Broadcast Access Services

1. Broadcast Access Services The spirit is willing, but (often) the budget is weak David Wood Deputy Director EBU TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT European Broadcasting Union

2. PSMs and Access Technology. • Public Service Broadcasters have been the pioneers in developing delivery technology to help access to the media by those with disabilities. We care very much. • EBU members have developed delivery systems to help those with hearing disabilities (sub-titles, script mining, avatars for signing) and sight disabilities (audio descriptions). • Our NHK broadcaster cousins in Japan have developed systems to help the aged listen to audio more easily (clean feeds, audio slow down) and audio-to-Braille systems. • Our NPR broadcast cousins in North America have developed a radio captioning system for those with hearing disabilities. • But there is a lot more to this than just having delivery technology.

3. And there are other issues to consider... • How are the disabled portrayed in the media – as ‘people’ or just ‘stereotypes’? • Do the disabled benefit from programmes which explore their specific problems – do they need ‘some’ programmes ‘just for them’? • How are the disabled treated by employers in the content production industry? • How can we help those with other disabilities such as mobility or mental health problems?

4. The situation today. • We would ‘love’ to use them all for each and every programme if we could. • We know that media access can be even more valuable to those with disabilities than to those without, as their ‘connecting point’ to society. • EBU members public service broadcasters are among the organisations who do most in services to those with disabilities. • In some countries there are quotas required for EBU members, usually for sub-titling, as part of their public service mission. • But taken overall they not widely used today (e.g. over twenty years after being developed, audio descriptions are only used by a handful of Europe’s 8000 TV channels).

5. The problems are usually..... Main Barriers • Funding of the broadcast services (money-out for no money-in). For example, ABC in Australia calculated that to add audio descriptions to their TV services would cost 15 million AU dollars per year. • Non universal availability of low cost disabled receiving equipment (volume production to achieve low prices for a small market is difficult) Side issues • Difficulty in choosing which disabled community has the highest priority, and most justifies the expenditure. • Figures on actual usage difficult to obtain. • Difficult to know which body is the best one to help understand needs.

6. Reducing the cost of the ‘provision’ of services? • Can we develop technology which will lead to automatic generation of services for those with disabilities? • For example; voice-text conversion systems available to day do not have adequate accuracy. We probably will need very powerful computer systems. R and D is needed? • For example; the signing avatars available today are not liked by the disabled community (too small, inadequate facial and body expression clues). R and D is needed? • Problem: they will call for relatively extensive research for a relatively small market.

7. If we are to move ahead... • It is not just a matter for broadcasters. We cannot solve this on our own. • Governments and the whole of the value chain need to care and need to be involved. • The worldwide receiver industry has to make available the receiving equipment that would be needed to everyone who needs it. • Governments have to help the decision on which segment of the disabled community to help and which not to help. • Unless there is additional funding, something we do today will have to be dropped. Where can we find it? How should this choice be made?

8. What could/should be done? • We (all elements of the value chain) need to decide what is ‘reasonable’ and ‘practical’ in services for those with disabilities. • We (all elements of the value chain) need to examine the tools, and the audiences, and decide which services to which audiences are the priority. • R and D is needed to develop equipment to automate the production of content for the disabled. • Funding needs to be found. E.g. Set makers today help broadcasters with funding for things like 3DTV broadcasting trials. Would they find helping those with disabilities equally worthy? • Technical point: Hybrid broadcasting could provide many services for those with disabilities. Can we stop the ‘standards explosion’ here? • As always – we need a (sort of) ‘ business plan’.

9. Thank you! Thank you for listening! David Wood wood@ebu.ch