Sonny is deaf, and I sympathize for his disability. There should be a mandate to have emergency information federally mandated to meet accessibility requirements for people with disabilities, however this should not apply to all content on all media outlets. It is unfortunate that the technology to deliver media to disabled persons lags behind the mainstream, but creating federal mandates to control content will only discourage organizations from publishing content to those who can experience it. The technology will catch up, but lets not penalize everyone by removing content until that happens

I'm glad to see that it is being written about. I wrote numerous email messages to whom take care of video news online and made complaints that they need to be closed captioned. They fell on "deaf ears." It is utterly frustrating to see the moving pictures without understanding anything.

Give me a break. Every TV station was carrying the JetBlue thing, and it was on the front page of every single news site while it was happening, in text form. All I'm saying is there were plenty of ways for him to figure out what was going on. :P

I certainly sympathize with those with hearing disabilities - the challenges of following video from standard TV to the Internet are many. However, even with the requirement of full inclusion of closed captioning in January of this year, there are many of us who produce local TV broadcasts who are experiencing great difficulty in meeting this requirement. I am a TV producer for a church in Columbus, Ohio. Our worship synopsis broadcast has been appearing on local affiliates for 20 years and we have about 100,000 viewers in 3 states. With the advent of the Jan. 1st deadline, we are struggling to stay on the air with the closed captioning requirements. Very simply put, the cost is so high that we can scarcely afford it - again, we're a church, not NBC.

We certainly want to provide a good communication experience for persons with disabilities, but I'm afraid that the cost of meeting such laws will bring down a lot of religious and non-profit programming. We are still on the air and are trying to find ways to deal with this, but the irony here is that tens of thousands of persons may lose this program while we struggle to meet FCC requirements for the needs of a few. You cannot paint broadcasting laws with huge brushes and expect that all programming will be able to comply.

We are also well-established as streaming media producers, having provided audio and video streams on our websites for the past decade. We have checked out some of the technologies available for eventually adding text for these - again, the cost of translation from our broadcasts is high. Needless to say, we will concentrate on trying to stay on the air first. Many of our viewers depend on our programs because they have other disabilities and cannot attend church - it will be ironic if these laws cost them the very programs they rely on for maintaining contact with their worshipping communities.

Captioning and/or subtitles should be required everywhere. This is one of the main reasons why my wife and I don't go to the movies anymore. I'm not hard-of-hearing, but when there is a lot of background noise or if the spoken dialogue isn't clear, we can't understand what is said. Why would I pay $20+ for a movie that I can't understand when I can pay $5 to rent it with glorious subtitles?

Online videos are just as bad; with the quality of most streaming video as bad as it is, the dialogue is very hard to understand. There are options for everything under the sun when it comes to software, so why not make captioning optional for those that want/need it?

HI
Two things - who owns the captions? That is driving me nuts. Old movies that are already CC are been shown on cable and they won't show the captions because of "who owns the CC" and they can't afford to pay for it which I think is very unfair. There should be no owership of CC or the FCC should take control of them. Also, trying to watch TV on a multi-media PC is a failure, they didn't build them with the caption chip!! the only way around that is to put an old decoder in-between the cable and the PC. You sure are right, the deaf are getting wayyyy left behind.

Great article, Bob!

As a person with a disability, I can certainly relate to the daily hassle of accessibility.

But, as much as I would love to see instant access, as I fondly call it, I try to also remember there are businesses behind many of these accessibility decisions that need to make money to stay in business.

How much does it cost to do a live transcription? Are there automated text generators readily available that are reliable enough to be useful?

My question being, is excluding sub-titles an act of ignorance or the result of a business choosing between expensive options?

Always enjoy reading you work, thanks!

I think this issue can easily be solved. There are interpreters out there that could be placed in the corner of breaking news to meet the needs of the deaf and the fact that c-print is a technology used as an onsite access for deaf and the print is instant, I believe this matter is not being looked into deep enough.

Being extremely hard of hearing, I can understand the problem. I have not been to a movie in many years because I can't understand what is being said on screen. The theaters that do have the headphones are not helpul because I have to turn it up so high is disturbs the people around me. With so many people spending hours a day wearing headphones attached to their I-pods, etc and others blasting music out of their car speakers, the deaf/hard of hearing population is going to increase greatly as each upcoming generation gets older. Maybe then technology will be developed/used so that the deaf/hard of hearing population can enjoy what the hearing take for granted.

For Sean, PDX OR

Typical of those who take their hearing for granted:"Give me a break!" For your info, it was NOT captioned everywhere, TV Consoles in the majority are left with the Closed Captions "OFF". Reason? "It bothers the audience". Operative word: AUDIence. The only thing the "Rolling text" stated "Plane circling with Landing Gear Problem". What else? DUH?! The days of "Johnny Belinda" are OVER. The deaf have same political & financial clout as everyone else now. WE PAID FAR MORE THAN OUR SHARE OF TAXES AND, GOTTEN NOTHING OVER YEARS! Time's up to pay the piper.

State of the art hearing aids, special ear phones on the computer(video streaming)just don't do the job,as so much is distorted. We miss so much verbage, and women's voices tend to not come through as clear as men's deeper resonance. I just am frustrated; church audio systems,answer machines,tv,movies all exasperating. However can still hear water running, wind blowing and good deep voices facing directly at me.

State of the art hearing aids, special ear phones on the computer(video streaming)just don't do the job,as so much is distorted. We miss so much verbage, and women's voices tend to not come through as clear as men's deeper resonance. I just am frustrated; church audio systems,answer machines,tv,movies all exasperating. However can still hear water running, wind blowing and good deep voices facing directly at me.

Of course there should be captions. With all the cable channels available today, you can get virtually and foreign language speaking channel you want, but deaf or hard of hearing people living in these glorious United States can't even "hear" their own stations. My sister and brother in law are deaf and it's terrible not to watch a broadcast and they not know exactly what's going on and me and my sign-language can only do so much justice to the story. Why should they be forced to "make do"?

Of course there should be captions. With all the cable channels available today, you can get virtually and foreign language speaking channel you want, but deaf or hard of hearing people living in these glorious United States can't even "hear" their own stations. My sister and brother in law are deaf and it's terrible not to watch a broadcast and they not know exactly what's going on and me and my sign-language can only do so much justice to the story. Why should they be forced to "make do"?

I found it interesting when funding is always used as an excuse NOT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. If this country and private organizations (including churches/hospitals) can find the money to provide signs for non-English person (Spanish) such as street/airport signs /pamphlets/etc, MOST importantly telephone screening tools-"if you are English hit#1, Spanish hit #2. But can't find the funding for citizens with hearing impairment? I lost hearing in one ear at the age of 17 and now have about 50% in the remaining ear--The frustration that I have experienced with basic communications with others is enormous. A person with hearing disabilities are left out to fend for themselves. Even the newer cell phones are not user friendly with hearing aids. Moreover, when you inquirer about a cell phone that is hearing aid friendly you are looked at like an Alien! It is very sad since most of our population in the US will lose a significant percentage of their hearing by the time they reach middle age. With the technology software so advance, I feel that it is not that much of a stretch to incorporate captions in the PC software. Oh and as far as religious organizations using “funding” as an excuse….for then not providing for their own congregations….how caring is that….But let get those Pledges in for over seas missions!!!

This kind of thing has been looked at before. I was part of a company that was building it:

http://www.speche.com/

Being deaf myself, I am so happy that this issue is finally being brought up. Not like much will ever happen but its good to see its on a mainstream site.

Most people think, well heck just change the channel if you dont see them. But what they dont seem to notice is that sometimes you cant.

People should just take a day, not a week or month or year to see what its like to be deaf. Find yourself a set of good earplugs, turn off all ringers, speakers, etc and try to get by. Go to a movie theater and watch the movie you want, and see how much fun it is.

I know... people will say, I dont want to see that stuff, becuase it distracts them. These are the same people that say I dont know even the alphabet in sign, becuase I am not deaf. But most those same people will know some sort of other language.

I hope that some day there will be captions. Until then, I will live in my silence comfortably.

Thank you for the wonderful article.

Jacii

Do you wonder why our country is in such a mess? People feel it is always the government's responsibility to regulate away any inconvenience, as long as it doesn't affect their wallets, and are very willing to enforce a financial burden on others for their convenience.

Were we able to warn people to evacuate areas before the internet came along? It seems buying a DVD instead of going to the movie is a suitable substitute for one couple. Since when has the news on the internet become an essential part of life instead of a convenience?

Does the constitution guarantee life, liberty and access to the internet? If you want to regulate, why not regulate and destroy the monopolies that cable TV has over high speed internet access. Government regulation adds burdens which cripple small businesses and restrict competition. Why don't we let private industry decide if the burden of developing the close captioning is worth the investment? How do you think we have gotten as far as we have today on the internet?

I am hard-of-hearing as well as mobility-impaired, and have to say that the hearing loss can be more of an issue than the lack of mobility. I can't count the number of times I have tried to understand something someone was saying on television or in the cinema, only to learn later that I was totally wrong.

As for online videos, forget about them. I've given up on them entirely. Do I resent that I'm left behind in the information age? You bet.

It's naive to assume because it can, and must, be done on television that it is easy to do with streaming video.

Plus, the FCC doesn't control websites, so exactly how do you plan to legislate it? If the market demands it online, it will come.

And it doesn't matter how much you've paid in taxes or to whom... none of that money pays the streaming video bills.

If a private company DID put together a streaming service with captioning and had the audacity to charge for that service, everyone would be whining about that too.

The entire subject is a no-win situation for content providers, and that's why they're not getting involved.

As a deaf man, I thoroughly sympathize with the thrust of the article. The lack of captions is entirely the reason why I do not watch online videos on my computer. As others have pointed out, there are text rich news sources elsewhere, but I should point out that these are frequently minutes if not hours behind the actual occurrence. The time lag can be significant for a deaf person. How would you like it if you learned about 9/11 several hours later and all you knew about it at the time was that the World Trade Center had collapsed?

Also, those individuals who say that it shouldn't be a federal requirement to add captions to online video are forgetting that the only reason why deaf and hard of hearing individuals have captions in TV broadcast/cable is because of federal mandates. The industry was moving towards captions before then but it was half-hearted at best.

To Micheal from Germantown MD, how do you suppose close captioning happens? Some one puts time, effort and investment into developing close captioning for those old movies - don't they have a right for a return on their investment? Do you expect to be paid for your job?

God Forbid we should inconvenience the able-bodied. I too am a streaming professional. I've been doing it since the beginning. I've heard every excuse posted here numerous times and they are just that; excuses by people who are either too lazy, incompetent and greedy to implement the program. Automatic voice recognition technology has been in use for over 6 years. They are using it at Sandia National Labs to index all video and voice media. Let's make the federal law, because people don't do anything for the disabled unless they are forced. Most people think the changes will create "inconveniences", and only after the changes are forced, do they realize that the changes BENEFIT everyone. Companies forced to install ramps for wheelchairs have found that their accidents have gone down, lowering their insurance rates, and can I have a show of hands from the people who are inconvenienced by a large bathroom? Excuses and whining... Home of the brave...my ass.

Even more concerning is that fact that Federal sites, such as the White House's site, which are required BY LAW under Section 508 of the Rehab Act of 1974 to provide access to their webcasts (for example, with captioning) do not. For example, the President's recent State of the Union address was broadcast on the White House site without captioning. By LAW, the White House site MUST provide access to this live feed. CNN, MSNBC, and the other sites are governed by the ADA, which has more loose terms regarding online access. They SHOULD provide captioning, but unless they are faced with a class action lawsuit, they probably will not due to cost restrictions. They could probably get away with covering accessbility concerns by providing a webcast's text online after the fact for reference, but that wouldn't help those who need more timely infomraiton as it is being being covered.

This issue goes beyond webcasts into Webinars and Web-based training provided by the Federal Government Agencies to their employees; again, BY LAW under Section 508 these modules MUST be made accessable. And they are more frequently not accessble then so. This and similar access issues keep Federal employees with disabiliies behind when it comes to hiring, retention, promotional and training opportunities.

I could not help myself but, chuckle at those who complained "Why should we have to pay/be forced to caption..." Meanwhile, the Medical Community foresees a large increase of Hearing Impairments within the next few years due to: Excessive noise from loud concerts, both Rock and Country Music. Excessive and, continuous use of portables like iPod, etc. More hearing impaired Veterans that were exposed to combat-related noise.

I recall when Rush Limbaugh was vehmently against all those "Unfunded Mandates" that helped "a very small number of deaf people". THEN, he lost his own hearing. Of course, with all that money, he could afford his Cochlear Implant. After all was done and over and, he started to use it, he never again mentioned or, complained about thoes SPECIFIC "Unfunded Mandates."

All in all.. most complainants against the texts, etc, are those who take their hearing as well as the rest of their senses for granted. That is, until they lose one of them, which almost always is their hearing, the most precious one. No hearing, no communication equals "Isolation".

I think this whole thing is crazy. No website should have to put captions on thier vidoes. If they want to, great, but if they dont choose to, or they cant afford it, they should not have to. If the deaf community wants to come up with a devise that automatically puts words on the screen and give it out free for websites to upload perfect, but people who can hear should not be penalized because they can hear and those who cant do not think its fair.

Everyone was not created equal and I think it is pretty obvious to most, but there are those few that believe everyone should be equal and will penalize people for having things others dont. Deaf people have been around for thousands of years, and although it was tough, they have continued to live without some of the luxuries of hearing, but like i said, they did continue.

I agree that it is naive to assume that CC technology is as easily applicable to a digital broadcast as it is to a conventional broadcast. For one thing, text on a blurry digital broadcast would likely be illegible.

But you don't have to implement CC on a web site the same way you do on a TV. All you need to do is set up a little text-chat window next to the video in the web page and pay some guy $10/hr to type what people are saying on-screen.

