New Legislation May Open The Door For FCC Regulatory Power Over Internet Content
from the not-a-good-thing dept
We're all for making content better accessible for the disabled -- but we ought to be careful when it comes to mandating it and potentially opening up internet content to the regulatory control of the FCC. A new bit of legislation being introduced by Rep. Ed Markey would (among other things) give the FCC regulatory power to mandate that internet video providers provide captions and a "video description" for the disabled. Basically, it would require "closed captioning" services for "major" video providers. On the face of it, this sounds well-meaning, but it's troublesome to suddenly give the FCC any sort of regulatory say over internet videos. The FCC's mandate is supposed to be over scarce spectrum -- which is (or is supposed to be) managed as a public good. It's not supposed to have regulatory power over much beyond that -- though, obviously, things have changed over the years.Giving regulatory power over internet video, even for a seemingly "good cause," opens up all sorts of questions -- both legal and technical. Most worrisome, though, is conceptually, that this would open the door to making internet content open to government regulation. While there have been many attempts to regulate the internet over the years, for the most part, the government has seen fit to keep its hands out of regulating most internet content. Opening up internet video to certain requirements is a troublesome "nose in the tent" sort of situation. Rep. Markey, of course, is also well known for his proposed net neutrality bill -- and it's for the very same reason that I'm skeptical of legislating net neutrality. I'm a huge supporter of the concept of net neutrality -- and I believe strongly in exposing any provider who breaks neutrality. But once you open the door to the government regulating the internet, they're only going to regulate more and more and more. And, if you don't think that process won't be abused by entrenched interests, you haven't been paying attention to our legal system lately. Good intentioned laws for the internet will almost certainly have bad unintended consequences.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: closed captioning, disability, ed markey, internet video, regulation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A show of hands for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A show of hands for...
Anyway, moving swiftly on...
I think there is a need for some mandatory accessibility standards, but this proposed legislation seems somewhat inflexible; there's undoubtedly content out there for which audio description isn't feasible, and why mandate subtitling over a sign-language translation? It seems to me that the best approach would be to insist on 'reasonable adjustments', nothing more specific than that, and let each individual content provider figure out how much they can actually do to make their service usable to the disabled and what the best way to do it would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if; just the captions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep - here we go
I agree that this looks like the foot in the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all know....
Also, I strongly dislike the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, if the legislation gets too expensive to comply with the companies will simply move to a country with friendlier legislation. Just like many companies have done to avoid taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uhh
I don't think they really put any thought into it, and it wont pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just can't be done
How can anyone expect a US Government Agency to have any ability to regulate anything on a World Wide system?
What are they going to do about sites that are from other countries? What about sites which are simply hosted by other countries? How about videos that are from other countries, but hosted in the US?
You simply cannot enforce a US law on anyone outside the US.
A complete waste of time, energy and tax-payer dollars every single time they try to do this stupid stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the blind?
I want to see the FCC push CC on Youtube. "Don't light that on fire... Oh shi, is that the cops?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One size does not fit all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the FCC, and no innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb but possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect the deaf!
It is baby steps like these that have allowed the ruling class to get their hooks into every facet of our lives.
A great example is the supposed "public" airwaves which are now nothing more than a pawn in a game of corporate feudalism.
As the concept of public property fades into the sunset we must ask ourselves if we are willing to trade community for commercialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously though, this is certainly a possibility and can easily be made an OPTION for users to turn on rather than some mandatory one solutions meets all requirements type of thing. So everyone take a chill pill because it's not the end of the world. By the way, Apple filed for a patent for tactile touch screens last year I think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I HATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As A Blind User...
The only place where regulation *might* be justified is for purchased movies and tv shows from, for example, the itunes store. A regulation that says that itunes must provide the option of having description and/or captions on items purchased from the itunes store where those items were originally shown on TV with captions and/or descriptions would, in my opinion, be a good idea. Quicktime already supports captions and description (I've made online movies with both...long story), and if the extras are an option, those who don't need them can have a smaller download. Apple wouldn't have to describe movies or anything, because the regulation would only apply to movies that had already been captioned or described for TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I'm fat and can't go on hikes to some scenic views. All trails in public parks should have escalators installed.
Or maybe getting the government involved to make every single facet of life "fair" isn't a good idea after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F_____
micro-power to the people
radio is my bomb
reclaim your airwaves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]