-------------_._--_.__ ._----

IX)CKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL

November 13, 2000

Magalic SalasSecretary of federal Communications Commission'44.5-12 the Street S. W.•~ashington, D.C. 205554

r{ECElVED

JAN - 5 2001

Dear Mr. Salas; , '

As a blind person, I wish to receive descriptive talking videos, movies and programming in all fonns of

television. local. cable. satellite. and any other tcchnique that is available, I enjoy the Video description film we

now arc able to receive from the Library system.

The blind and visually impaired should have the right to hear descriptive programming as do the hearing impaired"

. have the right to sec the programs. Wc arc very happy they arc able to have lhe programming, We did nol ask to

have a sceing problems and deserve to have the same privileges as a sighted person. We arc finding that cach WIY

more people. as they grow older arc experiencing more macular generation. glaucom'l. and sight loss from

diabetes. as well as accidents and other illnesses.

It is my understanding lhat file docket , 99-331s to do away with tllC decision made on July 21, 2000 in which we

the blind and visually impaired were to have descriptive television. videos etc. by April 20()l.

I am asking )'oU to vote to continue to provide and add more descriptive talking programming for the blind and

visually impaired. If you were to view one, )'oU as a sighted person would find they arc vcr)' enjoyable.

Thanking you in advance for helping us to enjoy talking programming.

Sincerely yours.

;?~-t7_ )( ..41~ .....(, $C

,\\ w c () V' ~\ V')7-ruy! r+cJ.JL

? e0 r (. ~t ,1: \, bII, u~cc: f lonable Ray Lahood

f',.)

CO .-..

"0 1'."'.'

',,'.... '."",.,

J "I;lJ.}

cr

f " ,'7 Copies r9Cld-+{)~',--__:':.A Be DE

From:To:Date:SUbject:

iX)CKET FILE COpy ORiGINALgene Spurrier <gene-5@home.com><access@fcc.gov>Tue, Nov 7, 2000 7:01 PMVideo description for blind

m. Eugene Spurrrier1522 Glen Keith Blvd,Baltimore Maryland, 21286November 6, 2000

Re: docket number 9933;)

To whom it may concern,

Please consider this letter my official statement in opposition topetitioners' requests for reconsideration of the reported order on videodescription issued by the Federal Communications Commission on July 21, 2000.

I am a 72 year old blind man who has spent many years of frustration withmy television set because on countless occasions I was unable to determinethe outcome of shows in which I was involved due to the lack of verbalcommentary at crucial junctures in the play or movie, as the case may havebeen.

For these reasons it is not hard to imagine how elated I was when theCommissioners handed down their courageous vote in the affirmativeregarding the provision of video description of television programming forthe blind and visually impaired on July 21,2000. I am aware from mylimited exposure to video description that this decision on the part of theCommissioners will greatly enhance the pleasure that those of us who areblind will enjoy when watching television, either alone, or with ourfamilies and friends because we will be as knowledgeable as they areregarding what is transpiring on the screen.

Now, suddenly, it appears that this new freedom to enjoy movies and tvshows on equal footing with our sighted friends in the community may betaken away because of petitions for reconsideration ofthe July 21 ordersubmitted by television, cable, and movie associations.

It is my understanding that these petitioners have not provided anyinformation to the Commission which was not already available at the timethe ruling was made some four months ago. Therefore, there does not appearto be any reason Why the Commission should honor the petitioners' requestsfor reconsideration of the order.

The value of video descriptions to blind and Visually impaired peoplecannot be over estimated; and, as an individual who plans to take fUlladvantage of its availability, I wish personally to thank theCommissioners for the positive stand they have taken regarding thismatter. Further, I request that nothing be done to alter the content ofthe ruling of July 21 2000.

Sincerely yours,

M. Eugene Spurrier

From:To:Date:Subject:

<DavidG214@aol.com><Access@fcc.gov>Tue, Nov 7, 2000 8:04 PMDocket No. 99-339

DOCKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL

Attn. Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street, SWWashington, D.C. 20554

RE: Docket No. 99-339{Disability Rights, video description

; II ~. I

.'." '~

I wish to impress upon the commission my appreciation of the courageous voteby the commissioners requiring that the networks begin providing theessential video descriptions of network programs to the visually impaired.Without these descriptions, those of us who cannot see the television screensproperly are not able to follow the network programs and lose out on theinformation that we need to perform our civic functions within ourcommunities.J feel that the petitioners for reconsideration have not provided any new orpertinent information beyond that which was previously considered at the timethat the FCC reached its original decision and issued its ruling. I opposeany changes that the petitioners may present. I am writing this letter onbehalf of myself and other who are legally blind and who may not be able tocorrespond with you appropriately.

