THECOMMUNICATIONS WHITE PAPER
A NEWFUTURE FOR COMMUNICATIONS
RESPONSEBY
THE ROYALNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND (RNIB)
Introduction
The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) is the largestorganisation representing the interests of the almost 2 million visuallyimpaired people in the UK. RNIB offers a wide range of direct and indirectservices in many sectors. Our mission is to challenge the disabling effects ofsight loss. RNIB challenges allbarriers in the path of blind and partially sighted people and works to ensuretheir access to services and information on an equitable basis.
RNIB uniquely understands that the enormous growth of screen basedtechnologies threatens to deny blind and partially sighted people the benefitsof the communications revolution. Digital television and radio, electronicprogramme guides (EPGs), WAP mobile telephones, personal data assistants(PDAs), the internet, public information kiosks and automatic telling machines(ATMs) could all easily be made accessibleto blind and partially sighted people but overwhelmingly are not.
Future converging technologies will have even greater capacity forscreens or other visual data output devices and therefore there will be an evengreater danger that they will exclude people who have restricted sight.
The relevant industries have demonstrated, by and large, that despiteintense lobbying they are not prepared to put the research and developmentresources into designing inclusively, and they feel that there is no statutoryregulatory requirement for them to do so, or even standards for them to follow.The previous propensity of markets in the medium to long-term to develop commonstandards is rendered obsolete by the pace of change. In this context publicsector leadership is vital, especially as people are being excluded now.
This White Paper is therefore a timely and crucial opportunity toprovide a legislatory and regulatory framework for ensuring inclusion in theinformation and communications new world.
It fails chiefly because
it does not ensure universal access through primary legislation orstrong licence conditions
it propagates an extremely limited view of access difficulties
it acquiesces in the myth that ubiquity and cheapness of ICT technologyequates currently to full accessibility and usability
it overestimates the willingness and ability of new media organisationsto self-regulate
it does not address short to medium term exclusions
the proposed role of the regulator appears weak
RNIB believes that one of remits of a future Communications Bill shouldbe to apply civil and human rights to the provision of broadcasting,information and communication technologies (ICT) and e-citizenship. Failure tocreate mechanisms that ensure minimum protection and standards in this area willundoubtedly lead to preventable resource implications down the line.
It will simply not be tenable for the ability to vote on-line or receivemedical advice or vital health information through an interactive digitaltelevision to be available to sighted, able bodied and young people, but notfor visually impaired, disabled or older people with mobility problems. It willnot be tenable legally and it will also be counter-productive since these arethe very people for whom equivalent analogue services are often most difficultand expensive.
It will also not be tenable for sighted people who register tax returnsor civic licences on-line to receive financial benefits when others cannot usethe system are denied the same benefits.
Other preventable iniquities will also not be obviated by currentproposed legislation. Hardware such as most mobile phones and set-top boxes fordigital television are usually subsidised in exchange for signing up to aservice subscription. If relatively simple voice-out or text-manipulationfeatures are not accommodated for at this stage, then blind and partiallysighted people are either directly excluded or faced with insurmountableadditional costs.
1.1 Introduction: the new landscape
In setting the tone for the Governments plans, this section entirelyfails to capture the threats posed by the pace of change. It is not true thateveryone is caught up in the exciting and fast-moving modern world ofcommunications. There is no mention that many people are in danger of beingleft behind for functional, demographic, financial or psychological reasons.
Blind and partially sighted people are currently excluded from manydevelopments through exclusive design, the cost or technical difficulty ofaccess, the absence of suitable equipment andthe lack of training.
1.2 The Governments objectives
The WhitePaper emphasises the importance of universal access, communications, choice anddiverse services, public service broadcasting, safeguards, protecting theinterests of consumers. These are all commendable ideals that have to be backedup by clear guidance from the Government, with a recognition that certainsectors of society will be left out if that recognition is not universally acceptedand addressed.
