This proposal. Yeah, that is a new slide that just got put up except for the fact that looks identical to the previous slide. There was identical service delivery. There is identical entitlement optimization. There is identical relaying of choice back to the cable system and there was identical delivery of programming. So what is the difference . Desire to systems that work the same. The difference is one is close and one is so good. They have no choice today. So with the competitive box or app functions exactly like the box or act in the cable system forces you to rent today, then the protections for copyright and security are the same. That is required. Theres nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content, sell advertising around it, you know . Theres a misrepresentation thats been made today with the assertion that this item does allow that, an assertion that it creates all kinds of opportunities for free riders. It takes the same product that goes through the cable system and the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a Different Box requiring the same structures. As a result, existing copyrights and programming agreements are unaffected. Consumer privacy is protected. Emergency alerts are passed through, and Child Protection laws are unaffected. And nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation. You know, in fact, we all know that history has been clear that innovation is a result of competition, not a result of a forced you must rent this box from me month after month after month. And nothing changes minority programmer relationships with the Cable Companies, but it sure does create more opportunities more minority programmers for minority programmers to reach consumers through the internet. Finally, this is not a new topic for this agency. In 2010 the cable industry supported, and i quote, crossindustry approaches to develop a fully competitive and innovative retail video device marketplace. So the people who have said this is the end of the world actually supported a competitive video device is and made seven recommendations which are consistent with todays proposal. Let me just highlight a couple of them. Theyre here in this letter youll see on the screen. The option to purchase video devices other than those supplied by the Cable Company. Thats the cable industry saying that they support that. The option to access video content on the internet. The option to search for content across multiple sources including the internet. This is what the cable industry proposed, and they have the list goes on to the next slide where there are others that i wont read you all. But as i say, this is not inconsistent with what were opening the discussion on and proposing today. So lets go back to where we tarted. This is not come started. This is not complex. The law mandates it, Technology Allows it, the industry at one time proposed something similar to it. And consumers deserve a break and a choice. So we will call for the vote on the item. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed . No. The ayes have it. The item is adopted. The request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. Thank you very much to the bureau. Madam secretary. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, third on your agenda today, the item will be presented by the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau. It is entitled closed captioning of video programming, telecommunications for the deaf and hard of hearing. Allison cutler, acting chief of the bureau, will give the introduction. Thank you very much. Look at this. Cgb has decided to change the color of the name signs. Place cards. Finish. [inaudible] they also what . Moved left. Now, wait a minute [laughter] all things are relative here. Allison, go ahead, please. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Nearly 20 years ago the Commission Adopted its first set of rules governing the provision of closed captioning on television, enabling viewers who are deaf and hard of hearing to Access Television programming along with the rest of the general public. At the time the commission stated that it expected to revisit these rules as changes in technology and industry practices made it possible to improve both the availability and quality of captioning. The experiences of viewers over the past several years have confirmed the need to update these rules to achieve Congress Goal for all americans to have equal access to video programs, particularly as these programs also become available on the internet. Pursuant to the 21st Century Communications and video accessibility act. Today the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau presents you a report and order that would assign some of the responsibilities for the delivery of high quality captions to entities that have direct control over the production of such captions on video programming. This item also addresses certifications by video programming entities and the handling of captioning complaints. The item provides for flexibility on ways to achieve compliance and balances the benefits that fully accessible programming can achieve for people who are deaf and hard of hearing with the impact these actions would have on try. Joining me at the table today are Karen Strauss, deputy chief of cgb, and Elliott Greenwald, deputy chief of the disability rights office. Karen will give us context and the history of this proceeding, and elliott will present the item. In addition to karen and elliott, i would like to thank greg highbach, chief of the disability rights office, susie singleton, michelle carey, mary beth murphy, maria few lahr key and Jeffrey Newman of the media bureau, sharon lee and Tracy Randolph of Enforcement Bureau and susan aaron of the general counsels office for their work to support this item. Thank you. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. We have often heard it said that if of all of the improvements in accessibility achieved in the last century for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, closed captioning was the most significant. As was true for the last item presented, the obligations for closed captions came from the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act celebrated now by its 20th anniversary. But until february 2014, problems with the quality of captions had gradually been making Television Viewing with closed captioning increasingly difficult. In the years leading up to this order, consumers reported inconsistencies in the way that captions were being provised with many people provided, with many people reporting captions were with often inaccurate and delayed behind the programs audio track. Two years ago the commission took landmark tens to insuring that tv programming includes high quality captions that accurately reflect the dialogue and other sounds and music in the audio track are synchronous with the programs audio, are complete from the beginning to the end of the program to the fullest extent possible and do not block other Important Information or content in the program on the screen such as characters faces, text or graphics needed to understand the programs content. However, that february 2014 order left open who would be responsible for achieving compliance with the new captioning quality rules. Back in 1997 when the Commission First adopted rules governing tv captioning, the commission placed sole responsibility for the provision of captions on video programming distributers. But its video programmers not distributers that are the ones that exercise the most control over captioning quality. Theyre the ones that work with the captioning agency that both develop and insert captions on tv programs. For this reason in a notice that companied the february 2014 order, the commission sought comment on whether it was appropriate to divide the responsibilities and place some of of the responsibilities addressing captioning quality and the provision of captions on video programmers. The item before you continues to place primary responsibility on the provision for the provision of closed captions on distributers but recognizes that many problems dealing with caption quality originate during the Production Phase which is under the control of video programmers. For this reason the item allocates responsibility for caption quality to both distributers and programmers, making each entity responsible for the captioning issues that are primarily within eachs control. We believe that this allocation of responsibilities will bring about better compliance and make enforcement of the new captioning quality rules easier and more effective. Elliott will now provide you with greater details about this item. Thank you. Good to morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. We are pleased to present the second report and order in the closed captioning quality proceeding. This item extends some of the responsibilities to the quality and provision of closed captioning to other entities involved in the production and delivery of video programming, revises procedures for the handling of complaints, revises video programmer Certification Requirements and makes other procedural modifications. Specifically, this second report and order assigns respondent for the quality responsibility for the quality of closed captioning to video programming distributers and video programmers, making each entity responsible for closed captioning issues that are primarily within its control. Video programmers are responsible for closed captioning problems that stem from production of the captions as well as transmission of the the captions up to the point where theyre handed off to video programming distributers. Video programming distributers, in turn, are responsible for the quality problems that are a result of the distributers faulty equipment or their failure to pass through the closed captioning data intact. The item also maintains current rules that place primary responsibility for the provision of closed captioning on video programming distributers but also holds video programmers responsible for a lack of captions where they have failed to provide captions on nonexempt programs. In addition, it requires each video programmer to file with the commission a certification that the video programmer is in compliance with the rules requiring the inclusion of closed captions and either is in compliance with the captioning quality standards or has adopted and is following best practices or is exempt from the captioning obligations. If exempt, the video programmer must include in its certification the specific exemptions claimed. Under current procedures video programming distributers are required to make best efforts to obtain widely available certifications from video programmers. The second report and order would remove video programming distributers from this certification process, and instead obligate video programmers to file their certifications directly with the commission. This will result in having all certifications located in one place, making it easier for video programming distributers and Commission Staff to locate the certifications. The item also revised the procedures for receiving, for receiving, serving and addressing television closed captioning complaints in accordance with a burdenshifting compliance model. This model requires video programming distributers to initially address complaints but allows the video programming distributer to shift the responsibility for responding to a complaint if the video programming distributer after conducting an investigation determines that the problem was not within its control. The second report and order also establishes a compliance ladder for the commissions television closed captioning quality requirementings. The compliance ladder provides video programming distributers and video programmers with opportunities to take informal and prompt corrective action to reduce the need for enforcement action by the commission. Finally, the item requires each video programmer to register with the commission its Contact Information for the receipt and handling of written closed captioning complaints using the commissions web page. We believe that the actions taken in the second report and order by clearly defining the responsibilities for the quality and provision of closed captioning and adopting other procedural reforms will help insure compliance with the commissions closed captioning rules. The bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. Thank you very much to all of you and everyone in the bureau for their efforts. Commissioner clyburn. Just over 19 years ago the Commission Adopted its first set of closed captioning rules. This decision marked a major first step in granting full access to video programming for deaf and hard of hearing or hearingimpaired citizens. Much has changed since 1997, and today it is most fitting for us to update these rules to reflect the insights gained from the experiences by industry, advocates and the fcc. First, this item will place the responsibility for closed captioning quality on video programming distributers as well as video programmers. Each will be held accountable both for the provisioning and the quality of closed captioning issues that are primarily within their control. A common sense update, to be sure. Video programming distributers will continue to be responsible for the provisioning of closed captioning, but now video programmers will be held responsible for the absence of those captions if they fail to provide them. This item also enhances the transparency of compliance certifications and updates compliance procedures whether those complaints are received by the commission or the video programming distributer. It is my hope that these updates will not only help in compliance with our closed captioning rules, but will assist in streamlining the resolution of closed captioning complaints or problems Going Forward. Many thanks are due for this item, and as the bureau chief mentioned, those names, i want to thank them. But i also, as always, would like to act knowledge and include thanks to Karen Strauss and Elliott Greenwald for such an excellent item. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner rosenworcel . Earlier this month we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the telecommunication cans act of 1996, and though its been said before, a lot has changed in the past two decades, including the evolution of Television Sets away from those that were big with fake wood paneling around them to what we have today. Razorthin screens and, of course, theyre not the only game in town. We live in a world where those screens surround us and opportunities for viewing continue to multiply. All this change is terrific, but we have got to make sure that we continue to honor the values that we had 20 years ago or 19 years ago when we first put in place our new closed captioning policies. And its important because there are an estimated 36 million americans who are deaf or have hearing loss. And there are 40 million more over the age of 65 who experience varying degrees of hearing loss atom point in their at some point in their lives. They all rely on accurate, synchronized, complete and wellplaced captions to enjoy video programming. Now, two years ago we took significant steps to update our closed captioning policies, and today we close an enforcement gap so that the fcc can step in when need be. And we also recognize that video programming distributers and programmers alike work hard to provide high quality closed captions. We implement strict timelines for consumers complaints to be addressed, and this is important, we implement a compliance ladder so that improvements can be made without immediate threat of enforcement. So thank you to the Consumer Governmental Affairs bureau not just for the excellent work here today, but for your absolutely unyielding commitment to improving the quality of closed captioning. Here, here. Commissioner pai. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Video programmers and distributers each play an Important Role with respect to the provision and quality of closed captions. And todays order at its core embraces a common sense approach to allocating responsibility for complying with the commissions closed captioning quality rules. A distributer will be responsible for those aspects of closed caption quality over which it has primary control, and a programmer will be responsible for those aspects of closed captioning quality over which it has primary control. Of course, the devil is in the details. For example, this order establishes a compliance ladder for our closed captioning quality rules which is designed to encourage parties to quickly address and remedy problems without involving the agencys Enforcement Bureau. I had concerns about language originally in the language that would have delegated vast discretion to avoid the compliance ladder and refer matters directly to the Enforcement Bureau. This would have defeated the entire purpose of the compliance ladder. But through some tough negotiations, we were able to significantly limit the possibility of evading the ladder. Compromise language may not be ideal, but it is good enough to merit my concurrence. Accordingly, i am voting to approve in part and concur in part. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner orielly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Our main focus is to shift the burden involving the quality of closed captions from the programming distribute us to the programmers themselves. I can generally agree with the concept. I suspect itll be much messier than the text. I also worry that the item doesnt make a similar shift for the burden to provide closed camses. The same logical argument should apply to the provisioning. In any event, i will sport these provisions notwithstanding. Disappointingly, the item seeps into two troubling areas. First, the item creates an except