Signed,Aleck R. Rafolovich

This letter is being sent to you by David Gomez on behalf of AleckRafolovich.

cc: <info@acb.org>

----~--~-

From:To:Date:Subject:

"MariGriffin" <marig@bitstream.net><access@fcc.gov>Thu, Nov 9, 2000 1: 12 AMMM Docket 99-339 J

DOCKET FilE COpy ORIGINAL

Television is an intregral part of American cUlture - and people who are blind are denied access to thisculture without Video Description. They are then disadvantaged with their sighted peers. That'sdiscrimination!

Count this as a vote in opposition of reconsideration of reported order on Video Description - July rUling.No new information was submitted that was not known at the time of the ruling. Don't continue theobstacle of undescribed TV.

Mari Griffinmarig@bitstream.net

:RECEIVED

JAN - 5 2001

ki. or Copies rec·aUstABCOE ----

~•._~_._-----------

Television is an intregral part of American culture - and people who are blind are denied access to this culture

without Video Description. They are then disadvantaged with their sighted peers. That's discrimination! ,Countthis as a vote in opposition of reconsideration of reported order on Video Description - July ruling. No newinformation was submitted that was not known at the time of the ruling. Don't continue the obstacle of undescribedTV. --- Mari Griffinmarig(ii\bitslream.net

DOCKET FILE COpy ORiGINALCONCERNING DOCKET NO 99-339 I

SOME RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THEREPORTED ORDER ON VIDEO DESCRIPTION

The following organizations and individuals sent comments to the FCC in this Docket via the DisablitiesRights Office (DRO) at the FCC electronic mail box (174 total).

Old Dominion Council of the Blind & Visually Impaired, Richmond, VALow Vision Support Group of Friendship Village, Tempe AZ (multiple signers)Byron K. Smith, Producer, IV Office of Communications & Marketing, Indiana

Missouri Council of BlindEnvison Govt Affairs Office, Topeka, KSDisabled Resource Services, LovelandNorthern Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, Fort Collins, COJonathan Avila, Bartimaeus GroupJostad Associates, Fort Collins, COKaren Blumhorst, St Marys, OHPatricia Southwell, Orange Park, FLJennifer Cunningham, OTR/L, TennesseeJeanie Hugel, South Milwaukee, WIWill Herzog, Rochester, NYEd Meskys, Center Harbor, NHJudy McClarren, advocateLinda Lewis, Raleigh, NCBrian Lewis, Raleigh, NCFrank Helman, Elkhart, INM. Eugene Spurrier, Baltimore, MDChet Avery, Alexandria, VALorraine DeRose Demchak, Detroit, MIDavid Gomez for Aleck Rafolocish, CASilas Johnson, STAR Center, TenneeseeJoanne Martin, Dodge City, KSGail Elaine Irons, Phoenix, AZJanis Stander, Salt Lake City, UTFrank Warner, Sr., Walla Walla, WAClarence Jackson, Ventura, CAJudith Sterling, Babylon, NYRobert Barnes, Seattle, WAShron Bryant MS, CTRS, OTR, LaCrosse, WIBrad Kadel, History Instructor, Luther CollegeJoseph & Velma Calandra, Springfield, ILGerald Mundy, Ed.D.,Phyllis Williams, Fletcher, NCSylvia Kashdan, Seattle, WASharon Fillion, Agawam, MAAnne ParsonsLori Miller, Paralympic athleteDenyse J. Eddy, Winter Park, FLPtience Blumemr Barnes, Researcher, Wabash CollegeLaura Oftedahl, Berkeley, CATony Swatz, Allentown, PARobin Rehder, Baltimore, MDDuane Davis, Asheville, NCMaryEllen Cronin & Charles Cronin JrSteven Gastreich, Wauwatosa, WI