If terminalequipment used in business or in the home relies on lights or on visualdisplays alone it is not accessible to all.If broadcasting channels can only be selected by means of an on-screenmenu with no speech output, they are not accessible to all. Audio descriptionservices cannot develop if set top boxes to the appropriate specifications arenot available. Networks which cannotsupport audio versions of text messages and vice versa are not accessible toall. Theability to manipulate text and image, both stationary and moving is of theutmost importance to partially sighted people
1.3 Regulatory framework
RNIB supports the idea of a single regulatory body for the converginginformation, communication and broadcasting industries. Its flexibility toallow for the benefits of new technologies must be married with a recognitionof the disadvantages of new technologies if they are not "universallyaccessible", and the threat of switching off previous generation analogueor digital solutions.
2.1 OFCOMs powers
It is vital that OFCOMs only significant sector-specific roles, inregulating consumer protection, access and interoperability are specificallydeveloped to include as a central tenet, provision and design for people whoare not fully sighted. The use of these sector-specific powers must be employedas early as possible in the generation-life of a service.
2.6 Electronic Programme Guides.
OFCOM will have powers over EPGs and wishes to make them easy to use foreveryone. This totally ignores the problems that electronic programme guidescause for visually impaired people (and print disabled people generally). OFCOMmust enforce clear guidelines on how such information can be presented forvisually impaired people. Also, text on screen is not just used for programmeinformation but for providing details of channel changes and other issuesrelating to the service operator.
Universal design for service providers (e.g. EPGs) and manufacturers(equipment). Short-term measures toensure access if full access is technically not feasible.
2.9 Health Issues
RNIB supports the inclusion of health issues in the regulatory frameworkand hopes that the enforcement will be strong and will extend further than theworries about mobile phone technologies.
Many people with disabling retina conditions are vulnerable to temporaryblindness and great pain when subjected to extremely bright flashes on screen.RNIB demands that core programming avoids such lighting and that warnings aregiven by any service providers beforehand.
It is vital that the regulatory framework takes into central account thehealth considerations likely to arise from the development of biotechnology andits interaction with ICT, especially for those with sensory impairments.
3.1 Main proposals
RNIB welcomes the stated commitment to universal access to postswitchover public service broadcasting and the Internet, whilst pointing outthat neither of these will be achieved unless enforceable access standards andobligations are in primary legislation.
RNIB welcomes the commitment to ensuring that relevant education andtraining is available to allow everyone to maximise opportunities, whilstpointing out that neither of these will be achieved unless access technologiesand added costs of disability are considered in the equation, along withpromotion and awareness raising.
3.2 The need for change
This section is encouraging, but seems to be rather undermined by thesomewhat equivocal nature of Section 7 (see below). The government seems torecognises cost as a barrier to take up but not other access issues.
3.3 The universal availability oftelevision
Unless action is taken now the switching off of analogue television willforce the 94% of blind and partially sighted people for whom TV is the majorinformation and entertainment conduit to struggle with unfriendly navigation,small print and poor contrast screen menus, audio-description which is eitherrare, expensive or non-existent and interactive features for which they havealready paid financially (by purchasing the set, or package) but cannot use.
Information about digital broadcasting generally is currently not beingmade widely available in alternative formats.
3.6 Radio
The White Paper ignores the fact that radio receivers will become morecomplex and more inaccessible to visually impaired people. Digital radioreceivers present huge access problems. On-screen menu systems are used for tuning and programmechoice; they also identify upcoming programmes of interest, or alert thelistener to new programmes just starting.Apart from these obvious problems, already additional data is being transmitted what piece of music is playing, weather, traffic, and so on. These systems are also set to becomeinteractive and will pose the same issues as for TV.
3.7 Telephone services
RNIB is surprised that in defining universal service the White Paperentirely ignores the regulations promulgated by the Department of Trade andIndustry (DTI) in October 2000. This indicates that universal access bydisabled people is not to the fore in their thinking.
In Telecoms, universal service has traditionally covered the right to acertain minimum level of service irrespective of geographical location oreconomic viability. A universal serviceobligation has been placed on just one or two dominant market players. Therecent DTI regulations introducing new licence conditions for fixed telecomoperators have extended the concept to one of irrespective of disability bylaying down that every operator must provide a minimum range of facilities.These include free directory enquiry service, priority fault repair, textrelay, textphone users rebate, bills in AF and accessible payphones. Thelicence conditions also include obligations to consult and to publicise theseservices.
