Feasibility
Technical feasibility of all of the accessibility features that have been mentioned has already been established, so the central issue is now an economic one. In broadcasting, costs of any accessibility features need to be examined at each of the three levels of content provision, transmission and reception, noting that the economic mechanisms are likely to be different in each case. There are different economic drivers at work in telecommunications, with very strong market forces in play. Disabled and elderly people form a very large market segment for telecommunications service providers, and are not to be ignored in the drive to retain existing customers and persuade them to make greater use of the networks. Identified user needs that are not directly commercially viable may still be contributors to profitability because of the additional traffic generated - the so-called 'externality' factor. If this is shown not to apply, there is the mechanism of universal service to consider and this is clearly within the regulator's remit. While market forces certainly operate in broadcasting, these are directly or indirectly linked to audience numbers and advertising revenues, so minority interests tend to get lost in the aggregated figures. Here, the regulators role is somewhat different because it will be consumer lobby pressure rather than observed economic performance that sets the levels of accessible services.
The growth of digital broadcasting, and the convergence of telephony and the Internet in third generation mobile networks, will bring about profound changes in the perceived feasibility of novel types of service. These will in turn re-define the whole structure of costs, as the commercial picture is influenced by the combined forces of consumer push and technology pull. The rate at which new types of service, especially in third generation mobile telecommunications, move from high cost business user facilities to affordable domestic sector offerings will be a crucial factor. Although broadcast content might appear to be unaffected by technological changes, in practice it will be as content providers explore new techniques. We may assume that some of the changes to come will bring improvements in accessibility and in the distribution of costs, while others will move in the opposite direction. The regulator will need to keep watch over the whole process, so that developments which seem to be enhancing exclusion can be moderated as fairly as possible without hampering the legitimate evolution of electronic communications. This process will call for the most careful consultation with informed participants.
The need for digital broadcasting facilities such as subtitling, audio description and clean audio to be carried separately from the main picture and sound signal, if they are to be accessed on user demand, sets specific requirements for the network and the receivers. However, in this respect they are no different from those types of interactive television in which the viewer selects the camera angle or the action replay. The technical means of doing this exist at the levels of content and transmission and, at a rather cruder level, at the receiving set. Effort needs to be concentrated upon the development of receivers which are capable of displaying these facilities, while being user-friendly and affordable, and the most effective way of doing this is to ensure that all of the facilities mentioned fit within the mainstream technical specifications for digital television. As already noted, OFCOM will have no powers to set technical or economic requirements for receivers and it will need to exert its influence in this respect through its role in the European standards process.
Sign language interpretation in television programmes is also of established technical feasibility, but here the main issue is likely to arise at the content level and it is primarily an economic one. The Communications Bill calls for a quota of 5% of programmes to have sign language interpretation (by 2008), but this can be met with minority interest programmes transmitted in the middle of the night. Signed interpretation of mainstream programmes is a different matter. Although the technical issues are very similar to the interactive television example mentioned earlier, the costs of employing interpreters for a greater range of programmes will be considerable. OFCOM will have to perform a difficult balancing act in applying expensive accessibility requirements to UK content providers if similar offerings cannot be obtained from off-shore satellite broadcasters. The present moves towards de-regulation are in recognition of the reality that broadcasting is no longer a private national concern, for the technology has turned it into one which is not only global, but also highly competitive. Preservation of the national and European cultures in broadcasting inhibits cost loadings that are not applied to those global competitors.
In the telecommunications sector, the availability of broadband networks at domestic market prices will determine the point at which video telephony becomes a useful facility. Here again, the technical feasibility has been demonstrated; the issue is an economic one and the extension of broadband service is at the centre of much of OFTEL's actions. It is far from being resolved and is therefore likely to figure on OFCOM's agenda. On mobile networks, the development of third generation services will benefit deaf users by facilitating real-time text conversations, because the network will offer e-mail as a standard feature. Used back-to-back, e-mail terminals using the Internet Protocol will provide the desired facility without any need for dedicated text terminals or special text user tariffs. If variable bandwidth charging is employed, text calls could become cheaper than voice. But the roll-out of third generation services has been delayed by the downturn in the profitability of the mobile networks, and OFCOM will face a delicate task in pressing for accessibility without damaging commercial growth. Other promised offerings from third generation mobiles will help deaf users by making more use of visual presentation, but will inevitably create the risk of disadvantage for people with visual impairment. On issues such as this, the regulator's task is easier when the industry is financially strong and there are resources available for activities which may not yield short-term profit. Again, planning and foresight will eventually produce the desired results.
| Previous | Contents | Next |