QECEtVEDJAN - 5 2~~1

Patricia Roberts, Helena MTErnest Jones, Walla Walla, WAKathleen L. Maroney, Loveland, CORichard Schutz, Ph.D., Topeka, KSMarjorie MacBride, Mount Prospect, ILJudy L. Davis, Asheville, NCCarlos Servan, NFB Supporter, NEDeAnna Noriega, Manitou Springs, COKathleen Gasper, Watertown, MAAlfred Gasper, Watertown, MAPetition from Dubuque Copyworks, 20 illegible signatures, IAMary Smiech, Salvation Army Missionary, NigeriaTerri Hedgpeth, Arizona State Univ, Disability Support ServicesDavid Jarvis, Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of Louisiana, Terrytown,LABob Hachey, Waltham, MATom Turner, Bedford, PAJim Jirak, Omaha, NebraskaIvars Pakulis, Bedford, OHMike Chrisman, Scottsdale, AZRichard Chrisman, Scottsdale, AZPeggy Chrisman, Scottsdale, AZJo Ann Taylor, Sspringfield, OHDavid Nanney, Randallstown, MDPaula Partlow, Walla Walla, WAVickie Prahin, Hadley School for the BlindGreg & Leo Olney, Mayfield, KYAbigail Johnson, Sheridan, WYCynthia Lynn, RN, Petersburg, AlaskaCarol Schmitt, Minot, NDHannah Mcginnis, Parent, Rockville, MDRichard Bird, Parma Heights, OHMrs. Gina Bird, Parma Heights, OHDoly Sowder, Bedford, INMike Sowder, Bedford, INRita S. Eggert, Rochester, NYKen Arzarian, Friday Harbor, WAHarold Newsom, Phoeniz, AZDaniel Graham, Haverhill, MAAnne Donald, Mountain View, CATd Kneebone, Aberdeen, SDBarbara Z. Gardner, Springdale, OHRosanne HugheyLynn KrummGlenn PlunkettAda & E.W. StokesRisa RacecarDavid MayerJoseph PerryFred CarterTracy Smith, FLMatthew ChaoPatti ZimmermanAudrey MonahanMary351742aol.comIrene CarterJames Rogers

Joseph KusterRobert Walker, JrMaria Mercado & Ernesto RaicesJohn Clapp for Sylvia RooseJeff MoyerTeresa ChastainMaggie Starkovich, parent, IDLyn Walsh, Cary NCAleck Rafolovich, Ventura, CAWayne Hinckley, Woods Cross, UTMarilyn Nelson, North DakotaDeborah Ver Steeg, Sioux Falls, SDTodd Turansky, Augusta, GABenita Shor, Madison, NJThomas Stuart, Peoria, ILBernie Stuart, Peoria, IIPat Reed, Peoria, IllinoisDrew Galas, Peoria, IllinoisPeggy Davies, Peoria, IllinoisWilliam Nelson, Sr, Peoria, ILNicole Wood, Peoria, ILDebbie Hatton, East Peoria, ILWiliam Hatton, East Peoria, ILJason Scobe, Peoria, ILWayne Davis, Peoria ILAnthony Davis, Peoria, ILJohnie Mae Thomas, Peoria, ILMaxine Foster, Bartonville, ILDeborah Mathews, Peoria, ILThomas D. Vogel, Peoria, ILSandra Malott, Peoria, ILPamela Vogel, Peoria, ILEsther Knott, Peoria ILCarol Warren, Peoria, ILFrancis Shelly, Peoria, ILMilton Bolden, Peoria, ILKatie & J. Hall, Peoria, ILTony Engle, Peoria, ILMargaret RedingSteven SpengerKirk R. FordMichael CampbellLarry PeschnerBaryVaugnMr. & Mrs. Frank MazzaJohn Hampton, Sr.Donna Fanelle,Edith LauderbackMelissa RothermelRichard RuedaJanice 1. SquiresArt StevensonDeborah AngelFrancia MaloneJeffrey UlrichLarry McNeese

Sharon BookerFernando BotelhoSuzie YostGaylen Kapperman, Ed.D.,Frank and Joan MedinaJoann BlockDianne HealeyAudrey SchadingWillie T. BerryLeo HealeyMarie GriffmSandra HarmonRobert LockwoodGail LuSane

From:To:Date:Subject:

OCJCKET FILE COpy ORIGINALMichael Byington <michael.byington@envisionus.com>"'access@fcc.gov'" <access@fcc.gov>Thu, Nov 2, 2000 11 :51 PMFCC Docket 99-339 J-- ---

