Over the past several months, the issue of quality captioning has moved front and center in our industry. This has occurred during a time frame where major sectors of the U.S. economy are challenged by decreasing business revenues, declining shareholder values in the U.S. equity markets, eroding consumer confidence following 9/11, and disclosures of corporate malfeasance among our largest corporations.

     The closed captioning industry is heavily dependent on the fortunes of the media industry, broadcast and cable.

Clearly, cost-cutting by captioning companies and innovation in our industry have been stretched to the limit to ensure the consumers of closed captioning continue to receive quality closed captioning under these difficult economic conditions.

The valuation of cable companies on U.S. stock exchanges has seriously deteriorated over the past year, as major media companies have not met earnings or revenue estimates or have made adjustments to their accounting statements. Clearly, cost-cutting by captioning companies and innovation in our industry have been stretched to the limit to ensure the consumers of closed captioning continue to receive quality closed captioning under these difficult economic conditions.

     The seminal questions that need to be answered for consumers are:

1. What is quality closed captioning?
2. What can the consumer expect?
3. Who can we expect to enforce quality standards?

     The logical place to respond to these questions is to examine the different types of captioning seen by consumers. Offline closed captioning, which involves the process of inserting captioned data accurately matching the corresponding audio and video of a program, is subject to production standards which can be implemented to provide viewers with accurate captioned data. Caption file formats can be created according to a standard file format, which can allow various automation systems to encode the captioned data video on a frame-accurate basis. Also, the spelling of common words can be checked prior to the completion of the captioned file to eliminate misspellings prior to airing of the captioned video. A consumer viewing a video captioned using the offline captioning process has the expectation that a program captioned prior to airing should be free of such errors.

     Realtime captioning involves the process of creating a data stream as it is being heard for the first time by a highly trained stenographer/captioner. The skill of a realtime captioner has been compared by aficionados in our industry to that of a concert pianist, and the analogy has been drawn that even a concert pianist playing a complex piece of music for the first time, by reading notes, is likely to make errors. So how should we develop a standard for assessing the quality of realtime captioning?

     Before standards can be formulated, the consumer must have some notion of quality as it pertains to captioning. We at Media Captioning Services believe that quality cannot be measured by

The quality of a product is determined by the consumer, who will pay for what is of use to them and which gives them value.

what we as a vendor put into the product. For example, we do not believe a quality product is one which is "quality" because it is hard to make, or costs a lot. Both a Toyota Camry and Mercedes C230 are quality automobiles to this writer, but have different value to different buyers. In the realtime captioning process, we (MCS) as a realtime closed captioning company are serving the broadcast and cable industry, and all viewers of closed captioning. For captioning to be of use to the viewer, it must be accurate. For the video programmer retaining our services as a vendor, the highest accuracy for the lowest cost represents their measure of value.

     The consumer has the right to expect the highest quality possible, given the production realities for a given type of captioning. It is reasonable that the error or accuracy rate on offline captioning be nearly zero or zero, given the reality that the script is provided ahead of time, and subject to spell checking and other measure to eliminate errors. With realtime captioning, some stenographic/translation errors are bound to occur in live, breaking news situations, where the captioner may not have the benefit of names to enter into their computer dictionaries to eliminate the possibility of errors.

     In the realtime captioning process, we at MCS strive to achieve verbatim transcription of the program audio, which at the minimum is contextually correct, and with an accuracy rate of 99.2% or greater of the transcribed portion of the broadcast. Our captioners are expected to resolve stenographic conflicts in their dictionary consistent with realtime writing theory to minimize conflicts or untranslates.

From our experience, individuals with the RMR designation of the National Court Reporters Association often develop into the most accurate, consistent captioners, which reflects their years of commitment to excellence, improvement in writing skills, realtime theory, and discipline.

As part of the daily preparation process, updated word lists containing words of the day likely to appear in the programs to be captioned are provided to captioners as part of their preparation process. Captioned programming is reviewed by the captioners to identify and correct caption errors. This is an ongoing, daily process we have refined over several years at MCS to substantially increase the effectiveness of realtime captioners. The effectiveness of the process is a function, as well, of the training and experience of the realtime captioner or captioner candidates. From our experience, individuals with the RMR designation of the National Court Reporters Association often develop into the most accurate, consistent captioners, which reflects their years of commitment to excellence, improvement in writing skills, realtime theory, and discipline.

