> as standard in its digital television sets. And in
January 2006 the UK based company TVOnics brought out an audio
<strong>description</strong> capable STB, filling the gap that had been left after because other
manufacturers hadn’t followed in Netgem's footsteps. Both companies paved
the way for the mainstreaming of audio <strong>description</strong> capability and an
increasing number of companies started to include the feature in their
Freeview receivers. Latterly, most manufacturers include audio <strong>description</strong>
capability as a standard feature in both TV receivers and STBs and audio
<strong>description</strong> capability is now mandatory for Freeview HD and Freesat
receivers. This was very different from the start of switchover when users of
audio <strong>description</strong> had few options available other than Sky, which was the
first major broadcaster to fully digitalise its broadcasts (ahead of Virgin Media,
Freeview and Freesat having introduced audio <strong>description</strong> capability in 2001).
Moreover, “talking” solutions, where some or all of the on-screen TV menus
and programme guide are spoken, for Freeview (Smart Talk) and Sky (Sky
Talker) became available in October 2010 at affordable prices (c£85 and
£60). These enable blind and partially sighted people to access more easily
digital, including audio described, television services. And in February 2012,
Panasonic launched “voice guidance”, a new feature based on a built-in
speech engine in its televisions marketed in the UK and Ireland. Voice
guidance enables people to navigate and control the television, find out
what’s on now and what’s listed in the electronic programme guide. TVOnics
has announced that its personal video recorders (PVRs) will also include a
speech engine thus significantly improving blind and partially sighted users’
access to navigation, control, recording and playback functions.
rnib.org.uk
13

However, despite the wide availability of audio <strong>description</strong> capable receivers
(whether STBs, PVRs or integrated digital televisions) not all receivers
provide easy access to audio <strong>description</strong> – there is some way to go before
audio <strong>description</strong> is pervasively accessible at a single button press - the
simplest way to access audio <strong>description</strong>. However, Freesat specifies a
mandatory audio <strong>description</strong> button on the remote control (most, but not all,
Freesat equipment complies with this requirement).
Overall, UK digital switchover successfully “planned in” audio <strong>description</strong> at
an early stage.
1.3. Overseas experience
In 2009, the UK ratified 18 the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities which provides, in Article 30 (Participation in cultural
life, recreation, leisure and sport), inter alia that:
1. States parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to take
part on an equal basis with others in cultural life, and shall take all
appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities:
a. Enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats;
b. Enjoy access to television programmes, films, theatre and other
cultural activities, in accessible formats.
The UK excepted, requirements for, and progress in, delivering audio
<strong>description</strong> is probably most advanced in the USA 19 (which, at the time of
writing, had not yet ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities though in 2009 the USA became a signatory to the Convention)
where audio <strong>description</strong> (or video <strong>description</strong> as it is usually called in the
USA) of television is now mandatory. In 2000, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) required the major network broadcasters, ABC, CBS,
Fox, NBC, and multichannel video programming distributor systems
(MVPDs) 20 with more than 50,000 subscribers to carry programming with
video <strong>description</strong> 21 . <strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> would, the FCC stated:
"…afford better access to television programs for individuals who are
blind or visually impaired, enabling millions more Americans to enjoy
the benefits of television service and participate more fully in the
cultural and civic life of the nation (FCC 2011: 2)."
rnib.org.uk
14

Five months after the rules first came into effect, they were put into abeyance
following an appeal which claimed, successfully, that the FCC did not have
sufficient authority to promulgate such rules. However, in October 2010 the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(CVAA) came into effect and reinstated the FCC’s 2000 rules (see FCC
2011). The FCC approach is not to define a percentage quota (as is the case
in the UK) but rather a fixed quantum of audio described programming:
notably “50 hours per calendar quarter of video-described prime time and/or
children’s programming”. This requirement applies to the major television
broadcasting networks and MPVDs which must provide audio <strong>description</strong> “on
each of the top five non-broadcast networks that they carry” (FCC 2011: 8).
Like the UK, the USA audio <strong>description</strong> regulations acknowledge the
difficulties of audio describing live (or near live) programmes and exempt
“networks that primarily air programming recorded less than 24 hours before
it is first aired” (FCC 2011: 2). Further, the FCC requires relay networks (eg
cable and DBS services) to “pass through” programmes which are enhanced
with audio <strong>description</strong>.
In Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission) has required audio <strong>description</strong> undertakings (usually requiring
two hours per week in Year 1, three hours in Years 2 to 4, four hours up to
Year 7) before broadcasting licences are renewed. Canada also has 'The
Accessible Channel', launched in December 2008 which is wholly audio
described. 22
Media Access Australia (MAA 2010) reported that audio <strong>description</strong> was also
provided in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, New
Zealand, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. Other countries have
joined the wave more recently, for example in 2012 the Flemish Broadcaster
VRT began providing audio <strong>description</strong>.
Despite the use of audio <strong>description</strong> in other English speaking locations,
broadcaster representatives interviewed emphasised that audio <strong>description</strong>
undertaken for non UK broadcasters was not readily useable in the UK. They
claimed that local regulatory issues (eg the 9pm watershed) and resulting
practicalities; insertion of advertising breaks etc made it desirable for audio
<strong>description</strong> to be undertaken in the UK and for a specific broadcast(s). RNIB
research found that most UK blind and partially sighted end users were not
concerned about the origin of audio <strong>description</strong> (from other English-speaking
countries), as long as the <strong>description</strong> was of good quality and helped them
rnib.org.uk
15

keep up with the action on the screen. Participants were keen to point out that
they would much rather have internationally produced audio <strong>description</strong> than
no audio <strong>description</strong> at all (see RNIB 2011a).
2. The Challenge of Video on Demand (VoD)
2.1. The state of VoD
VoD provides a means of time and space shifting reception of conventional
linear broadcast television as well as elective delivery of other content (and
radio) eg in the form of facilities such as the BBC iPlayer and BSkyB’s Sky
Go; of receiving video on demand services on computers, tablets (like the
Apple iPad) and mobile telephones; and of receiving television like services
from a host of online providers (eg YouTube). Though use of Video on
Demand in the UK is still far behind use of conventional broadcast television
its significance is growing rapidly. In a study for the Competition Commission,
GfK (2011) found that in the previous month 16 per cent of UK respondents
had watched a film via the Internet and that 7 per cent had used a pay per
view service to watch a film. Ofcom research, which found that 23 per cent of
UK homes have used the Internet as a means to access television (Ofcom
2011a: 224), underpins GfK’s findings and both testify to the growing
importance of VoD.
Three categories of Video on Demand can usefully be distinguished:
• “Catch up” services, such as the BBC iPlayer which recycle programmes
already broadcast on conventional linear broadcast television. In 2011,
Ofcom research found that 35 per cent of UK adult television viewers use
such services (Ofcom 2011a: 150).
• Services which provide priced, usually pay per view, access to a range of
audiovisual material (mostly films and television programmes) akin to DVD
rentals. Ofcom (2011a: 149) research found that services such as iTunes,
BlinkBox and LoveFilm had significant, though fluctuating, numbers of
users. For example, Ofcom found that BlinkBox had 0.6m users and
LoveFilm 1.5m (though LoveFilm experienced a year on year fall of 13 per
cent in user numbers). A further analogous service, Netflix (well
established in the Americas), launched in the UK in 2012.
• User Generated Content (UGC) whereby users, usually non-professional,
post audio-visual material on a web site for others to access. YouTube is
the best example of such a service and YouTube has claimed that 48
rnib.org.uk
16

hours of new video is uploaded onto the YouTube site every minute; that
3bn YouTube videos are viewed every day; that in 2010 there were 700bn
YouTube playbacks and that every month 800m separate individuals
access the YouTube site 23 .
In principle, two of these categories of VoD have significant levels of audio
<strong>description</strong> available: “catch up” services which, in theory, have available the
audio <strong>description</strong> content attached to programmes when first broadcast
conventionally (the PC version of the BBC iPlayer, for example, has a click
through on the first page of its website to audio described programmes) and
pay per view VoD which, in principle, can make available the audio
<strong>description</strong> created for VoD content when earlier marketed in other forms (eg
in cinemas or as DVDs). Latterly most Hollywood film distributors – notably
20th Century Fox international, Warner Brothers UK, Paramount, Universal
and Sony Pictures International - are releasing the majority of their titles on
DVD and Blu-ray to the UK market with audio <strong>description</strong>.
2.2. The current regulation and access services on VoD
VoD poses a series of novel regulatory and policy challenges which are not
present (or not present to the same degree) with “linear” conventional
television. For example:
• VoD services have often not been designed with access services in mind.
In consequence, some access service components may not be recognised
or simply be ignored by parts of the end to end transmission chain eg by
receiver equipment or software. In some cases, the additional bandwidth
needed to support access services can exceed available hosting and/or
network capacity if audio <strong>description</strong> (or other access service) bandwidth
needs were not considered at the design stage.
• VoD service providers may be outside the UK (and possibly outside EU)
jurisdiction. And even if there is an applicable regulatory regime, it may not
be possible to enforce UK (or EU) regulatory norms.
• There are a large, and growing, number of VoD service providers thus
making monitoring of compliance potentially more difficult than for
traditional broadcasting.
Ofcom recognises that Video on demand (VoD) is of growing importance.
But, as Ofcom states, VoD is not subject to the same regulatory mandate in
rnib.org.uk
17

espect of access services as is traditional linear broadcasting, for such
services were not envisaged when the 2003 Communications Act was
drafted.
"Ofcom recognises that this platform (ie VoD RC) is becoming an increasing
popular way for viewers to consume television programming, and that very
few services currently provide access services. However is not possible to
address this issue as part of the review of television access services, as the
Act does not provide Ofcom with any powers to require VOD providers to
supply access services.
Nevertheless, provision of access services by VOD providers is covered by
the new European Union <strong>Audio</strong> Media Services Directive (AVMSD) which
came into force on 19 December 2009. The preamble to the Directive states
(at 46), inter alia, that:
The right of persons with a disability and of the elderly to participate and
be integrated in the social and cultural life of the Union is inextricably
linked to the provision of accessible audiovisual media services. The
means to achieve accessibility should include, but need not be limited
to, sign language, subtitling, audio-<strong>description</strong> and easily
understandable menu navigation.
The UK’s regulations to give effect to AVMSD, by amending the
Communications Act 2003, mandate Ofcom to encourage (but - in line with
the AVMSD - only encourage) provision of access services on non-linear
services 24 (Ofcom 2009: 14).
The AVMSD requires Video on Demand services to be regulated and the UK
therefore established a new regulatory agency: the Authority for Television
On Demand (ATVOD) in 2010. Ofcom retains relevant statutory powers under
a “co-regulation” arrangement. ATVOD has, thus far, adopted a “light touch”
approach to VoD regulation. It states, with respect to access services
including audio <strong>description</strong>, that:
"ATVOD considers that the most appropriate way in which it can fulfil its duty
is to act as a repository of information about access services, for users,
service providers and platform providers, in order to encourage providers of
ODPS 25 and the platforms on which they are made available to make
services more accessible to people with disabilities affecting their sight or
rnib.org.uk
18

hearing or both 26 . ATVOD will publicise those service providers (and, where
applicable, those platforms) who do provide access provision to on-demand
services so that users would know where to find such content (ATVOD 2011:
3)."
However, ATVOD’s current “Rules and Guidance” (ATVOD 2011b) currently
contain no mention of access services.
In 2011, ATVOD surveyed 13 UK based VoD providers of whom 12 replied to
the survey. Of the 12 respondents only 2 provided audio <strong>description</strong> services,
though others “hoped to do so” (ATVOD 2011a: 3). One respondent provided
audio <strong>description</strong> services amounting to c 14 per cent of programme hours.
The survey thus made clear that there is a much lower level of provision of
access services in the VoD environment than in the conventional
broadcasting environment. This is often viewed as a matter of slight
immediate concern, for a very high proportion of UK television viewing is still
of conventional linear broadcast television and much VoD viewing is viewing
of the online offerings of established broadcasters. However, this is an area
of growing policy importance as the viewing of blind and partially sighted
people (and other users of access services) shifts from linear broadcasts to
VoD.
Of the established broadcasters, only the BBC iPlayer (in some of its
implementations), the Channel 4 website (for the Paralympics) and Sky
Anytime provided audio <strong>description</strong> at the time of writing. ITV has said it was
looking at providing audio <strong>description</strong> on ITV player, whilst Channel 4 has
also said that, where there is audio <strong>description</strong> on linear broadcasts, it will try
to provide it on the on-demand service 27 .
Moreover, ATVOD’s survey made clear that some VoD platforms lack the
capability to “pass through” audio <strong>description</strong> enhancement of programmes
(where this exists) 28 . The report does not provide a lot of detail, but states that
respondents identified important barriers to providing access services
including:
• technical barriers such as server storage space and download speed,
lack of unified technical standards between content providers and platform
operators, including international differences in standards.
• need for development of user interfaces and customer communication
(ATVOD 2011a: 4).
rnib.org.uk
19

In contrast to the clear regulatory mandate applying to conventional linear
broadcast television there is currently no more of a regulatory duty than to
“encourage” VoD providers to offer access services (including audio
<strong>description</strong>). In consequence little audio <strong>description</strong> is available on catch-up
services, and no audio <strong>description</strong> is available on "pay per view" services.
3. Future regulation of access services
3.1. The need for a new regulatory framework to regulate
access services for VoD
Given that ATVOD’s duty is only to “encourage” provision of access services
(and ATVOD has no actual power to require VoD providers to provide access
services), any extension of blind and partially sighted people’s access to
audio <strong>description</strong>, notably to services on new platforms, will require legislation
(eg in the new Communications Act foreseen by the UK Government)
extending access service requirements to new platforms and next generation
networks. The need for legislation is underscored by the UK’s ratification of
the United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities which specifies a
general duty in respect of accessibility (under Article 9), and makes specific
reference to television access services in Article 30.
3.1.1. The potential for regulating access services for VoD in a new
Communications Act
In a new Act, VoD providers should be charged with a duty to show they were
reasonably and proportionately making their services accessible to blind and
partially people. However, the nature of VoD means that “hard” requirements
of the kind used in the broadcast environment are more difficult to make
“stick” for the VoD services that are dissimilar to traditional broadcasting such
as "pay per view content" 29 . Not least because there may be objective
reasons for slow/partial implementation of firm and prescriptive requirement –
“legacy” infrastructures and technical architectures and practices may not be
capable of delivering audio <strong>description</strong> 30 . However, this difficulty should not
be insurmountable: audio <strong>description</strong> capability and capacity can and should
be provided when service infrastructure is upgraded and new software
implementations are deployed 31 .
What would future proofing provision of audio <strong>description</strong> and, more generally
audio visual access services, for blind and partially sighted people mean?
Taking into account the three distinct types of Video on Demand service,
different regulatory approaches are required:
rnib.org.uk
20

• For "catch-up services", where linear broadcasts are mirrored, an
extension of mirroring to include delivery of audio <strong>description</strong> from linear
broadcasts should be required. This model has been implemented by the
BBC where, in principle, all programmes that carried audio <strong>description</strong>,
when provided as linear broadcasts, carry audio <strong>description</strong> when
accessed through the BBC iPlayer for those versions of the iPlayer that
support AD.
• "Pay per view content" is intrinsically different from linear television in that
identifying a fixed quota (like the 10 per cent of all broadcast television
programmes to be audio described) of hours to be audio described does
not chime with the nature of "Pay per view" VoD. Should a 10 per cent
VoD quota apply, for example, to all the "Pay per view" VoD programmes
on the service provider’s server even if few of these are ever accessed?
Should such a quota apply to a proportion of the most viewed programmes
(if so it has to be recognised that this will be a constantly moving target)?
Moreover, defining a percentage quota (either of programmes on offer/on
the server or of those most viewed) does not square with either the vast
amount of video material available on VoD services or its rate of growth.
However, pay per view provision should provide access services on a
reasonable (to be defined following consultation with stakeholders)
proportion of content and on all content where access services have been
provided earlier in the distribution chain (eg in cinema exhibition).
• For "User Generated Content", regulation of access services does not
seem appropriate or even feasible. Instead, encouragement of these
content authors to provide audio <strong>description</strong> by making the authoring tools
available to them is probably the best approach. This approach chimes
with reality, for example on YouTube; content authors are provided with
access to tools to create subtitles for their content.
Once a policy and regulatory framework is put in place, there are other issues
to be addressed, but none of these should constitute an intractable problem
to regulation or regulators.
• Ensuring that infrastructures and operational practices will make access
services (and audio <strong>description</strong> in particular) readily available.
• A need to raise awareness amongst blind and partially sighted people of
the audio <strong>description</strong> services that become available on VoD.
rnib.org.uk
21

3.1.2. Is there scope for "Must carry" and "Must offer" obligations
regarding audio <strong>description</strong> for next generation networks?
The challenge of ensuring access to audio <strong>description</strong> is likely to grow as IP
based (rather than linear broadcast) access of television/television like/and
VoD services over Next-Generation Networks grows.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines a Next-Generation
Network (NGN) as "a packet-based network able to provide services
including telecommunication services and able to make use of multiple
broadband, QoS-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related
functions are independent from underlying transport-related technologies (ITU
2004)."
NGNs are often made up of interconnecting networks. NGN’s Internet
Protocol (IP) based model means that protocol layers are distinct and may be
provided by different firms meaning that no single firm is responsible for end
to end carriage. If common standards are not adopted and responsibility for
the integrity of any message/service is not contractually “handed on” (and/or
secured by regulatory mandate) then messages can be degraded (eg losing
audio <strong>description</strong>). Ofcom has recognised this as a 'potential problem' and
pointed to “must carry” obligations (eg “must carry” audio <strong>description</strong>) as a
possible remedy when the time is right (though Ofcom reasonably observes
that no emerging platforms are yet used by sufficient people to justify such
measures):
"New and emerging platforms can also become subject to must
carry obligations if they become networks which are used by a
significant number of people as their principal means of receiving
television programmes. Currently, we do not see any new
platforms which meet this criterion (Ofcom 2010a: 25)."
The Communications Act 2003 charges the Secretary of State periodically to
review the list of services to which “must carry” obligations attach (Section 64
(7)). Ofcom discussed extending “must carry” obligations in its commentary
on introduction of UK local television (Ofcom 2010a, see also Valcke 2005).
However, the terms of the EU Universal Service Directive define “must carry”
obligations rather narrowly and this may block extension of “must carry”
obligations to a VoD environment:
rnib.org.uk
22

Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive provides that:
"Member States may impose reasonable “must carry” obligations, for the
transmission of specified radio and television broadcast channels and
complementary services, particularly accessibility services to enable
appropriate access for disabled end-users, on undertakings under their
jurisdiction providing electronic communications networks used for the
distribution of radio or television broadcast channels to the public where a
significant number of end-users of such networks use them as their principal
means to receive radio and television broadcast channels. Such obligations
shall only be imposed where they are necessary to meet general interest
objectives as clearly defined by each Member State and shall be
proportionate and transparent (European Parliament and the Council 2009:
28)"
The drafting of Article 31 thus seems to exclude new platforms, such as VoD,
from a requirement to provide access services. And, in consequence, the UK
Government should press for a redraft to take account of the need for access
services to be handed on effectively when carried over NGN like
infrastructures.
Further, some thought should be given to attaching a “must offer” obligation
(meaning that any regulated firm must offer any access service enhancement
it has produced/secured to any third party wishing to use it) to access
services. There is no “must offer” requirement in the EU Universal Service
Directive, however the UK is in a small minority of EU Member States that
has legislated for a must offer requirement bearing on some broadcasters –
see Section 272-276 CA 2003) and this could provide a foothold for defining a
future access services “must offer” obligation.
3.2. Future regulation of provision of audio described
programmes on linear television
UK broadcasters, in general, are meeting, and some are exceeding, their
audio <strong>description</strong> quotas for linear television. Accordingly, outstanding
regulatory issues are of less pressing significance, but, nevertheless, there is
scope for the new communications act to tidy up some loose ends:
• To embed current best practice in AD (exceeding 30 per cent of
programmes on a range of channels) in regulation to future proof achieved
rnib.org.uk
23

levels of audio <strong>description</strong> against any future adverse trends in the
television sector.
• To adopt the FCC rule that only the first repeat can be counted for quota.
• To ensure live broadcasts are accessible to blind and partially sighted
people. Currently, live broadcasts are excluded from the UK audio
<strong>description</strong> quota requirements. There are good reasons for this – audio
<strong>description</strong> requires significant preparation time (as earlier mentioned a
rule of thumb is one day’s work for one hour of programming) and for time
sensitive programmes, such as live transmissions, it’s not practicable to
provide AD and it’s therefore not reasonable to expect broadcasters to
provide high levels of AD. But such exemptions may have an unfortunate
effect of excluding blind and partially sighted people from sharing in major
events such as the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games (and the
Paralympics). Instead of full audio <strong>description</strong>, other practices, such as
commentator training to raise awareness of the needs of blind and partially
sighted people, may be appropriate – and are, arguably, mandated under
Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
Conclusion
<strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> has provided striking improvements to UK based blind and
partially sighted people’s access to broadcast (and latterly “catch up”)
television. <strong>Audio</strong> <strong>description</strong> was successfully included in the digitalisation
(Freeview and Freesat) of broadcast television and a variety of public service
and commercial broadcasters have not only met but exceeded their
obligations to provide audio <strong>description</strong> services. Broadcasters and
equipment manufacturers deserve significant credit for their continuing efforts
to reinforce and extend the past achievements) which have enabled blind and
partially sighted people to share in some, but only some, of the informative,
entertaining and educational experiences which are enjoyed as a matter of
course by most of their fellow television viewers.
These are successes well worthy of note and reflect well on those concerned.
True, audio <strong>description</strong> is far from universal – only a minority of programmes
are audio described – but audio <strong>description</strong> has now begun to be extended to
non linear television services, though there is still a long way to go.
Broadcasters and programme makers’ awareness of the needs of blind and
partially sighted people has led to positive changes (eg through clear verbal
articulation by presenters and an awareness of the importance of relating
rnib.org.uk
24

sound and image tracks to assist blind and partially sighted viewers) resulting
in increased accessibility of programmes and services even those (such as
live programming or news services) which are commonly not audio described.
However, television is not standing still. Though most people most of the time
still access television as a linear service, television is more and more
becoming an interactive and non-linear experience. Further, the familiar
vertical integration of services whereby programme production, scheduling
and transmission were undertaken by a single organisation is giving way to a
disaggregated, horizontally layered, service architecture in which signals are
“handed on” from one service provider to another without any single entity
having either the responsibility or the capability to ensure that output to the
final consumer meets accessibility (and notably accessibility to the blind and
partially sighted) objectives. Accordingly, there is a new regulatory and policy
challenge opening up as well as the challenge of extending audio <strong>description</strong>
beyond the 10 per cent, 20 per cent (and in some creditable instances still
further) quantum of programmes that are currently audio described.
Regulation will have to change, notably by being extended beyond linear
television, if blind and partially sighted people are to enjoy even the levels of
access to audio described services that they currently enjoy. There is a new
agenda for the RNIB, for UK regulators and for Government, extending to
Brussels as well as to Westminster.
rnib.org.uk
25

Acknowledgements
My principal debt is to Leen Petré who both commissioned this account and
made very significant, uncredited, contributions to it. Kay Allen, Denise
Evans, Guido Gybels, Martin Stott, Nick Tanton and Wilf White all assisted
materially and I am similarly in their debt. My thanks to all. As usual, the
author confesses that all the mistakes are his.
Richard Collins, May 2012
References
ATVOD [the Authority for Video on Demand]. (2011) Access services plan.
1.1. At
http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/Access_Services_Plan_Mar_2011.pdf
accessed on 5.4.12
ATVOD [the Authority for Video on Demand]. (2011a) Provision of video on
demand access services. 2011 Report. At
http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/Provision_of_Access_Services_2011_R
eport_FINAL.pdf accessed on 5.4.12
ATVOD [the Authority for Video on Demand]. (2011b) Rules and Guidance.
Statutory rules and non-binding guidance for providers of on-demand
programme services (ODPS). At
http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/ATVOD_Rules_and_Guidance_Ed1.1_M
ar_2011.pdf accessed on 5.4.12
CA 2003. Communications Act 2003. Chapter 21. London. TSO. At
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/pdfs/ukpga_20030021_en.pdf
accessed on 5.4.12
Commission of the European Communities (2003) Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The
Future of European Regulatory <strong>Audio</strong>visual Policy. COM (2003) 784 final.
At http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0784:FIN:EN:PDF
accessed on 14.12.11
DTV4All (2011) Final report. Accessed via http://www.psp-dtv4all.org/ on
13.12.11.
rnib.org.uk
26

Equality Act 2010. At http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
accessed on 10.12.11
European Parliament and the Council (1999) "Directive 1999/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment
and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of
their conformity." EJL 91/10 7.4.1999. At http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:091:0010:0028:EN:P
DF accessed on 12.12.11
European Parliament and the Council (2009) "Directive 2009/136/EC of The
European Parliament and of The Council of 25 November 2009 amending
Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to
electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on
cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of
consumer protection laws." EJL 337/11 of 18.12.2009. At
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:0
036:En:PDF accessed on 12.12.11
FCC [Federal Communications Commission] (2011) Video <strong>description</strong>:
Implementation of the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010. MB Docket No. 11-43. At
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0825/FCC-
11-126A1.pdf accessed on 12.12.11
GfK [Growth from Knowledge] (2011) "Competition Commission. Films on
Pay TV Survey." At http://www.competitioncommission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2010/movies_on_pay_tv/pdf/results_of_survey
_presentation.pdf accessed on 9.12.11
House of Lords. House of Commons. Joint Committee on the Draft
Communications Bill (2002) 'Draft Communications Bill. Volume I – Report.
Session 2001-02.' HL Paper 169–I. HC 876–I. London. The Stationery Office.
At
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200102/jtselect/jtcom/169/169.pdf
accessed on 16.12.11
rnib.org.uk
27

ITU (2004). Definition of Next Generation Network. At
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ngn2004/working_definition.html
accessed on 12.12.11
Looms, P (2010) The Case for DTV Access Services. EBU Technical
Review. Q2. At http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2010-Q2_Access-
Services1.pdf accessed on 13.12.11
Looms, P (2010a) The Production and Delivery of DTV Access Services.
EBU Technical Review. Q3. At
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2010-Q3_Access-Services2.pdf
accessed on 13.12.11
Looms, P (2010b) The Future of DTV Access Services. EBU Technical
Review. Q4. At http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2010-Q4_Access-
Services3.pdf accessed on 13.12.11
MAA [Media Access Australia] (2010) <strong>Audio</strong> Description Background Paper.
MAA. Ultimo NSW. At http://mediaaccess.org.au/researchpolicy/research/research-by-media-access-australia
accessed on 12.12.11
Ofcom (2009) 2009 Review of Television Access Services. London.
Ofcom.
Ofcom (2009a) 2009 Research into the awareness and usage of <strong>Audio</strong>
Description. London. Ofcom.
Ofcom (2010) Television Access Services Review. London. Ofcom.
Ofcom (2010a) Emphasising localness in the PSB system. A report from
Ofcom to DCMS. London. Ofcom.
Ofcom (2010b) Code on Television Access Services. London. Ofcom. At
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/other-codes/ctas.pdf
accessed on 26.3.2012.
Ofcom (2011) Television channels required to provide television access
services in 2012. London. Ofcom.
rnib.org.uk
28

Ofcom (2011a) Communications Market Report: UK. London. Ofcom. At
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/UK_CMR_201
1_FINAL.pdf accessed on 10.12.11
Ofcom (2012) Television Access Services. Full Year Cumulative Report
2011. At http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-
data/tv-sector-data/tv-access-services-reports/2011-
cumulative?utm_source=updates&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=acce
ss-services-2011 accessed on 26.3.12
RNIB [Royal National Institute of the Blind] (2002) Memorandum from The
Royal National Institute of the Blind to the Joint Committee on the Draft
Communications Bill. June 2002. London. Royal National Institute of the
Blind.
RNIB [Royal National Institute of the Blind] (2002a) Get the Picture. Making
television accessible to blind and partially sighted people. Campaign
Report 19. London. Royal National Institute of the Blind.
RNIB [Royal National Institute of the Blind] (2004) Royal National Institute
of the Blind’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on the Draft Code on
Providing Television Access Services. London. Royal National Institute of
the Blind.
RNIB [Royal National Institute of Blind People] (2011) Letter from Lesley-
Anne Alexander Chief Executive RNIB to Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary
of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. Dated 29 June 2011. At
www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultation.../CR2011-RNIB.rtf accessed on
16.12.11
RNIB [Royal National Institute of Blind People] (2011a) RNIB international
AD Exchange Study. London. RNIB. At
http://www.rnib.org.uk/aboutus/Research/reports/2011/AD_pdf.pdf accessed
on 26.3.12
Valcke, P (2005) The Future of Must-Carry. From Must-Carry to a Concept of
Universal Service in the Info-Communications Sector. In Media Law and
Policy. V 15. N 2. 247-265. At
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/publications/962a2_Valcke_2006_MediaLaw
AndPolicy_FutureMustCarry.pdf?where accessed on 12.12.11
rnib.org.uk
29

About the author
Richard Collins is Visiting Professor in the Centre for Law, Justice and
Journalism at City University London. Formerly, he held university posts,
latterly as Professor, in Australia (RMIT) and the UK (Polytechnic of Central
London, Goldsmiths’ College, London Guildhall University, London School of
Economics and the Open University) and fellowships/professorial
appointments in Australia (CIRCIT and Swinburne University), Canada
(Canadian Commonwealth Fellow, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario),
South Africa (University of Natal, University of the Witwatersrand) and the
USA (Temple University, University of Southern California). He was Head of
Education and Deputy Director at the British Film Institute.
He (with Anna Coote) established the Communication Policy Research
Programme at the Institute for Public Policy Research and he directed its
media policy programme through the early and mid 1990s. He has been
Specialist Advisor to three House of Lords’ Select Committee enquiries on
media issues (BBC Charter Review, public service broadcasting and digital
switchover). His consultancy work includes advising the Director General of
Telecommunications (Oftel) on broadcasting and convergence issues, the
Governors of the SABC on broadcasting finance and governance, training for
the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission of Thailand
and various evaluation roles for the European Commission. He now acts as a
volunteer media researcher and policy analyst for the Royal National Institute
of Blind People.
He has published widely, in the UK and overseas, and his books include
Culture Communication and National Identity. The Case of Canadian
Television. (1990) Toronto. University of Toronto Press; Broadcasting and
<strong>Audio</strong>-Visual Policy in the European Single Market. (1994) London. John
Libbey; New Media, New Policies. [With Cristina Murroni]. (1996) Cambridge.
Polity Press; From Satellite to Single Market. New Communication
Technology and European Public Service Television 1982-1992. (1998)
London. LSE Books/Routledge; Media and Identity in Contemporary Europe.
Consequences of Global Convergence. (2002) Bristol. Intellect. and Three
Myths of Internet Governance (2009) Bristol. Intellect.
rnib.org.uk
30

Footnotes
1 Royal National Institute of Blind People (from 2002-2007, the Royal National
Institute of the Blind and from 1953-2002, the Royal National Institute for the
Blind).
2 Subtitling of foreign language programmes is not common on UK television
(though customary in many, particularly relatively small, European countries).
To meet the needs of blind and partially sighted people in such circumstances
audio or spoken subtitling may be used and this form of access service is
currently available in Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden.
3 Those with greater than a 0.05 per cent audience share and which are
principally directed at UK viewers.
4 There is a separate code for EPGs. See
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/other-codes/epgcode.pdf
5 The BBC raised its audio <strong>description</strong> target to 20 per cent of transmission
hours in 2 per cent annual increments from 2011 onwards.
6 See http://www.s4c.co.uk/e_audio<strong>description</strong>.shtml
7 Whether a set top box (STB) or a digital tuner built into the television set.
8 See rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/Documents/AD_on_Freeview_TV.doc
9 At http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:P
DF
10 Taylor Nelson Sofres undertook the research polling 404 subjects via a
CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) procedure and using a
Gabor Granger/Van Westendorp methodology to plot demand curves which
established the subjects’ range of acceptable price/quality relationships.
11 A note in the minutes of a late 2003 meeting of the RNIB Campaign
Planning Group, after the Communications Act 2003 had been finalised,
recorded that “Caroline Ellis has won widespread admiration within the
rnib.org.uk
31

voluntary sector and amongst consumer groups for her dynamic co-ordination
of the campaign”.
12 Department of Culture, Media and Sport
13 Department of Trade and Industry
14 Available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200102/jtselect/jtcom/169/169ap53
.htm accessed on 26.3.12
15 “Must offer, must carry” refers to a requirement (must offer) that
designated service providers (such as broadcasters) must provide their
services to third parties (such as cable networks and satellite broadcasters)
and/or that (must carry) such third parties must retransmit such services.
16 Channel 5
17 RNIB cited the Communications Committee Working Document: Report
from the Inclusive Communications Subgroup, 22 January 2004, European
Commission DG Information Society.
18 With some reservations chiefly relating to employment and education.
19 However, there is notable work in Europe, see in particular initiatives in
Catalonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. The
European Commission sponsored study “Measuring progress of
eAccessibility in Europe" (MeAC) and updates at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/me
ac_study/index_en.htm and at http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/
provides helpful information.
20 That is, cable companies, DBS service providers etc
21 Eligible broadcasts may include programmes repeated not more than once.
22 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accessible_Channel
23 See http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics
rnib.org.uk
32

24 These measures underpinned establishment of the Authority for Television
on Demand (ATVOD).
25 On Demand Programme Services
26 Note that this specific scope directly reflects the wording of the AVMS
Directive
27 See the record of the DCMS/RNIB/industry conference held in February
2012 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeoCNRrhGE accessed on
5.4.12
28 The FCC regulations require broadcasters and MVPDs (ie cable and other
relay networks) to pass through any audio <strong>description</strong> (though the FCC
names this “video <strong>description</strong>”) already provided (FCC 2011: 2 and 4).
29 It will be worth watching how far the FCC is successful in requiring MVPDs
to provide access services. AT&T and Verizon, among the most significant
MVPDs, argued that the FCC’s requirements were impracticable and might
not be compatible with established intellectual property laws (see FCC 2011:
5). However, the FCC stated that it did not find “insurmountable” obstacles to
implementation of its requirements (FCC 2011: 6).
30 This is clearly an issue in the USA – see FCC 2011 around 27.
31 The FCC, for example, gave mobile networks two years grace before they
were categorically required to provide audio <strong>description</strong> services FCC 2011:
29.
_________________________________________
ISBN 978 1 4445 0113 1
© RNIB, 2012
Registered charity number 226227
rnib.org.uk
33

ISBN 978 1 4445 0113 1
© RNIB July 2012 Registered charity number 226227