PLEASE REPLY TO: Michael Byington, DirectorEnvision Governmental Affairs Office924 S. Kansas AveTopeka, Kansas 66612(785) 354-4747 (Topeka Office)(785) 640-4500 (pager and mobil)(785) 354-4646 (FAX)mbyingto@ink.org ormichael.byington@envisionus.com

November 1, 2000

Magalie Sales, SecretaryThe Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street S.W.Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Secretary Sales:

RE: DOCKET 99-339

OFFICIAL FILING: IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION ONTHE REPORTED ORDER ON VIDEO DESCRIPTION

This filing is submitted on behalf of Envision, a not for profitcorporation which provides employment, rehabilitation and advocacy servicesfor persons who are blind or who have low vision. This filing is alsosubmitted with the very strong personal convictions of its author. I am alegally blind citizen, who is married to a person who is totally blind. Asthe Director of Governmental Affairs for Envision, I am empowered toexpress the position of this corporation.

Envision submitted testimony supporting the original ruling generatedthrough DOCKET 99-339. We continue to support the rules which resulted fromthis Docket.

We want to begin by thanking and commending the Commissioners of theFederal Communications Commission (FCC) for their courageous vote torequire modest, beginning amounts of video description through majornetworks, large cable providers, and large sellers of satellite broadcastservices. We who are blind and low vision must indeed have the right toequally effective communications of all types. We can not fully participatein the culture of the United States, or the world, without theseaccommodations. We must never be relegated to being a population onlyentitled to certain types of communication, Access to communications forpurposes of entertainment must never be considered to be of lesserimportance than communications for purposes of emergency or news relatedinformation. It is all important. We need access to all information offered

, _....,-._-~~-._-_._---

in the American culture. Video description is an excellent vehicle forproviding important pieces of information otherwise completely missed bythose persons who are blind and low vision. The regulations adopted in Julyconcerning video description are most certainly consistent with the spiritof both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 255 of theTelecommunications Act.

THE PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE UTTERLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION. No newinformation has been submitted to provide justification for a re-opening ofDocket 99-339. The cable, network, and motion picture industrialrepresentatives, and the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) haveinstead provided essentially a re-statement of arguments thoroughlyexplored through the original scrutiny of 99-339, and by the FCCdeliberations which lead to the July vote.

As a legally blind person, I have become aware of how much of thesignificance of television programming I miss because I often watchtelevision productions with my wife, who is totally blind, and/or totallyblind friends and co-workers. On such occasions, the question I fear mostfrom my blind associates is, ''What's happening now?" I usually find that Iam not really sure enough to be able to explain it. In Kansas, which is theprinciple catchment area for Envision, we are also aware of the benefit ofvideo description, and I am personally aware of how much I miss ofprogramming, because we do have a limited amount of video descriptionavailable to us through most of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS)stations in Kansas. As a person who is congenitally legally blind, I neverknew about all of the action and nuances I was missing until videodescription made this information available.

The argument of some of the motion picture associations, that people whoare congenitally blind can not benefit from video description because theyhave no visual frame of reference, is a ludicrous assertion which could notbe further from the truth. To the contrary, such individuals often benefitprofoundly from video description because it fills in information they haveno other way of getting. If the blindness is congenital, then theinformation is particularly important because a lack of history of seeingindeed makes it more difficult to make informed assumptions about what maybe happening.

It has also been alleged throughout the processes involved with Docket99-339 that video description somehow violates the First Amendment rightsof the artists by somehow altering the fundamental nature of the art. Thistoo is an argument which defies logic and common sense. Video descriptiondoes not change the fundamental nature of a performing arts piece any morethan moving a painting from a gallery which is not wheelchair accessible toone which is accessible alters the fundamental nature of the painting.Also, video description is a voluntary accommodation. Someone who does notwish to hear it, or who believes that the description is altering theoriginal art form, has the option to simply turn the video descriptiontrack off and still enjoy the art in its original form.

One of the major objections of the NFB, which is driving them to petitionfor the reconsideration of the regulations, seems to be their concern thatthe cues for emergency information do not go far enough. While we at

Envision must agree in our support for a full and true reading of emergencyinformation via the separate audio program (SAP) convention, we wouldsubmit that NFB is using a destructive and counterproductive methodology toattempt to bring this access about. NFB should not jeopardize access toinformation which we need and fought long and hard to get, simply becausethere is some other type of information access which they feel is neededeven more.

The NFB petition thus might be regarded constructively as a petition for anew and additional rulemaking on the issue of emergency information. Asstated earlier, however, we can not support undoing another type ofinformation access simply because a few people want a different type ofinformation access first. We need all types of information. There should beno process of prioritization. Asking for additional types of informationshould not negate, or be considered as related to, types of informationwhich the FCC has already agreed should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please reject in theirentirety, all petitions for reconsideration of Docket 99-339.

Sincerely yours:

Michael ByingtonDirector of Governmental Affairs

MB/mb??

cc: "'info@acb.org'" <info@acb.org>

DOCKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL

Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street, SWWashington, DC 20554

November 3,2000

Dear Ms. Salas,

This is regarding Docket # 99-339.).... ---

jZJ N

~VE[)

. 5 ?COI

This letter is in opposition to petitioners for reconsideration of thereported order on video description.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Commissioners of the FCC fortheir courageous vote requiring the networks to begin providing videodescription service for people who are blind or visually impaired.

It is very important for anyone who cannot see the screen to have analternate means for knowing whats happening on the television. Wordscannot express how much video description means to me. It has allowedme to enjoy movies and plays with family and friends and given me areal feeling of independence. I have been looking forward to turning onmy television in April, 2002, to enjoy shows with family and friends andto use the video description to help understand the visual aspects of theprogrammmg.

I want to be able to enjoy the same programming as others.

Sincerely,

Dolly Sowder205 Hawthorne DrBedford, IN 47421

-- - ~ ---- - ~-~~-~---~~- - -- -----

LOCKET FilE COpy ORIGINAL

Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street, SWWashington, DC 20554

November 3, 2000

Dear Ms. Salas, J1'J.N .. 5 r.'~r·,,., f

"" ... 1

This is regarding Docket # 99-339.J-This letter is in opposition to petitioners for reconsideration of thereported order on video description.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Commissioners of the FCC fortheir courageous vote requiring the networks to begin providing videodescription service for people who are blind or visually impaired.

I am writing this letter in consideration of and for people who are blindor visually impaired. It is very important for anyone who cannot see thescreen to have an alternate means for knowing whats happening on thetelevision. It allows people who are blind or visually impaired to enjoytelevision with family and friends and give them a real feeling ofindependence.

The FCC needs to do the right thing by requiring video description to beon television.

Sincerely,

Mike Sowder205 Hawthorne DrBedford, IN 47421

COCKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL

To: Magalie Salas, Secretary

The Federal Communication Commission

445 121h Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

From: Cynthia E. Lynn, BSN, RN

Post Office Box 1758

Petersburg, Alaska 99833

RE: In opposition to Petitioners for Reconsideration of the Reported Order on Video Description.

Docket #99-339.J

November 1,2000

Dear Commissioners,

Please uphold your July 21 51 ruling requiring television networks to provide video description by April 2002.

1am using my Marks Scripts guide so I can get this urgent request in the mail. This Script Guide allows me to writein cursive and in straight lines even though I cannot see the letters. I hope it is legible.

Even as a teenager I could not read subtitles unless 1 was right on top of the TV set. When I read the subtitles Icould not read the remainder of the screen. Ofcoarse I thought that everyone saw as I did.

In 1996 when I was diagnosed with Retinitus Pigmentosa, the loss ofperipheral sight explained this tunnel vision.

In spite of this I finished college and worked as and RN for twenty years. September 1994 was the first time I had toadmit that I could no longer see the TV to follow the story.

I now have to get all my cues from listening only. Tyring to identifY the characters by memorizing the voices ofeach person. Environmental happenings are also a guess by using my ears. I have to identity sounds, i.e.: is thatwhat a person falling down sounds like?

Trying to see the story without sight is not fun. With long pauses without dialogue, not being able to see the people,landscape, facial expressions, or sequence of action scenes makes it almost impossible to follow the plot. My threechildren are so tired of my asking, "Who was that? What's happening?"

My first time to experience DVS was as a student at the Carroll Center for the Blind, in Newton Massachusetts.While in the dormitory we were supplied with DVS videos. For the first time I was able to enjoy a film. The DVSspeaker explained, between speaking parts, a description of what the characters looked like, the action, i.e.: " hecrosses the room" or" with a look of rage on his face".

