RNIB response to the DCMS paper "Communications Review Seminar Series, Seminar 1: consumers", September 2012

Introduction

RNIB, as the largest charity representing blind and partially sighted people, takes a strong interest in the Communications Review because the review provides an opportunity to address issues that are very important to our client group of blind and partially sighted people. We need to ensure that the interests of blind and partially sighted people are catered for by the communications sectorin the next 10 years and beyond.

RNIB fully supports the ambition of the Government to ensure that the UK has a leadership position in the communications sector. As the consultation paper recognises, the UK leads the world on the extent and quality of TV access services provided. The paper also recognises that the UK has made some progress on equipment accessibility. However, there is more to be done. Firstly we need to further improve and future proof equal access for blind and partially sighted people. Secondly we need to ensure that UK communications industries maintain their world leading competitive edge on accessibility and their resulting contributions to the UK economy. As standards and requirements for accessibility are being adopted in other countries, we can not take the continuation of the UK's leadership position on accessibility for granted[1].

In order to improve and future proof equal access to communications for blind and partially sighted people and maintain the UK's leadership position in the world in this area, the communications review should provide solutions to the following 6 issues:

  • future proofing the delivery of audio description for video on demand content,
  • strengthening the provision of audio description for linear broadcasting,
  • allocating responsibility for monitoring complaints about access services to a specific body,
  • maintaining and strengthening the section 10 Ofcom duty on accessibility of equipment so it is more effective,
  • strengthening the Ofcom duty to report on Accessibility of Electronic programme guides,
  • increasing accessibility of public sector internet services and websites providing basic information and services to citizens.

The DCMS consultation paper in its current form does not address these issues adequately. It refers to voluntary commitments made by industry, sharing of investment costs between manufacturers and charitable organisations and states that a market response is preferable to regulatory intervention.

We at RNIBlike to keep an open mind about the mechanisms that should be used to deliver the six outcomes outlined above. However, in some cases, mandatory requirements will be necessary to make sure that the communications sector delivers to meet the needs of blind and partially sighted people. The underlying reason is simple: there is significant market failure to deliver accessibility and the relevant industries tell us that there is not a sufficiently large market segment of blind and partially sighted people for accessibility to give them enough return on investment. The current Communications Act recognises this in three ways: (1) by making specific provision for the needs of blind and partially sighted people in relation to audio description, (2) in the code of practice for electronic programme guides and (3) with a specific duty to encourage availability of easily usable apparatus (including for those with disabilities).

RNIB appreciates that the Governmentwants to decrease the regulatory burden to help create the conditions for growth and innovation for the UK communications industry to thrive. We too do not want to create unnecessary regulatory burdens. However in many areas relating to accessibility, a regulatory approach will remain a necessity in the face of the absence of proven market incentives.

In response to the specific question posed by the paper "what more could the Government and industry do to drive inclusive design and increase accessibility", our detailed response, picking up the six areas identified above, is as follows:

1. Future-proofing the delivery of audio description (AD) for video on demand content:

-We have collected evidence that blind and partially sighted people expect access services to be delivered on video on demand content. This evidence is included in Annex 1.

-The Communications Act specifies requirements for broadcasters to provide audio description. We agree with the premise of the review to apply a coherent set of principles to the continuing convergence of content provision.

-Future-proofing the delivery of audio description means that the existing audio description requirements will have to be broadened to cover the new ways people are watching television, namely as video on demand content. RNIB has commissioned an analysis of the situation from independent expert Prof. Richard Collins. His detailed proposals confirm the need for regulation and can be found in the paper Collins, R. (2012), Audio description: past, present and future[2].

-The level of AD required in the context of video on demand content should be the same as the AD requirement for linear broadcasting (i.e. currently 10% of programmes).

-This outcome has to be delivered through new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill, because the market will not deliver. Evidence of this is the lack of AD for video on demand content at present on film services brought to TV sets like BT Vision, LOVEFILM and Netflix. In addition the provision for catch-up services remains inadequate: we are gradually seeing some progress on public service broadcasting (PSB) services like 4oD and ITV player, but not the step change that is required to give blind and partially people equal access.

2. Strengthening the provision of AD for linear broadcasting:

-We have gathered evidence that shows that blind and partially sighted people want more TV programmes to have AD - this evidence is outlined in Annex 2.

-Some broadcasters have voluntarily agreed to increase their AD provision on linear broadcasts from 10% of programmes to 20% of programmes. It is important to note that all repeats of programmes count towards the 10% target and that only Channel 4, ITV, BBC and Sky have signed up to the RNIB request to systematically provide AD on 20% of programmes. Despite being a PSB, Five has not. To futureproof the existing commitments and particularly to make sure they are not relented on in the future, the 20% needs to become enshrined in regulation. In addition, only regulation will ensure that channels that have not made a commitment to 20% also work to increase accessibility. RNIB is aware that the 20% requirement would only be reasonable for PSBs and larger broadcasters, and we are happy for additional "hurdles" to be introduced to protect smaller channels from spending a disproportionate level of their turnover on access services. Specific rules have already been developed to determine on an annual basis which channels have to meet the existing 10% requirement, and those should stay in place. RNIB would expect that additional rules would be developed to define the turnover level at which channels have to meet a 20% AD requirement.

-This outcome has to be delivered by new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill. This is because, in case of commercial pressures,broadcastersnow have the option to stop delivering on the voluntary commitments they have made, and no broadcaster has come forward in addition to the original four with a formal commitment to exceed their official target.

3. Allocating responsibility for monitoring complaints about access services to a specific body:

-We have evidence from blind and partially sighted users that their complaints about AD are not always acted upon or responded to and that they want better mechanisms than the ones that currently exist. This evidence can be found in annex 3.

-At the moment complaints from users about TV access services such as audio description are not monitored by Ofcom.

-RNIB is not in a position to monitor complaints because we are only copied into a fraction of the complaints from blind and partially sighted audio description users.

-We would like assurance for the future that the number of complaints and their nature are regularly monitored by an independent body.

-Given its role in monitoring the delivery of access services like audio description, Ofcom seems the most appropriate body to collect this information from broadcasters on an annual basis.

-This outcome has to be delivered through new mandatory requirements in the Communications Bill relating to broadcasters and Ofcom.This is because when we raised the possibility with Ofcom we were told that it does not currently have the remit to do this.

4. Maintaining and strengthening the section 10 Ofcom duty on accessibility of equipment so it is more effective:

-We have evidence that blind and partially sighted people find that there is not sufficient progress made on communications equipment accessibility. This evidence can be found in annex 4.

-Ofcom organises best practice industry events and it has published research reports on accessibility of communications equipment, but generally these mechanisms are not really delivering the step-change in equipment accessibility that is required for blind and partially sighted people.

-We would see more progress if Ofcom had to submit an annual report to the Governmenton this area, with a consultation process that gave RNIB and blind and partially sighted users a chance to also put our view on the level of progress or the lack of progress on record.

-The Ofcom duty on accessibility of equipment has to formulated in a way that spans the entire user experience, and not just the use of the main devices. We have moved away from a world where watching TV only involves using one device. As more and more of the user experience and equipment control is being delivered through second screen devices, the accessibility of these secondary devices needs to be incorporated in the duty.

-This outcome has to be delivered through either a new voluntary agreement between DCMS and Ofcom or by new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill relating to Ofcom.This is because it differs from the way Ofcom has so far discharged its section 10 duty.

5. Strengthening the Ofcom duty to report on accessibility of electronic programme guides (EPGs):

-Despite recent advances in technology, particularly with Panasonic introducing a fully talking EPG in their 2012 model line-up, we have evidence that a lot of blind and partially sighted people have not got sufficient access to the EPG on their TV receivers and expect other providers to follow the Panasonic example. This evidence is outlined in Annex 5.

-In previous years, Ofcom has prepared an annual report on the accessibility of EPGs that is very basic, short and not critical of a lack of progress. This has not delivered the step change that is required for blind and partially sighted people. If anything, the previous reportscan be read by EPG providers as justification for their limited progress in this area.

-We would see more progress in this area if Ofcom changed the reporting requirement as follows:

  • inclusion of the access statements from EPG providers (with confidential commercial information info blanked out as is normal practice);
  • reporting more critically on developments: e.g. some measures taken by providers are only relevant for people who have sighted assistance whilst others give people independent access, but Ofcom reports them as if they all contribute in an equal measure to accessibility progress;
  • reporting annual progress against a fixed set of criteria that is shared beforehand with EPG providers. RNIB could help Ofcom set those criteria based on our specialist knowledge about accessible interface solutions;
  • reporting to include a feed-back mechanism similar to a consultation, to allow RNIB or other parties to see their views published and on the official record as part of the final Ofcom report.

-This outcome has to be delivered through either a voluntary agreement between DCMS and Ofcom or through new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill relating to Ofcom.This is because it differs from the way Ofcom has so far discharged its duty relating to EPG accessibility. RNIB has had initial discussions with Ofcom about this approach and we have seen positive signs that some of our suggestions would be considered, however we would like a stronger arrangement to guarantee their implementation for future years.

6. Increasing the accessibility of public sector internet services and websites providing basic information and services to citizens:

-Despite the efforts of RNIB and many other organisations, the internet remains largely inaccessible to blind and partially sighted people. In 2007 the European Commission published a study highlighting that only 2.6% of key public and commercial websites in Member States were accessible, while only 5.3% of Government websites were accessible. This is a major barrier to the inclusion of blind and partially sighted people in society. Failure to meet the challenge of internet accessibility is a failure to meet the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). In a May 2012 note[3] from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, a recent survey of 350 central Government websites showed that none were AA compliant on every page, while 16 websites did not even reach the A standard.

-The European Commission had promised to bring forward legislation on the accessibility of websites before the end of 2011[4], but publication of the draft legislation has been postponed. RNIB is campaigning along with European organisations such as Age Platform Europe, ANEC and the European Disability Forum to ensure that the scope of the proposal meets the needs of blind and partially sighted people. We look to the UK Government to support us in this endeavour through interventions in the Council of Ministers in support of mandatory accessibility of public websites and websites providing basic information and services to citizens. The Government can ensure it is setting the standard to follow across Europe by incorporating such mandatory requirements into the forthcoming Communications Bill.

-The European Commission is also drafting a European Accessibility Act, which is expected to be published at the end of 2012. RNIB wants to see a wide scope for this future act and would expect a wide range of e-services and interfaces to be covered by it. We hope that the UKGovernment will take its obligations under the UNCRPD seriously and support our work in order to ensure that goods and services are effectively accessible to blind and partially sighted people.

Summary of recommendations

  • Future-proofing the delivery of audio description (AD) for video on demand content has to be delivered through new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill
  • Strengthening the provision of AD for linear broadcasting has to be delivered by new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill.
  • Allocating responsibility for monitoring complaints about access services to a specific body has to be delivered through new mandatory requirements in the Communications Bill relating to broadcasters and Ofcom.
  • Maintaining and strengthening the section 10 Ofcom duty on accessibility of equipment so it is more effective has to be delivered through either a new voluntary agreement between DCMS and Ofcom or by new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill relating to Ofcom.
  • Strengthening the Ofcom duty to report on accessibility of electronic programme guides (EPGs) has to be delivered through either a voluntary agreement between DCMS and Ofcom or through new mandatory requirements in the forthcoming Communications Bill relating to Ofcom.
  • The Government should ensure it is the European leader in increasing the accessibility of public sector internet services and websites providing basic information and services to citizens.

Contact for further information

Leen Petré, Principal Manager Media and Culture Department, RNIB,

Annex 1: evidence that blind and partially sighted people want AD on Video on Demand services.

The following personal testimonies demonstrate the demand for AD on Video on Demand services:

"I have experienced this all the time with 4OD, ITV and sky player. I don't feel like I should be able to just watch things on my sky planner with ad or live TV, but the option should at least be available just like subtitles are on these particular platforms. The BBC can do it with no trouble so why can't these other online OD services?

I hope that the broadcasters can allow visual impaired people to access shows that they can watch on digital/Freeview platforms online at any time like their sighted peers." (Male AD user)

"I use AD quite a lot and find not all programs have it but it is getting more common and hope that it continues to increase. I would love to have it enabled on the internet also as I use my laptop constantly to overcome my very limited vision. " (Female AD user)

"… catchup TV needs to have audio description but I believe that we [also] need to go beyond catchup and look at on demand movies and rentals too. 'catch up' doesn't go far enough, 'on demand' is the fuller picture. As far as I'm aware, neither iTunes nor LOVEFILM have audio description versions available. This is distressing as we know that many DVDs have AD on them. … Soon, with YouView on the horizon, catchup will be even more commonplace and a standard way of watching TV. 24 hour scheduling is already beginning to slip a little." (Male AD user)

"I frequently use Audio description using sky but if I miss a show, it's often the case that I have to watch it without the audio description. I use BBC iPlayer, ITV player and five on demand along with 4OD on occasion and all are sadly not distributing audio descriptions in their later broadcasts. … It would be very nice if audio could be available on demand shows, with all of the channels that offer it as standard. The encouragement to include more shows would be nice …" (female AD user)

"Simply put, I don't even bother to look at any online TV catch-up services as I know (unless there has been a drastic improvement) that there are no facilities to use AD on them. I am a subscriber to LOVEFILM, but will never download a film that has no AD, no point!"

(Male AD user)

Annex 2: evidence that blind and partially sighted people want more TV programmes to have AD

RNIB recently produced a research report "Update on inclusive society" that provides an update on travel, shopping, money, technology, reading and television. [5] It is based on the findings from interviews with 176 blind and partially sighted people. A range of questions were asked, particularly around the issues of independence, assistance and the ability to undertake certain activities. The report contains evidence that blind and partially sighted people want to watch more AD on linear television: