Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FCC eyes changes to online video clips, businesses say don't 'underestimate the difficulty’
FOX News ^ | July 5 2014 | Joseph Weber

Posted on 07/05/2014 11:42:37 AM PDT by PoloSec

The Obama administration is set to decide next week on whether online video clips must include closed captioning -- a rule that if approved would help hearing-impaired viewers but could prove costly and time-consuming for businesses.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission will vote Friday on the proposed rule change, which will apply specifically to clips that have already appeared on TV with captions and would follow a similar, 2012 rule on full-length videos.

Such a change is supported by commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, who since being sworn in six months ago has made clear his keen interest in hearing-impaired issues.

“The commission previously adopted closed-captioning requirements for full-length video programming online,” he said last month. “I proposed … we go further and require captioning for video clips that end up on the Internet. Those who hear with their eyes should not be disadvantaged in their ability to access video information on the Internet.”

The change also has support from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, who as a House member sponsored the 2010 Twenty-First Century Communication and Video Act, under which closed-captioning changes are being made.

A Markey spokeswoman said Wednesday that the senator hopes the commission approves the rule change, which would impact an estimated 36 million Americans who are either deaf or have hearing disabilities.

However, businesses and their Washington advocates are concerned about the cost of the proposed changes and how quickly the FCC will require the clips be added to the videos.

In fact, high-ranking members of the National Association of Broadcasters met June 30 with two members of Wheeler’s legal team to discuss such issues, according to a letter obtained by FoxNews.com.

The association expressed its willingness to work with the FCC on the issues but urged the agency to consider the “many steps” required to

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fcc

1 posted on 07/05/2014 11:42:37 AM PDT by PoloSec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

The FCC is WAY out of control

It’s purpose was to address the fact that there were a limited number of broadcast frequencies available back in the early days of TV signals being sent over the airways.

The fact that it now claims the right to determine content of online videos is an outrage. Anything that appears on a video image (including captioning) is content.

How is this not tyranny, and how much tyranny are we supposed to swallow?


2 posted on 07/05/2014 11:46:54 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

No expense the taxed cannot afford!


3 posted on 07/05/2014 11:48:30 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:32 "The arrogant one will stumble and fall ; / ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
Censorship under the color of compassion.

*&^ the FCC. *&^ the government.

4 posted on 07/05/2014 11:50:11 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Closed captioning... the death of YouTube?


5 posted on 07/05/2014 11:55:39 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

My first thought! YouTube is bad for Democrats, so ...


6 posted on 07/05/2014 11:59:15 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("Harvey Dent, can we trust him?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsdV--kLoQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

The steady steamroller of the government bureaucracy.......


7 posted on 07/05/2014 11:59:55 AM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Controlling the content of free speech cannot be constitutional


8 posted on 07/05/2014 12:01:12 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
What percentage of the population is hearing impaired?
9 posted on 07/05/2014 12:01:47 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Online video is an important communication media which can expose government overreach and oppressive actions. Radical Socialists don’t like that reality. Obviously.


10 posted on 07/05/2014 12:02:15 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Youtube has an auto captioning feature that is worse than Babelfish ever was. lol


11 posted on 07/05/2014 12:02:32 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

By the same logic, shouldn’t the FCC outlaw putting silent movies from the 1920s online?

Blind people have rights too, and if they can’t hear any dialog, then they won’t be able to know what’s happening on screen.


12 posted on 07/05/2014 12:13:31 PM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
can ya hear this???

13 posted on 07/05/2014 12:15:27 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
However, businesses and their Washington advocates are concerned about the cost of the proposed changes and how quickly the FCC will require the clips be added to the videos

Not concerned at all, apparently, about the lack of authority to require such a thing.

14 posted on 07/05/2014 12:17:27 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
Can't the deaf just buy software that converts speech to text???

Or hire this guy.


15 posted on 07/05/2014 12:21:48 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

If you see me walking down the street, not talking, do I need a digital marquee on my butt to caption what I am thinking?

Well, of course!


16 posted on 07/05/2014 12:23:37 PM PDT by Scrambler Bob (You can count my felonies by looking at my FR replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Garrett’s still alive. That’d be awesome.


17 posted on 07/05/2014 12:31:06 PM PDT by RichInOC ("GOOD NIGHT AND HAVE A PLEASANT TOMORROW!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

18 posted on 07/05/2014 12:36:45 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

What’s next? Braille captioning in Spanish?


19 posted on 07/05/2014 12:44:47 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec; All
While I think that video captioning great idea, there are constitutional problems with it which I will mention below. But just because a video has a soundtrack does not mean that the soundtrack is of good quality, even for unimpaired people. So such a feature would undoubtedly be appreciated by many people.

H O W E V E R ...

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

I'm not trying to be cruel to people with handicaps. But the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to legislatively address remedies to make life easier for the handicapped. So can we expect citizens and businesses to independently resolve the issue, or is a constitutional amendment to protect the handicapped the remedy?

Also, since the Supreme Court clarified this week that that the states have never amended the Constitution to enumerate the right for women to demand that their employers pay for certain types of contraceptives, why is the Obama administration now expecting video producers to pay the bill to make things easier for the handicapped since the states likewise have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the handicapped? (hint: buy votes for Democrats)

"The five-member Federal Communications Commission will vote Friday on the proposed rule change, ..."

We'd probably never see this abuse of federal legislative / regulatory power in an election year if parents were making sure that their children were being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.

More specifically, and as mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Constitution "expert" Obama, to clarify that all federal legislative / regulatory powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected bureaucrats like those running the FCC.

And by allowing non-elected bureaucrats to independently vote on regulations that citizens and businesses must comply with, the federal government is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above imo.

Finally, as a side note concerning the ongoing abuse of constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers by the corrupt federal government, consider that the states would really be a dull, boring place to grow up and live in if, as mentioned above, parents made sure that their children were being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. /sarc

20 posted on 07/05/2014 12:46:08 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Well, if Ed Markey is for it! Say no more!
Next, Braille Television for the Blind.


21 posted on 07/05/2014 12:49:37 PM PDT by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Just explain to them that close captioning a video clip is even more complicated than restoring email from a backup.


22 posted on 07/05/2014 12:56:53 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

“The Obama administration is set to decide next week on whether online video clips must include closed captioning — a rule that if approved would help hearing-impaired viewers but could prove costly and time-consuming for businesses.”

That is a wonderful idea! Perhaps add brail and a ‘seeing eye’ dog that could prance across the screen for the blind to follow along./sarc.

Another option would be to have the sound go up really freaking loud?


23 posted on 07/05/2014 1:01:23 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

I agree. It’s “for the deaf and hearing impaired” is just an excuse to get a foot in the door to regulating broader content. The aim of the FCC is to control the internet.


24 posted on 07/05/2014 1:11:51 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

We cannot have freedom with oppression like this. The hearing impaired are not watching videos for their audio content anyway.


25 posted on 07/05/2014 1:21:51 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

No jurisdiction and a blatant power grab to remain empowered.

It’s like when the US Post Office was looking at giving everyone in America an email address so they could hand deliver spam email messages to elderly people.

And Biden (or was it Reid or someone else who) defended the junk mail that is already delivered to old people “it’s the only contact with the outside world many of them have!”.


26 posted on 07/05/2014 1:36:16 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: "Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

This can be handled via electronic speech to text conversion. May not be perfect but that is what makes sense in this case. MSM and various outlets should be encouraged to do this voluntarily. The technology already exists. Government intervention is not needed. Much ado about nothing.


27 posted on 07/05/2014 2:44:55 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

This is a back door to censorship. The Globalisy want to control the Internet because it’s exposing them. This is simply a back door way where the Feds can ban 1000s of videos that they do not want known.

The FCC has no juristriction. Anyone that falls for this rubbish is extremely ignorant and highly gullible.


28 posted on 07/05/2014 6:50:46 PM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson