Closed captioning (CC) is a text display on video content that helps deaf and hearing-impaired audiences understand speech. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission requires TV producers to supply on-screen text of spoken words, sounds, and music on their video programs. Other countries require CC and demand accurate, synchronous, timely, complete,and properly placed closed captions similar to the U.S.
TV producers must comply with FCC regulations, so they are currently the responsible party for providing CC in their programming. According to the World Health Organization, one in 10 people struggle with hearing loss or deafness, so captions definitely help a lot of people and have a purpose.
The demand for CC is valid and inclusive to hearing-impaired people, and I even find CC helpful to understand what I’m watching when I need to keep the volume low for any reason. However, behind the scenes, adding captions isn’t magic, and it presents challenges.
Interestingly, it wasn’t the government that introduced captioning. A few networks in the 1970s began offering captions, and it piqued the interest of hearing-impaired advocacy groups. By the mid-1990s, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed, initiating mandates on video content creators to provide captions and threatening penalties for non-compliance.
Now, with so much AI technology and automated captioners on the market, it begs the question as to whether or not broadcasters and content providers should still be responsible for producing captions in the first place.
In tandem, the FCC also required TV manufacturers to install CC display technology for viewers to toggle captions on or off. Since then, broadcasters have endured the task of making sure captions reach viewers.
Generating Closed Captions
Several options exist for generating captions. Even to this day, typists listen in and transcribe speech in real time during live programs or recordings. Captioning service providers like Aberdeen, VITAC, 3Play and Rev charge producers by the hour for their typists. The captioner dials in over a phone line or an IP connection and types away. Hardware and software embed the captions within the video signal, and the entire video system post CC embedding must handle passing captions down the line and out the door during transmission.
Some broadcast equipment vendors, like ENCO, Audimus and AI Media, offer CC solutions in the form of automated captioning hardware that utilizes voice encoders or AI voice recognition software.
One of my roles as a broadcast professional is serving as the liaison between the CC service provider and my company. A lot of pressure to produce accurate and consistent captions came from upper management because CC is a government-regulated requirement.
Vice presidents and legal teams feared the FCC would crack down on any failure to comply. Interruptions did occur when using a live typist due to poor connection, hardware failures, the typist’s skill level, latency drift and other oddities. Ensuring compliance with FCC regulations caused a lot of stress and was costly in both infrastructure for video systems that pass CC and the bills incurred using typists.
We researched automated captioning technology despite knowing they weren’t as accurate as typists. Eventually, we acquired automated ENCO enCaption devices, which proved to provide consistency during testing. The dependability of on-site hardware that provides seamless and consistent captioning meant more than sticking with a typist. CC from a typist appears on screen much better than automated systems, but I can honestly say that caption management became a stressor of the past since we implemented voice recognition hardware.
Now, with so much AI technology and automated captioners on the market, it begs the question as to whether or not broadcasters and content providers should still be responsible for producing captions in the first place. Automated captioning still costs money to acquire and maintain, as well as the fact that most vendors only license so many hours per unit. If the burden of providing captions to audiences fell elsewhere, it would be welcomed by most production houses.
Voice Recognition Technology Disruption
Newer technology always disrupts the market. Industries endure creative destruction all the time, which is what occurs when innovation disrupts the market and causes some businesses to rise and others to fall. Voice recognition software is currently disrupting the marketplace and influencing consumer behavior.
Thanks to AI and tech developers, voice recognition technology has come a long way and grosses billions in revenue while showing promising growth. The digital era, with streaming and web viewing, enables viewers to see captions easily thanks to AI-assist bots. In fact, TV manufacturers already install voice encoders in remotes for viewers to control their TV. Installing hardware in TVs that auto-captions what people watch seems like a logical next step for applying voice recognition tech.
The disruption has nudged many to adopt the tech, and it’s pushing the industry into new territory. Global Growth Insights reported that nearly 40% of content creators use AI or automated captioning devices, and that number is trending to increase. Video consumption and production both show signs of rising, and thanks to more affordable ways of obtaining equipment and delivering video, many small-time producers can join the industry.
Smaller content creators may get discouraged as they experience the challenges and costs of complying with FCC regulations. Arguably, AI software and automated captioners may offer more affordable means to generate captions, but if the FCC changed its rules to require TV manufacturers to install voice recognition hardware rather than the content creator, then the headache and costs placed on producers would vanish.
Should the Responsibility Shift?
It’s time for broadcasters to recognize the disruption and advocate for change and settle into a new norm. Groups like the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), and large media companies influence what rules and requirements the FCC crafts.
The FCC then relies on congressional oversight to approve regulations. Broadcasters could galvanize behind the idea to shift responsibility to TV and mobile device manufacturers. Due to voice recognition advancements and market disruption, NAB and other groups could influence the FCC and Congressional leadership to change the rules to loosen or remove the requirement.
The disruption might cause a revenue hit to CC service providers. But maybe not. Companies that manufacture voice encoders could start partnering with TV and mobile device manufacturers to supply them with audio encoders. It may even expand their revenue streams because instead of selling just a few encoders to a few hundred production houses, they could expand by selling millions of devices for every TV that needs one installed.
Additionally, captioning typists could shift into roles assisting automated caption developers to improve their recognition software. Instead of charging to type, they could charge to consult. Because of the multitude of experiences that human typists have, typists could improve AI models’ ability to decipher and transcribe speech and audio.
Conclusion
Closed captioning really offers a great experience for hearing-impaired viewers and should remain a staple of video consumption. However, the responsible party for providing captions may need to shift, along with the FCC regulations. Rather than video content producers, TV and mobile device manufacturers could begin installing voice recognition hardware.
CC embedding and visibility would occur downstream of production. Thanks to advancements in technology, market adjustments can happen, and government agencies may need to modify their regulations to better align with market conditions. In that new scenario, broadcasters would save money and remove the legal requirements from their shoulders, enabling them to focus primarily on producing content.
What do you think? We welcome your feedback. Email us at tvtechnology@futurenet.com