I also experienced DVS at a musical production of" Titanic" in Boston. The DVS speaker gave a brief introduction

~.• =.,="~,,..~...._.~..... ==._----------------------~

to the story, how the stage was set up and who sang this or that and why. Even seated just behind the orchestra, Icould see nothing. It was fun to enjoy the play thanks to DVS.

Television and movies are such a major part of our lives these days. To not be have the ability to enjoy it is a loss.With DVS I can enjoy both. Being blind I need this accommodation. Blindness is not just an inconvenience believeme. Sight loss affects every single part of a persons daily living, quality of life and recreation.

Presently I cannot drive anymore, cannot sail my sailboat, read a book, take photographs, hike, bicycle or fish. Withmy continued rehabilitation I shall find other interests to replace some activities and ways to accommodate such aslearning Braille, to read in peace and quite and hiring a sighted skipper for sailing. With my audible computer Ihope to return to the workplace soon.

In the meantime I can enjoy the latest videos thanks to Descriptive Video Services. Where I live in Alaska wecurrently do not have DVS receiver or Radio Reading Service.

Thank you,

Cynthia E. Lynn RN.

Petersburg, Alaska

-~I

DOCKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL 11- .1:Jfj-

1

~tFDPP@FDPP'.tFDPC@FDPC_.tSTSH@STSHt.tSTSH@@STSH.t2tSYID@SYIDPt'tS P@atttFONT@FONT£tPtSTRS@PLC oot:tPRNT@WNPR&~@@tFRAM@FRAMf~etTITL@TITL~~

Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Com. Com.445 12th St., SWWashington, DC 20554

Dear Ms. Salas:

My husband, Leo, is legally blind. Both he and I would likethe FCC Commissioners for your courageous vote requiring the netwodescription, an essential lnformation service to people who are blunderstand the July 21st ruling of the FCC is now under attack bywriting to let you know how important it is for us that yourJuly 21 ruling stands.

Unless you are blind yourself, it can be difficult to imagine ho~

blind, so picture this: While everyone else is laughing at the an iaoman/woman/child sits silent, wonderlng at the laughter until someo e ~

funny. How much better if the program itself describes what is go ngpALONE, with no one else to describe it for him/her? Now, can you egbthe video description of TV programming is?

We have enjoyed several videos that came ~ described- for th slipublic library, but they were few, and here in Mayfield, KY, we do ~ bpetitioners have not provided any-2-

new information that was not already known at the timethe FCC reached its decision and issued the ruling, the reconsider tifare looking forward to turning on our TV sets in April, 2002, to e jawusing the video description to help him understand the visual aspetsddeny him t

--~ --~------

r---

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy~!¥l~~l(¢~J~~i?~~-iY§V=YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYRoot Entry YYYYYYYY 2Za

L@CompObJ:_ V @.

enjoy with his loved ones. This letter is IN OPPOSITION TO PETITI NEOF THE REPORTED ORDER ON VIDEO DESCRIPTION,Docket #99-339. Thanking you

Sincerely,

Gloria (& Leo) Olney

ec: access@fcc.govinfo@acb.org

er 2, 2000

Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Com. Com.445 12th St., SWWashington, DC 20554

Dear Ms. Salas:

My husband, Leo, is legally blind. Both he and I ~ould likethe FCC Commissioners for your c!@"e$e&.xeaeayber_+eE.,J. L." $n

------- -----------

,~_<eJE-rrd+ON'rTimes New Roman Arial y

" Il0Aoxh h A-s'ODCanon Bubble-Jet BJC-600e "@ n y y h h @MSUD Canon Bubble-Jet BJC-600e d+ winspoolCanon Bubble-Jet BJC-600eLPT1: F W Y'V'" "riIv'$c"OO' '''.'' @ W 9 ''\2 "Oll "rilV'$c"O'

"0' '"." Video Description to FCC.wps" "0p "0p P(" )" provided any new information tthat was not already known at thge timeOe the FCC-2-

o

the FC py99W2ZIlPt=j=... fi Lol1211~uil196 Story Group Class tT xom

From:To:Date:Subject:

11-06-00

DOCKET ALE COpy ORIGINALSteven Gastreich <briansg@execpc.com><access@fcc.gov>Mon, Nov 6, 2000 6: 12 PMVideo Description.

Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Communications Commission445 12th St, SWWashington, DC 20554

Docket No. 99-339 }-Dear Commissioners,

The purpose of this correspondence is to submit comments "in opposition topetitioners for reconsideration of the reported order on video description".

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Federal CommunicationsCommission for this crucial and courageous vote in support of videodescription regarding network programming.

Since childhood, I have enjoyed many hours in front of the television.However, to enjoy these programs completely, I have to rely on family andfriends to provide the visual details. Often, there are times when I watchtelevision alone or with other blind friends. Unfortunately, in this case,the visual aspects are left to the imagination. Nothing is morefrustrating than watching a favorite program or lengthy movie only todiscover that questions regarding the outcome of the plot can only beanswered by sight. In this case, all we can do as a blind community islong for the "Golden Days of Radio" when blind and sighted alike were on anequal playing field in obtaining all the information on a particular program.

So, I could not have been happier when I learned that both Hollywood moviesand Public Television had begun using Descriptive Video Service "DVS".Because of this, I have appreciated true independence in experiencingprograms that I choose to view. In learning about these advances, alongwith "Closed captioning" for deaf and hard of hearing viewers, I had hopedthat Network Television's accommodation of Descriptive Video would not befar behind.

")0n?c. :.,;G' i

Now, I am eagerly waiting for April of 2002 when I can finally enjoyNetwork television the way I had always dreamed. I want to stress herethat I feel that video description's importance should go further thansimply the program being aired, but also when there is importantinformation on the screen. How many times have I heard an announcer referto "the number on your screen". Or, even more importantly, when there areimportant messages such weather warnings which are only accessible tosighted viewers. It is my hope that once again, like in the early days ofradio, that in regarding television, we as a blind community will haveequal access with our sighted counterparts.

;">c'j (J• {. ~c.

Thank you again for this very important vote.

Sincerely,

Steven Gastreich

10727 W. Grantosa Dr.

Wauwatosa, WI 53222(414) 464-1756briansg@execpc.com

DOCKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL

From:To:Date:SUbject:

"Fanelle, Donna (MCB)" Donna Fanelle <Donna.Fanelle@state.ma.us><access@fcc.gov>Mon, Nov 6,2000 5:31 PMDescriptive Video Services comments

65 Bradshaw StreetMedford, MA 02155-4846November 6, 2000

Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street, SWWashington, DC 20554

Dear Magalie:

·;t;', ,~(:'~''''itrF "ts (OMMtSSfa~/:

r<~·-f'(

I am writing to submit comments "IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS FORRECONSIDERATION OF THE REPORTED ORDER ON VIDEO DESCRIPTION".The Docket No. is 99-339)

I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Commissioners ofthe FCC for their courageous July vote requiring the networks to beginproviding this essential information service to people who are blind andvisually impaired. I am a totally blind person who has had the privilege ofwatching several movies with video description. I cannot tell you how much ithas enhanced my viewing of visual aspects of the films. Prior to videodescription, I would have to rely on friends or family to describe action inparts where there was no dialogue. Many a time I was left to only wonder orguess.With video description, I am able to receive the information seen by my sightedpeers.With descriptive video service (DVS), I have a greater appreciation andunderstanding of the movie or television program content. I am pleased thatpublic broadcasting has made several of its programs available through DVS.

I am really looking forward to having this same service available through themeans of commercial and cable television. We as blind persons are entitled tothe same information that the general public sees.This includes weather alerts or emergency advisories.I also hope that advertisers of products will include audio telephone number

announcements of what is displayed on the screen.

I look forward to the day when I will be able to watch comedies, dramas andmovies with video description. Since broadcasters have provided "closedcaptioning" for the deaf, I thank the FCC for recognizing that those of us witha visual disability deserve similar access.

To date, the petitioners have not provided any new information which was notalready known when the FCC reached its july, 2000 rUling.

Thank you once again for your support of video description services.

Sincerely,

Donna Fanelle

cc: <info@acb.org>

From:To:Date:SUbject:description

OOCKET FILE COpy ORiGINAL"tony swartz" <tonyswartz@fast.net><info@acb.org>, <access@fcc.gov>Mon, Nov 6, 2000 9:38 PMComments in opposition to petitioners for reconsideration of the reported order on video

1944 Girard Ave.Allentown Pa. 18104-1114

November 4, 2000I

-..1

Magalie Salas, Secretarythe Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street SWWashington, DC 20554

Dear Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission,

First, allow me to express my gratitude and appreciation foryour momentous ruling of July 21, 2000 mandating thetelevision networks to begin providing DescriptiveVideo, docket no. 99339. This decision clearlyestablishes a course of action which will grant thoseof us who are blind much greater access to thismedium. I am, therefore, submitting comments inopposition to the petitioners for reconsideration ofthe reported order on video description.

To a person who is blind or visually impaired,watching television is not as one older sighted friendsupposed "just like we used to listen to the old radioshows". I have become increasingly aware that thismedium relies heavily on what can be communicatedvisually. Settings, costumes, the nonverbal reactionsof characters all contribute substantially to thegreater power of what this medium can convey.

What have I done in the absence of VideoDescription? At times, I have attempted to draw someinferences based on dialogue or, in the absence ofdialogue, I might ask a friend or family member, ifavailable, to attempt to describe the action. But,more often than not I have avoided television andwhile some might suppose this to be a positiveconclusion, the truth is that television is anintegral part of our culture with great potential forinforming, as well as, entertaining.

From my perspective as an individual who is blind,I can only tell you that the service is trulyworthwhile and appreciated. I would ask you toremember that the single disadvantage of blindness, atits core, is simply to live in the absence of

I'

information provided by the sense of sight. For thoseof us who are blind television viewers, DescriptiveVideo effectively fills in the information gapsallowing us the opportunity to share in the experienceof this highly visual medium. It is, therefore,unconscionable that individuals blind or visuallyimpaired should be excluded from the fullest possibleaccess to television.

It is understandable why the television, cable,and movie industries would submit a petition forreconsideration of the Video Description ruling, butit is personally appalling and revolting that anational organization of the blind would join them. Itis most obvious that the National Federation of theBlind is not in touch with the majority of the blindpopulation on this issue. Furthermore, the petitionersfor reconsideration have provided no new informationnot already available to Commissioners at the time ofthe ruling. I ask you to, therefore, deny theirpetition for reconsideration.

Your review and consideration of my comments aremost deeply appreciated.

Regards,Tony Swartz

Tony B. Swartz

1944 Girard AveAllentown PA 18104-1114

Home phone# (610) 799-4565Work phone# (610) 782-3627

Home Email: tonyswartz@fast.netWork email: tonyswartz@lehighcounty.org

From:To:Date:Subject:

"Duane Davis" <ddavis@unca.edu><access@fcc.gov>Mon, Nov 6,2000 8:31 PMdo not reconsider the july ruling

[X)CKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL

November 6,2000

Ms. Magalie Salas, SecretaryThe Federal Communication Commission445 12th Street S.W.Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Ms. Salas:

I want to commend the Commissioners of the FCC for the July]'"''''decision to demand that video description be provided forbroadcasts. This will be a great thing for visually impairedpeople. However, I was saddened to hear that some special interestswere lobbying to get you to reconsider this important decision. Iam submitting comments in opposition to petitioners forreconsideration of the reported order on video description.

It is frustrating to visually impaired individuals to watch aprogram for 50 minutes only to wonder what happens at the endbecause the ending was "visual." This may not seem like a veryimportant issue to some people, but it is part of the daily seriesof events that conspire to wear down the spirit and discourage thosewho have visual impairments. Every day there are countless thingsthat visually impaired people cannot do that many people take forgranted in their daily activities. Every day, over and over again,visually impaired people are confronted with the abject realizationthat they cannot participate in society as others do. The long-termeffects of these are discouraging and depressing. It is good forthe visually impaired individuals, and good for society, forvisually impaired individuals to be motivated and included wheneverpossible instead of actively excluding them from everydayactivities. I think that it is important that the FCC notreconsider the July ruling, since this would be an outright act ofexclusion, I implore you to go forward with video description asplanned.

Sincerely,

Duane H. DavisAssistant Professor of Philosophy

Duane H. DavisPhilosophy DepartmentUNC Asheville, CPO# 1610One University HeightsAsheville, NC 28804-8505

"

• r'"..'",., j>;-V------

phone (828) 251-6367fax (828) 251-6820

cc: <info@acb.org>