Doesthe absence of any reference to these regulations mean OFCOM will not concernitself with them?
It is this latter method of ensuring universal access (licenceconditions on all rather than obligations on the major player alone) thatshould be retained and, indeed, extended to other sectors such as mobiletelephony and broadcasting. Otherwise,the advantages of competition and choice will not be fully available todisabled users.
3.8 Access to the Internet
RNIB wants clarification that universal access to the Internet by 2005will mean access for everyone, not just those who (feel confident that they)want it. Blind and partially sighted people are largely technologicallydisenfranchised and have the right to be sold the benefits of getting onlineand to be aware of how they will be excluded if they are not online.
There is no reference to the inclusion of disabled people in general, orwithin targets for schools. Will theaccess that will become available be equipped with a sufficient range of)access technology.
Access for blind and partially sighted people in the home is essential,facilitated by appropriate equipment, support and training plus sufficienton-going finance. Taster courses through LearnDirect will simply not besufficient for this group.
The references to making computers available to certain groups of peopledoes not make it clear whether these are new or second hand or whether accesstechnology will be available.
RNIB notes that PDAs, WAP and games consoles areinaccessible to many disabled people, who are not therefore subject to a widechoice of access devices.
The White Paper states that 28% of homes have internetaccess. RNIB believes that widespread research evidence shows that little useis made of the Net by the majority of these households. Government seems tooverlook the crucial aspects of training and on-going support. Visuallyimpaired users must also be helped to upgrade their equipment so they stayconnected.
3.9 Access to higher bandwidthservices
RNIB believes that access to higher bandwidth services will be crucialfor blind and partially sighted people and calls for representation on thegroup looking at future strategy.
RNIB agrees that the market will not deliver universal affordable highspeed connections, and that older visually impaired people in rural communitieswill be particularly excluded. Note that high-speed access is still verylimited (and expensive at 40 per month).Many rural areas not yet covered. The availability of equitable andaccessible library services for blind and partially sighted is crucial tocountering this excluding tendency.
3.10 Supporting individuals in using the new communicationstechnologies.
Once more no mention is made of the extent to which these variousschemes cater for disabled people, particularly visually impaired people whoneed access technology and often one-to-one training.
4.1 Main proposals
RNIB welcomes the continued commitment to diversity and plurality butwould emphasise that current programming can tend to stereotype and ghetto-iseblind and partially sighted and other disabled people.
RNIB is very concerned that specific programming for people with avisual impairment and with an interest in visual impairment issues is continuedand that it is expanded to television as well as radio. Television is just asimportant to blind and partially sighted people, and restricting nicheprogrammes to radio reinforces the stereotype that radio is the only option forthis group.
RNIB is concerned that weak regulation in digital broadcasting willdirectly lead to unacceptable cost increases and a loss of range and diversityin programming.
4.2 Need for change
It is essential to maintain diversity. Viewers and listeners must beassured of good quality programming across a range of interests, both forfree-to-air and subscription services.
Again, if digital technologies are not accessible or affordable tovisually impaired people, the diversity will be decimated.
4.4 Meeting the needs of differentcommunities.
Regional broadcasting is very important to visually impaired people asit is often the only way they can get information about what is happening intheir area, especially if there is inadequate access to Talking Newspapers.
4.4.8 In realistically reflectingculturally diverse communities public service broadcasting obligations ought toinclude production guidelines about positive images of disability, and visualimpairment.
Blind and partially sighted actors and performers ought to be encouragedand supported in mainstream broadcasting, especially in the depiction of blindand partially sighted roles.
5.1 Main proposals
RNIB believes that ensuring quality issues for blind and partiallysighted people in the context of spectrum plurality will inevitably be moredifficult and we see no accommodation in the White Paper.
The structural inevitability of economies of scale, bottlenecks andaudience fragmentation are all direct threats to the availability of qualitybroadcasting for people in disadvantaged communities such as older blind andpartially sighted people.
5.2 Need for change
The claim that everyone now has access to radio and televisionprogrammes (5.2.1) is both untrue and indicative that the Government'sinterpretation of the word "access" fails to take into account thedifficulties blind and partially sighted people have.
5.6 First tier
RNIB welcomes the fact that access to television services for blind andpartially sighted people is included in the first tier and reminds governmentthat access is about more than just audio description, and that the audiodescription question is currently in major crisis (see Section 7).
5.6.3 RNIB believes that OFCOM should have responsibility for promotingindustry training and that it should ensure that visual impairment anddisability access training are core elements in every chain of the broadcastingindustry. There is currently inadequate reflection of this on the Audio VisualIndustries Training Group.
5.9 Broadcast material on theInternet and via telephony
As referred to elsewhere in this response RNIB believes thatself-regulation is a woefully inadequate way of ensuring internet material canbe read by blind and partially sighted people. We would like to seebroadcasters required to make their Internet and telephony content completelyaccessible and of equivalent quality for people with visual impairments. It iscurrently far short of this.
5.11 Independent national and localradio
Digital Audio Broadcasting has the potential for great enhancements tothe quality and variety of audio services only if the equipment is accessibleand affordable to listeners. For visually impaired listeners it is not.
6.1 Main proposals
RNIB believes that public service broadcasting has not always dealt fairlywith blind and partially sighted peoples expectations of society and viceversa.
RNIB also believes that information about service expectations andcomplaints procedures have not always been advertised or promoted in a way thatis accessible to people for whom standard print is not appropriate.
6.6 Accuracy and Impartiality
There are many misconceptions and inaccurate characterisations ofblindness and visual impairment, not to mention other disabilities, which havecontributed to the stigmatisation of visual disability and to lowerexpectations of quality of life.
These stereotypes have clearly played a part in building up the socialexclusion of blind and partially sighted people in employment, education andcultural life. For the one in five of us who will develop an uncorrectablesight problem if we live to the age of 75, these myths and misconceptions maylead to emotional isolation and a lack of engagement with the many practicablerehabilitation strategies available.
RNIB believes that OFCOM has a duty to ensure licensed public servicebroadcasting avoids these inaccurate depictions
6.10 Internet content
If OFCOM will be promoting child protection rating systems for Internetcontent then surely it should also be actively promoting accessibilitystandards for blind and partially sighted people.
7.1 Main proposals
RNIB believes that the White Paper has a very narrow definition ofaccess difficulties. It must be recognised that access difficulties in ICT tendto arise not because of problems linked to particular physical impairments, butthrough lack of applied standards in the ICT industry. Design for allprinciples should be adopted right across the industry, so that any newplatform is compatible with the software/hardware used by people withdisabilities. Development of any ICTsoftware/hardware must take into account compatibly with the specialisttechnology used by disabled people through dialogue with groups that representdisabled people and with the manufacturers/developers of specialist technology.
The Governments policy involves a move towards general authorisationsrather than individual licences. TheGovernment must ensure that specific requirements for disabled people are notlost in the process. It is also notclear whether responsibility for licence conditions such as those covering theneeds of disabled users will remain the responsibility of DTI or the newregulator. It is important that they are not lost between the two.
It is essential that the commitment to ensure that services, includingnew services, are accessible to blind and partially sighted, and other disabledpeople, should be built specifically into legislation.
7.2 The need for change
RNIB notes that there are no forward looking companies who haveresponded to the needs of blind and partially sighted consumers withoutwaiting to be prodded by external regulation. There are therefore no higheststandards of customer care which to benchmark.
RNIB cannotunderstate the importance in visually impaired peoples lives of radio and TVas a source of information, entertainment, and social inclusivity. We also know that, like everyone else,visually impaired people want to carry out all of those things that theirsighted peers are doing, with the same methods of access whether that isusing the washing machine, microwave, videoing their favourite soap opera, ordoing banking, shopping and accessing the latest information.
The prevalenceof screen-based menu systems and information is making that verydifficult. Its most obvious form is inaccessing digital TV; at present, forthe majority, with access to the TV Times in Braille or large print, disk ortape, it is workable with only five channels to contend with. With digital TV, the issue of selecting aprogramme to watch is all the more difficult since everything related to thatprocess is screen displayed the list of channels or the channel one is on,the list of programmes, and even, sadly, finding the audio-described filmbecomes an issue. For those with nosight it is virtually impossible; forthose with some, it depends on sight level and whether it is possible (as it isin a small number of cases) to increase font size and contrasts.