So, to the tech directors at MSNBC.com (and whoever else is interested): email and we can talk. I'm a programmer; I know what I'm talking about. Actually, anyone who's ever used a web-based chat app knows what I'm talking about. The idea is free, run with it.

Geez, people... its only been a small handful of years since the capability and the bandwidth to do decent streaming of anything has existed. Most of this capability was thought up by people who don't get paid for their work. So we forgot to include captioning in our streams... SUE US!!!

Here's the challenge. Why doesn't someone start their own website, much the same way a lot people do, that creates and provides links to captioned streaming video. Create ad driven pages and if the market supports it, it will work. Naturally it will start small but many web pages familiar to us today whether it's YouTube, Drudge or Huffington all started small. There's a potential to provide a needed service as well as create a revenue stream; somebody just has to do it.

Thanks for highlighting this disparity in access. The Internet is not just an emerging playground. The work of millions of people depends on their ability to utilize online resources and tools. Captioning -- both post-production and realtime -- should be available to all. Let's get working on that locally and on Capitol Hill.

Bob, thanks so much for writing this article. I know that the consumers we work with who utilize remote Internet CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) appreciate it, too, and would utilize Internet captioning. In our city, the local television stations use Electronic Newsroom for their captions. What that means is that it is all prerecorded. If there is an emergency or late-breaking news, our deaf/hard of hearing community is left not knowing what is happening, which is a travesty!

$10 an hour for a typis who can type as fast as peo spe in an emerg? Now that's a bargain!

What's next? Braille monitors for those who can't see the screen? While I sympathize with a person that has a disability; and completely agree that a person shouldn't be barred from doing something their able to do; there are limits to this. Speech to text is probably the *easiest* of all the possibilities for the handicapped. The problem is where does it end? Reality will only allow us to go so far if the ADA holds technology back to the least common denominator.

I'd like to ask the church TV producer why they are okay with providing televised services for people who don't attend because of their physical impairment, yet complain about the much lower cost of reaching those who don't attend because of their hearing impairment.

Thank you for letting all of us know in the world that I really am disappointed they(whoever)forget the deaf/hard of hearing people in the whole world that we all really want to keep closed caption in Any News of their locations, Any Airport Internationals, Any Hospitals, Dentists, clinics, Vet Clinics, Resturants, and Movie Theaters, too.... Especially one thing is I m still disappointed about Airport Internationals in any states I stopped and sitting on chair to watched CNN or Headline or any shows there is no Closed Captions... that is SAD !! They should know that we all are living in the whole EARTH !! Don't forget us in the world !! Please think and listen to your RED Heart about us....

Regarding the Church broadcaster's comments about why they can't afford to caption. It's always amazed me that so many churches (which are exempt from much of the ADA, anyway) havne't seen the benefit .. TO THEM ... of providing Assistive Technology (like ALDs or Captioning) at their services. A large percentage of the money coming to support churches are coming from people are older. Although hearing loss isn't just for old people, the percentages of people who are older and have hearing loss is high. I can't believe that welcoming all those people by making their services (broadcast and otherwise) accessible would be a money winner ... not a cost you can't bear. Even if it weren't a money winner, one could argue that the success of a church shouldn't be measured in terms of money. If your church isn't accessible; SHAME ON YOU!

sorry for the lack of capitals my shift key is missing.

simple answer to communication problems. lets teach sign language in our public schools not spanish, french, german, or any other forign language. then at least all americans would be able to communicate with each other.
as far as internet news productions are concerned.
if it is importent to a specific area put it in text.
all danger warnings and such should be in text includeing the public emergency plan that every local tv station has. however a plane crashing that you are not on is really of little importence to you.
americans act as though they deserve everything handed to them free of charge from the government.
i have news for all of us, the united states government is not our catch-all insurence agency.
people with disabilities need to work to overcome them instead of sitting around feeling helpless and waiteing for someone else to take them by the hand and lead them through life.
i have a 16 year old boy that is 90 percent deaf in one ear and 85 in the other, in 2 years it will be 100 percent in both. but he seems to manage, he reads lips and speaks sign. he goes to public school and mantains a 3.5 grade point average. without any additional help from the teachers. he is not in any special classes he is in the standard public classes.
the only special consideration the teachers have to give is to face the class when they talk which is only polite anyway.
if a 16 year old can manage the rest of us can.
yes i said us. i too am disabled. i am 30 percent blind in my left eye and have only 40 percent use of my right hand. so should i get a special keyboard provided to me so that i can easily type with one hand. no i should not. i do not deserve any special treatment due to my injuries. i just get tough and push my way through life the best i can without blameing anyone else for my problems. when we all take responsibility for ourselves we will find more people willing to help us. when we appreciate the concessions that we are givven we will find more avaliable. people respond to positive attitude, that means saying thank you for the closed captioning on my tv, not it should have been done years ago. maybe it should have been done years ago maybe not but it is done now so appreciate the effort that it took to get that far. there are a million differant things that our officials have to deal with and everyone wants their full attention all of the time. personaly i would rather that they solved the border security issues than getting my boy closed captioning so that he can know when the border security fails.

For a solution worldwide on this problem, I simply would request that every student at a hearing school or college be required to have one semester of ASL before handing out to the students their graduation diplomas.
That way everyone could talk with one another . . It's that simple. Let the world learn ASL.

For Marcia Ferrell & Steve Barber, who were questioning my comments re: religious broadcasting:

First of all, we have always provided special systems in our churches for the hearing impaired and they have worked well. We started broadcasting to offer a different theological perspective on the airways that wasn't being presented by most national religious broadcasters. This was certainly very beneficial to many with disabilities, but this message is not being put out just for them, it's being broadcast for everyone.

The cost of broadcasting is extraordinary. We have a bigger budget than many churches, which allows us to have this type of ministry, but the cost of production and airtime alone can barely be met. My airtime costs this year: $114,000.00. The best price we could find initially for post Closed Captioning: $500.00/program - $26,000.00/year! We can't afford anything near that, so we almost went off the air. We have now found some other alternatives, asked for and received special donations, and are continuing to broadcast.

As far as churches having any exemptions in the ADA, I know of none. You are allowed to apply for exemptions in case of hardship, and many churches have. Every application I've seen has been denied, so many of them will simply be forced to go off the air.

All I see and read are "Whines...." The world was not created exclusively for the deaf. It was created for ALL of us regardless. It does not discriminate. People do. What's next, forcing stationery objects to provide closed captioning for the sounds or conversation between flowers? I'm a deaf person and I got out there on my own steam. I just don't advertise it when I'm out there. You guys seem to want to advertise your quote 'disability' unquote. It is NOT a disability. That is simply your mindset. The body is how we get it. What we do with it sets us apart from those that cry 'disability'. You want to live in the world, get out there then. Sure, its great when we get the luxury of being given accessibility not everyone gets it at any given time and it doesn't confine itself to just the deaf population. Just because there is one bad apple in the bunch doesn't make them all bad. Technology will catch up and on its own steam. Mother Nature will not and yet, we continue to destroy her resources and don't complain about the sounds they provide, the ingredients they provide, etcetra UNTIL we don't get what we want or see. Life is not what we get or see. It simply is. That is why politics exist. To create chaos when there isn't any. Leftwings, Green Party and all that...we live in this world. Learn how.

Train the whole world in ASL . . . (American Sign Language). Before anyone can graduate school, including college . . require students to complete a semester in sign language . . . Then the whole world can talk with any deaf person . . . That's simple.

Captioning for online content is as important as for offline content...as we lament the situation for deaf/heard of hearing viewers for online content...it should be noted that Close-Captioning is still absent in countries like India for regional television. There should be a uniform body to raise issues at all levels & interact on a global level.

I am neither deaf nor hard of hearing, but I have many friends who are, both local and online. While I hope this will never be an issue for me, I know it is for them. I would love to see something like this come to pass voluntarily, just for my friends' sake, but unfortunately, it probably won't without government regulations requiring it. Or maybe a company like MicroSoft or Apple will be able to come up with a product to assist in this arena. I don't know, I'm not a computer expert, but I would think that would be possible somehow.

What a lot of hearing people don't quite seem to get about those with hearing losses is that hearing and understanding are two different things. Just because we can hear something if at all doesn't mean we'll understand or know what it is. Even I can't always rely on my own hearing aids. In the food service industry, it seems that the impatient public expects the person serving them to be hearing and understand everything said. Deviate from that, and you'll get complaints or walkouts. "I want it hot and fresh and I want it now and I want it done right" seems to be the common phrase.

If you're looking for other methods of doing the captions, check these sites;

http://www.videohelp.com/
http://www.doom9.org/
http://www.digitalfaq.com/

The captioning isn't great just for those with hearing losses. It's great for those who are learning english as well as those who have turned off the sound because someone's asleep or something.

If those with hearing losses are continually behind like this, then people are gonna be wondering what's going on when a large number of deaf are killed in a disaster on the scale of 9/11 and Katrina. Make something accessible now while it's cheaper or wait til a major lawsuit happens, meaning huge money... We're making it not just accessible for our generation, but for future generations and those outside the States.

Take the damn blinders off your eyes, folks... There's more to see than what's right in front of you.

Captioning of TVs is required - the question seems to be whether the internet version is required to have CC. Let's get simple - how much does it cost? Who pays? As in "unfunded mandate"? Is this a government requirement for someone to spend money so a minor portion of the populace can be accommodated? Don't get me wrong - if it is there for broadcast TV (and I think it is a mandate that CC is there) then it should be simple task to translate the CC to internet cable. Payment? FOR WHAT?? For what is currently there even if underutilized? What was that comemnt about "who pays"? Now taking it one step farther - voice recognition (even as poor as it is) could be used to type out the text. Again, should not be a cost except for the software (news programs use it NOW - some of the translations, though, can be hilarious)

So what do we have - a tempest in a teapot?

I am deaf myself and I get concerned when something is happening on the news because you can see it's obviously an serious situation but don't understand what, where, and how this may affect you or your family/friends. What if it were my friends or family in this drastic situation, I'd want to know if it ends safely. I do have one beef with most TV newscasts. When they have a BREAKING NEWS, they almost never have captions and I can't help but wonder if it's an life threatening situation that may involve my home area, that we should evacuate, or take safety measures, and whatever. The deaf is left in the dark with situations like this .. There are chemical spills, raging out of control fires, extreme bad weather situations, things of this sort ... and yet we don't know or understand. By the time it hits the news the next day .. there's a possibility it could be too late to evacuate or to go aid people when needed.

I would appreciate it if there were closed captioning on all tv programs, at theaters, churches, airplanes, airports, hospitals on tv and crawling announcements on tvs, at any public places even in schools, libraries for emergency and business purposes. Now, there are some towns that will have sirens on for tornadoes, hurricanes, fire warnings, but those who cannot hear will miss hearing the sirens, so can there be some kind of flashing light alarms in their homes or to have sirens with flashing lights and sounds as well. Hopefully, inventors can come up with new ideas, or if people will think of their deaf friends, to let them know but we will look out too as we may have senses to know something is happening. Thank you for all your services to make one live in a better world.

The solution IMO would be what Burst.com offers. A Conductor that Caches streaming content then delivers it uninterupted.

many deaf people use closed caption. they did not hear without closed caption if they did not read lip . they were their loss ear. They understand read good closed caption better than without closed caption. They read better closed caption and same read book. They alway read their eye. They feel did not hear without hearing loss.

Here's a novel idea for those of you who object to providing CC for online streaming--put yourself in the shoes of those who cannot hear. What if one of your family members was on that JetBlue plane? How would you feel if you had no idea what was happening to them? The deaf are not an inconvenience to our society; they are a permanent culture (yes, a culture) that will always be here, and just because they can't hear doesn't mean they should be unfairly punished for it. Like someone said, Spanish-translated pamphlets, phone services, etc. are provided; why not closed captioning? Yes, maybe it's not the easiest thing or cheapest thing to implement, but in emergency situations like the JetBlue incident and the forest fire that one commenter spoke of, it should be MANDATORY. Find some way to do it.

And no, I'm not deaf.

I chuckled when someone mentioned about having a braille on tv monitor?! (of course, they don't need it..because they can hear it.) One time, a waitress thought I need a braille menu just because I can't hear?! How sad is that? Is that simply an ignorant on their part or it's just 'don't want to be bothered mentality'? For those of you who sympathize with a person that has a disability, you just never know you might come back and complain because you couldn't hear it anymore? Or couldn't do any signing at all? So, don't tell us we didn't warn ya.

Deaf people are less fortunate in some ways and should be treated with respect at ALL times

I searched for news on harkle.com and found the Navy news with CC option. It looked like "robust" technology to me. And it would be useful to not just the deaf, but people in noisy terminals or quiet offices. Who wouldn't sneak a peek at the news videos during the workday if you could do it with the sound off? So how about it, CNN? CC it, and they will come.

Section 255 of the telecom Act had right idea. All telecommunications products or service that are being developed or created must first include disability in its blue print design. It is so much more cost effective that way. Remember there were no telecommunication access for the deaf for the first 200 years until federal regs require that (relay service) - the results were astonishing - many deaf got better jobs, went into business for themselves, number of deaf millionaires went up, more deaf got top management jobs - still long way to go to be sure but it was directly as result of freedom to move about telecommunications has resulted these positive trends. Captioning tv news streams will enable deaf to be more aware and be in a better position to do cognitive thinking if needed. More exposure to information the greater the chance of success. Many people do not realize the positive impact a simple captioning can do for the deaf. Wake up, folks and look. Look at the reality and pragmatic solution of providing captioning.

Give how much fat profits companies like CNN and JetBlue make each year, they should be required to provide caption for all programming. American companies have been, are and always will be greedy and come up with excuses to screw both the average American and the disadvantaged. Without equality laws, they'll never do anything good for the rest of us.

Is it me or is everyone else stupid?