     A question currently on the table for discussion among companies in our industry and government observers is the issue of standards, and prospectively regulation, of the closed captioning industry. We believe the highest probability for achieving high-quality captioning in our industry is to have a vibrant, competitive business with many companies who have every incentive to provide high quality in order to retain their clients. Setting standards for captioners, either in terms of certification to justify higher prices for captioning services, is not the right approach toward achieving quality captioning in our industry. Nor should the FCC, an interested party in the issue of quality closed captioning, establish standards for captioning by defining "certification" standards that must be attained by captioners, in order to be qualified as realtime closed captioners.

     In order for consumers to receive high-quality captioning, we must have a competitive captioning industry, where companies can provide compensation that will attract the most capable realtime writers, yet price their product to provide value to video programmers. Most recently, MCS has commented on the "barter" economic model (see Management Perspectives: Supply, Demand and the Impact on Price and Quality) being used by a few captioning companies to expand their market share. In this model, the captioning company, in exchange for receiving the right to sell advertising/billboard sponsorships, provides the captioning at no cost to the broadcast or cable programmer. This is a way for the broadcast/cable company to avoid paying for closed captioning.

Some broadcast and cable companies do not believe closed captioning should be paid for by their network as an operating cost, although in taking this position, they are saying, de facto, that the cost of accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing viewer shouldn't be incurred by their network, although they will pay for audio for the hearing viewers.

Some broadcast and cable companies do not believe closed captioning should be paid for by their network as an operating cost, although in taking this position, they are saying, de facto, that the cost of accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing viewer shouldn't be incurred by their network, although they will pay for audio for the hearing viewers. In addition, very few closed captioning companies can take the business risk of selling advertising spots in exchange for closed captioning, and remain in business. This economic model is predatory, and is designed to eliminate competition in the closed captioning industry. We believe competition is the best way to achieve quality captioning for the consumer, and acceptable pricing for captioning for the broadcast and cable industry.

     If the FCC needs to be involved in evaluating the issue of closed captioning quality and consumer satisfaction, the first issue it must deal with is rulemaking to eliminate the use of barter described above to finance closed captioning. The use of barter is another form of predatory pricing designed to eliminate competition, and the competitive marketplace mechanism to ensure quality. Although the FCC no longer has a Bureau of Competition, and may not have the power to restrict the use of barter as an anticompetitive/ antitrust practice, it must recognize the negative impact on the majority of closed captioning firms -- which are very small businesses -- and move to restrict the use of barter as an anticompetitive pricing practice. Consumers must be made aware of the use of this barter process by certain networks, and express their opinions and/or concerns to their respective consumer interest associations, ( NAD, SHHH, AG BELL, ALDA, et.al.). Are most consumers aware of how closed captioning is financed? Clearly, most consumers are not aware or couldn't care less, except they should be made aware which broadcasters and networks are using this model, so they can better assess how these networks perceive their value as a viewer.

     The FCC must implement rulemaking that would state that those captioning hours funded by barter schemes will not meet the closed captioning benchmark requirement. This does not preclude any broadcast or cable company from selling advertising themselves (they do so in the regular course of business to finance all operating expenses). However, in issuing its Report and Order in 1998, the FCC set clear indicators as to when the cost of closed captioning would constitute an undue burden for a network.

The FCC must implement rulemaking that would state that those captioning hours funded by barter schemes will not meet the closed captioning benchmark requirement.

In doing so, it must have envisioned that broadcast and video programmers would pay for closed captioning. We need to close this loophole in the law, so that closed captioning companies can do what they can be expected to do as profit-maximizing firms in a market economy: provide the best quality product for the consumer at the best price for the network, and not be required to find the funding source (advertiser) to pay for the product (closed captioning).

     If the FCC does its part, the greater will be the prospect that the closed captioning industry will evolve into a healthy, competitive industry, where the consumer has different choices available, and video programmers have viable alternatives if their current vendor is not providing quality to the satisfaction of consumers. We believe this will allow the marketplace to determine the correct level of pricing for closed captioning services to allow closed captioning companies to attract the most talented writers to provide the best product for the consumer.

      We at MCS are committed to the provision of quality realtime closed captioning, and are deeply concerned about the impact of this barter practice on the closed captioning industry. If you as a consumer agree that the barter economic model is detrimental to the closed captioning industry, or implicitly discriminates against you, the Deaf and/ or hard of hearing consumer, let us know by contacting us through our web site, or mediacap3@earthlink.net. We look forward to your response.

       Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Submit your feedback directly to MCS management.

       Or, to offer your feedback on MCS closed captioning or our web site, visit our Feedback section.