And things areset to become worse. Digital TV alreadyoffers a range of interactive services such as shopping and banking, all ofwhich are inaccessible to the very people that could perhaps make most use ofthem. In addition, programme listingfeatures are become more advanced one can view programmes by type ofprogramme or interest, select the programme by pointing at it, and then bereminded of it (with a tone and an unreadable screen message) at a laterdate. Intelligent Systems will begin topredict the types of programmes you like, and will record them for you or alertyou to them visually. And paying forfilms on demand is becoming more important, as are other paid forservices. The problems are clear. Fundamentally, unless one can access thescreen, it is simply not possible to use the systems now being proffered.
7.3 Action on service delivery
RNIB is very concerned that a code of practice for service deliverywhich is developed by industry itself will not deliver accessibility usabilityand affordability to blind and partially sighted people, and that if this isthe case OFCOM must impose minimum standards.
Industry codes of practice must have input from organisations whichrepresent the interests of visually impaired and disabled people.
A code on service delivery and all aspects of "servicepaperwork" must be available in a range of formats and the customer musthave access to information in their preferred format. They must includestipulation that information on contracts must be available in the signatoryspreferred format, and that complaints procedures are flexible and notnecessarily totally paper based.
7.4 OFCOMs consumer protection role
If visually impaired people have to be reliant on a regulatory frameworkOFCOM will have to have strong, clearly defined regulations and RNIB has a rolein ensuring that the needs of visually impaired people are covered.
7.5 Consumer representation
RNIB was very disappointed that the Committee Enquiry into the WhitePaper did not call for evidence from any group directly representing disabledpeople and especially those with sensory impairment who are considerablyaffected by communications legislation. Both RNIB and other such organisationsmust be represented on any consumer panel.
The new consumer panel sounds much weaker than its counterpart in energyor the Telecoms Council initially proposed in the Utilities Bill, 2000. It is only a panel, not a council, and hasnone of the powers to demand information which its energy counterpart has. It isnot depicted as a forceful advocate. Although it will have to take account ofthe needs of disabled people, inter alia, it would appear not to incorporatethe strong, pan-disability representative force that currently exists in DIEL.
There is no real mention of the Panels composition or resourcing. Will there, as in the energy sector, be arequirement for at least one member of the Panel to have experience ofdisability? As the diversity and acuityof problems faced by disabled people is far greater in Telecoms than in energy,there is a case for an even stronger input than the one required under theUtilities Act, 2000 in that sector.
The consumer panel will need to address a very wide range of issues.RNIB strongly believes that government should resist the temptation to hive offdisability access issues into a sub-group.
7.6 Access for people withdisabilities
OFCOM will be requires to give due weight to the need for improvedaccess to communications services for people with disabilities. Although RNIBis pleased with the recognition that many services are not accessible, we haveto ask exactly what the phrase due weight means. If the improvement came at ahigh financial cost, would due weight go out of the window?
7.6.1This section implies that there are many current specific requirements to caterfor the needs of disabled people. It gives two examples. There are manyexamples, such as the inaccessibility of kiosks, where there will be no extantduties or requirements that can be carried forward into the future regulatoryframework.
7.6.2RNIB would argue that access to television services is not also important;rather it is essential. Theintroduction of a 50% concession was a welcome, if overdue, reversal of ananachronistic anomaly. However, it will take a lot more than this to dismantlethe cost barriers that threaten to impede blind and partially sighted peoplesenjoyment of digital television.
AUDIO DESCRIPTION
TheWhite Paper claims that the government would take into account responses tothe DCMS consultation paper on the extension and improvement of audiodescription. Unfortunately for blind and partially sighted people, not only didthe Governments response not guarantee any immediate raising of the targetsfor audio description. It also inferred that RNIB was responsible, inconjunction with the industry, for actually materialising the receptionequipment.
Sowhile the Government trumpets its aim to extend and improve provision, only 45visually impaired consumers can receive audio described programmes, and thefact that nobody is willing to produce the audio description modules is givenas a reason by government not to raise audio description levels above theircurrent desultory level.