This scam works when you have to send the purchased item to the the creditcard holders address. (On another issue, since YOU paid for it so YOU can certainly keep it)
If the x.com company allows the buyer to send high price items to a differrent address than what is on the credit card, then why freaking bother with this? Just send it to the address you want and pick it up yourself. So,

Honestly... I dislike web video... Closed captioned or not, it's total garbage. When I am on a news site and so many articles say "video" next to them, well, I have to skip. My connection to the net is 10 megabit and I can STILL read half of a "print" article faster than I can watch the pre-commerical and/or wait for the video to load... And not always am I in a place where I can listen to the news (CC would help here, if I watched the videos). I also find that I prefer to skip sections of an article. Sometimes technical information about something is included and I may not care to read. Video forces me to see the whole thing and pay attention at the rate it is presented. If my attention is diverted then I am forced to pause the video as opposed to just stop reading. Give me TEXT! I miss so much news because an item is VIDEO ONLY! Video will never replace the text version anyway... We still read newspapers when the same news is on channel 9.....

To J in Chicago. You are an idiot. A waitress tries to assist you with YOUR disability and she is ignorant because she didnt do it correctly. Maybe you shouldn't be "ignorant mentality" when you type posts.

S Johnson of upstate New York exclaims: "What's next? Braille monitors for those who can't see the screen?" Duh, Mr. Johnson, there have been Braille interfaces for computers since at least the late eighties (when I first encountered them). Of course, a blind person can't watch streaming video on a Braille interface, but if they can hear -- and there are plenty of deaf-blind people -- they can hear the audio, which is typically more meaningful in video news stories than the video by itself.

Now, as for the $10/hour captioner, my understanding is that closed captioners use devices somewhat like the stenotype machines used by court reporters. So, no, they are not simply typists.

As for the comments by christopher j hagerstown md, I'd like to bring up his comments that: "i have a 16 year old boy that is 90 percent deaf in one ear and 85 in the other, in 2 years it will be 100 percent in both. but he seems to manage, he reads lips and speaks sign. he goes to public school and mantains a 3.5 grade point average."

Got news for you: Your kid LEARNED THE LANGUAGE BEFORE BECOMING DEAF. This DOES NOT APPLY TO PRE-LINGUAL DEAF PRERSONS. He COULD hear the spoken language to learn before becoming severely hearing-impaired. With residual hearing still, it EASES the ability to lipread.

Please, do NOT compare him to the totally deaf population. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
Also: "without any additional help from the teachers. he is not in any special classes he is in the standard public classes.
the only special consideration the teachers have to give is to face the class when they talk."

That ALSO implies that ALL deaf can lipread 100% and, with those, EVERYONE else will ASSUME the deaf can, which is NOT.
Finally, the last statement:"if a 16 year old can manage the rest of us can."

Think twice, comparing Apples to Oranges again.

Do you expect us to be expert lipreaders to people talking SIDEWAYS and FROM BEHIND or, SOMEONE RUNNING or, BEARDED LIKE SANTA CLAUS or, even BLACKBEARD?

Thanks but, you haven't helped. By the way, I was NOT born deaf, Lost hearing at 6, AFTER learning language, therefore, I CAN speak on those topics.

As for :"personaly i would rather that they solved the border security issues than getting my boy closed captioning so that he can know when the border security fails." I wonder what will happen to a deaf person who sees a video that has no captions, continues to the place and, ends up killed when, the rest of the population were being warned to not go near, WMD in area and, death by gas possible? "oh, well, he was just deaf... too bad."

I noticed the Closed Captioned of news, CNN, MNBC and others are not in excellent shape nowadays. The quality of CC are deteroriated. At the end of the news or others, they cut off the CC. We pay high cost to have this CC be done. I think need a Deaf group to be a watchdog to make sure all TV networks or CC provider are producing quality service. It is not right I as a deaf citizen dont have full CC of the news at the end. Alot of time Chris Matthew will be saying something and the CC is not on. That is not good enough for any Deaf or HOH to read. I hope someone will do something about this.

I noticed the Closed Captioned of news, CNN, MNBC and others are not in excellent shape nowadays. The quality of CC are deteroriated. At the end of the news or others, they cut off the CC. We pay high cost to have this CC be done. I think need a Deaf group to be a watchdog to make sure all TV networks or CC provider are producing quality service. It is not right I as a deaf citizen dont have full CC of the news at the end. Alot of time Chris Matthew will be saying something and the CC is not on. That is not good enough for any Deaf or HOH to read. I hope someone will do something about this.

-Quote/You are an idiot. A waitress tries to assist you with YOUR disability and she is ignorant because she didnt do it correctly./Endquote-

She already knew beforehand when she identified me as being deaf(btw-I talk and sign to let her know and she heard me clearly). But she didnt need to foolishly assume THAT is the ANSWER. So there goes 'ignorant mentality' when you assumed she tried. There is alot of them and unfortunately that is exactly why they(professionals,tech,corps,media & health) should start paying attention and listen to what we KNOW. If you want to improve the services and such... Better start LISTENING NOW! Is that what you would called me an idiot?

quote/you are an idiot. A waitress tries to assist you with YOUR disability and she is ignorant because she didnt do it correctly. Maybe you shouldnt be 'ignorant mentality' when you type posts./endquote

She already knew beforehand when she identified me as being deaf (btw- I talk and sign to let her know and she heard me clearly). But she didnt need to foolishly assume THAT is the ANSWER. So there goes an 'ignorant mentality' when you assumed she tried. There is alot of them and unfortunately that is exactly why they(professionals, tech, corps, media & health) should start paying attention and listen to what we KNOW. If you want to improve the services and such...Better start LISTENING NOW! Now whos an idiot?!

For the people who tell us not to use the internet then if it's not accessible, you're basically telling us to ignore what will probably eventually be permeating every bit of society. The internet (or whatever it evolves into) will be the primary means of communication in the future. And yes, deaf people are entitled to access it. The technology is not that hard. Hobbyists tinkering around with it have managed to pull off solutions. Companies do exist who have the technology. I have no doubt that companies can invest in a thinktank and pull it off. So it always comes down to the financial bottom line. They won't pay for it. Huge conglomerates like NBC Universal and Time Warner have no excuse. And yes, smaller outlets should be given more time and for the technology to be more cost-effective. But the honest reality is that they won't do it voluntarily. No major change in this country was done voluntarily. Desegregation was mandated by the government. The end of slavery was mandated by the government. The only reason people with various disabilties have any brand of equity is that the ADA forced people to accomodate them. So people saying we're not entitled to demand the government do something? I bet every person out there aside from a white male probably had the government order something to their benefit. Women, children, the disabled, African-Americans, other minorities, and yes, the deaf. No, captions aren't as serious as some above issues. But it is important in our quality of life (yes, I am deaf). We have the right to demand parity, especially on something that is so critical to the fabric of society.

Next we'll have to buy everyone glasses so they read the teleprompter text. Then, we will need to have variable speed text for those that can't read as fast. OK, let's buy them a 54" plasma so they can read it better.

Where does it stop?

captions should be a must on everything....most computer problems you need a phone.the service people are not prepared to handle deaf,hearing impaired people. most people either are not aware of what deaf/hearing impaired people go through.they should be better educated.

The rule is simple, as is the principle behind it. The American people own the airwaves therefore rules such as closed captioning can and should be mandated. But we do not own every other medium and therefore we do not have the same right to impose the same rules. We must rely on market pressures, integrity and other human considerations. Which is just exactly how a free speech society should operate.

There are a better approach to have closed-captioned mandatory for emergency information and content on all media outlets throughout the Internet as equally with other individuals. I am being disadvantaged to receive any equal opportunity than my hearing peers.

I am severely deaf, but I also have an economics degree. I too have been frustrated by the lack of captioning on internet video, but I also understand the costs (not inconsiderable) involved in captioning.
I think a good middle ground would be to require that the internet video protocol used eventually support having captioning embedded in it. The captioning is not actually required, but the ability to do so without complication if one wishes is. This is similar to requiring TVs to have the caption decoding hardware built-in.

Guess what. Hard of hearing isn't the only use of closed captioning. In fact there's a fortune being made indexing TV shows, using closed caption text feeds. PR agents and big companies use it to check how their planted "news", etc. is being broadcast. Big media, one of the biggest lobbiests, probably dosen't like the idea at all. So big PR is fighting back with violin strings about helping the hard of hearing. Personally I favor the PR side, but wouldn't it be nice to have some truth every now and then?

:lanzdale

Only a few years ago, I remember choosing news websites over TV news because I could actually "read" the news. Also, a few years ago, a print article was provided along with the video feed - I could read along and understand the video. Now it seems like everything is moving over from print to online video, and there is no print to back up the video.

Yes, I'm deaf. And yes, I resent losing what was accessible to me just a few years ago. Yes, I feel that hearing people are trying to take over everything. Just a few years ago, we all said that computers and the Internet were the greatest equalizers between the deaf and the hearing cultures. No one knew if you were deaf or hearing.

Just my two cents worth.

I support on deaf or hard of hearing people to have the closed caption to help us to aware something happened or education to help us to read the english lanaguage and vocubalry words spelling right. and etc.. The closed capation is great for all people of the deaf and hard of hearing and even the hearing who lost thier hearing loss. Please keep closed caption in the rest of the life..

It is tough attempting to add up the time we've exhausted looking for computer repair sites.