Thisis a wholly unacceptable state of affairs, and RNIB along with its allies, arelobbying heavily for a short term solution to the impasse.
In the longer term the RNIB is very concerned that the White Paper doesnot provide an enforcement mechanism that would require the next generation ofset-top boxes to carry a channel for audio-description, or a schedule for theextension of audio-description provision requirements to all digital platforms.This is easily achievable and is absolutely fundamental to the credibility ofthe Governments broadcasting accessibility policy.
The government says that it will continue to raise awareness of theneeds of people with disabilities across the whole communication industry,including equipment designers, suppliers and Internet Service Providers. It isnot clear what awareness raising has been done hitherto, and this statementbegs the question of exactly what the government feels designers, suppliers andISPs responsibilities to blind and partially sighted people should be. ShouldISPs make more effort to market their services to visually impaired people sothey are aware of the broad range of connection options and pricing structures?
7.6.3 The White Paper states that emerging media should be accessible toall. RNIB is very concerned that government own websites and e-citizenshipinitiatives are already showing grave accessibility problems for blind andpartially sighted people. This signals a lack of internal guidance onaccessibility.
The government says that they only support the Web AccessibilityInitiative (WAI). There is no mentionof any action to enforce its observance, even merely within Government. Infact 7.6.3. is factually incorrect. W3C (which RNIB sits on) is not astandard-setting body; it promotes accessibility and issues guidelines andrecommendations, it does not setstandards. It is not a question ofGovernment supporting the WAI.Rather, Government should apply WAIs recommendations to its own websites and legislate for all communications companies who have a web presence tofollow suit. RNIB recommends thatGovernment policy on the design of all Government web sites be as follows:Government web sites must meet conformance level 1 of the W3C Web AccessibilityInitiative Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (minimum).
7.8. Digital standards
RNIB is most worried that industry will not develop interoperabilitystandards which allow for non-visual access, and that if this is the case OFCOMemploys its powers to impose standards.
New technology poses threats if it is not compatible with existingaccess devices or fails to offer equitable access by other means. Domestic appliances will revolutionisedomestic environments in a way that could have a profound effect on visuallyimpaired people. From washing machines to video recorders and cookers, from themobile or standard house phone to domiciliary security system, the growing useof intuitive screens to operate these household appliances, and the increasing complexity of previouslysimple appliances are proof of this fact;try using the latest washing machine or oven without access to thedisplay screen? We have been pushing for years for industry standards that will governinteroperability.
The Government may, however, not be able to introduce unilateralmeasures that threaten the single market, so part of the policy in this areashould be to ensure national regulators and the European Commission have theright to impose such standards. Eitherthey have to use the provisions of the RTTE Directive, Article 3.3.e tointroduce Essential Requirements (something they have so far shown noindication of wishing to do) or they need to try to extend the current draftDirective on a Common Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications sothat its scope allows them to do so.Otherwise, they will be able to regulate only networks, not hardware.
8.1 Main proposals
RNIB regrets that general authorisations are to favoured over individuallicenses, believing that licenses which specifically tackle disability cost andaccess issues are a safer protection mechanism
8.2 The need for change
It is stated that there is need for the regulator to have delegatedpowers in order to respond to change and (8.5.2) that they give "proper weightto the special needs of people with disabilities and of the elderly, of thoseon low income ". What happens ifa provider/supplier argues that these needs are contrary to their businessinterests?
Like other regulators, it is to be given a duty to protect theinterests of consumers. In other fieldsRNIB has argued that the duty should actually be to promote, not just protectthe interests of consumers. Furthermore there should be a duty to promote aculture of inclusion, that will emphasise awareness of inclusive design andplanning at every link in the chain of communications. If there is to be aconsumer body that is weaker than in other sectors, as would appear to be thecase, there is an even greater need for the regulator to be pro-active ratherthan just reactive.
The promotion of inclusion can only be achieved if it is evidentiallybased. The regulator must prioritise studies of the user profiles of disabledand older people who are currently excluded, examine future demographic changeand put the business case to suppliers and service providers.