Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered ) MB Docket No. 11-154 Video Programming: Implementation of the ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 )

COMMENTS OF HDMI LICENSING, LLC

HDMI Licensing, LLC (“HDMI Licensing”)1 hereby comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”) adopted by the Federal Communications Commission

(“FCC” or “Commission”) in the above-captioned proceeding.2 HDMI Licensing shares the

Commission’s goal of increasing access to video programming for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community and is pleased to work with the Commission as it implements the Twenty-First

Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”).3

1 HDMI Licensing is the agent responsible for licensing the HDMI specification, promoting the HDMI standard and providing education on the benefits of the HDMI specification to adopters, retailers, and consumers. 2 Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty- First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 11-154, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-138 (rel. Sept. 19, 2011) (“Notice”). 3 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of Title 47 of the United States Code). The law was enacted on October 8, 2010 (S. 3304, 111th Cong.). See also Amendment of Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010), also enacted on October 8, 2010, to make technical corrections to the CVAA and the CVAA’s amendments to the Communications Act of 1934. Section 203 of the CVAA, which the Commission seeks to implement in the instant proceeding, expands the number of devices that are required to be capable of decoding and displaying closed captioning, video description, and emergency information requirements. I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

High-Definition Multimedia Interface (“HDMI”) is the all-digital interface standard for

the consumer electronics and personal computer markets.4 The HDMI specification, which was

launched in 2003, combines uncompressed high-definition video, multi-channel audio, and data

in a single digital interface to provide crystal-clear digital quality over a single cable. In the

eight years since the launch of HDMI, more than two billion HDMI-enabled devices have been

sold into the global market. According to a leading market research firm, HDMI ports are

included in 100 percent of digital televisions and Blu-ray players, as well in the vast majority of

DVD players (95 percent), and in a substantial number of set-top boxes (32 percent).5 HDMI ports can also be found on laptops, personal computers, A/V receivers, game consoles, cell phones, media players, and a variety of other source and display devices. At the present time, more than 1,100 manufacturers are adopters of the specification.6

As a key participant in the delivery of digital video programming to consumers, HDMI

Licensing is keenly aware that demand for programming delivered via Internet Protocol (“IP”) is exploding. HDMI Licensing encourages the Commission to carefully consider how to preserve the flexibility that is so critical to innovation of digital products and services, while meeting its statutory mandate and important public policy goal of increasing accessibility. As explained

below, the digital world – and particularly the world of the Internet – presents both challenges

4 See HDMI, http://www.hdmi.org (last visited Oct. 18, 2011). The HDMI specification was developed by Hitachi Consumer Electronics, Panasonic Corporation, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Silicon Image, Inc., Sony Corporation, Technicolor S.A., and Toshiba Corporation. 5 IN-STAT, DVI and HDMI: DVI Won’t Die, and HDMI Rolls On (Dec. 2010), abstract available at http://www.instat.com/catalog/mmcatalogue.asp?id=161. 6 See HDMI, HDMI Adopters, http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters founders.aspx (last visited Oct. 18, 2011).

2 and opportunities. HDMI Licensing welcomes the opportunity to assist the Commission in addressing these challenges and embracing opportunities.7

II. DIGITAL SOURCE DEVICES AND CONNECTION STANDARDS RAISE TECHNICAL COMPLEXITIES BUT OFFER MYRIAD OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION

HDMI Licensing is aware that many deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers have not easily adapted to using closed captioning in a setup that includes digital source devices connected to a television over a digital interface. The HDMI specification does allow for the transmission of closed captioning data embedded (decoded and mixed) in the video stream; however, this model is implemented inconsistently in source devices, and thus is poorly understood by many consumers.8 Below is a brief explanation of how digital closed captioning (using the HDMI interface) differs from analog closed captioning. Based on the HDMI experience, HDMI

Licensing stands ready to help translate digital captioning capabilities to content delivered over the Internet.

A. ANALOG CLOSED CAPTIONING WAS SIMPLE

The paradigm for sending and receiving closed captioning data was fairly simple in a world where most content was sent to television receivers in the form of analog broadcast signals. Closed captioning information was sent over the air as part of the composite video signal and received by a television, decoded, and displayed on the screen. Line 21 in an analog

NTSC signal was used as the transmit path for closed captioning data. The benefits of this model were that every television could receive and decode the signal, and the television remote control

7 HDMI Licensing and its members, the Founders of HDMI, have participated in meetings of the Commission’s Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee (“VPAAC”). HDMI Licensing commends the VPAAC for reaching a rough consensus among industry and disabilities groups on numerous technical issues involving IP captioning. 8 See HDMI, FAQ, http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#117 (last visited Oct. 18, 2011).

3 had a “CC” button that would toggle on and off the television’s rendering of the closed captioning information. The digital world is not nearly as simple.

B. DIGITAL CLOSED CAPTIONING PRESENTS CHALLENGES

There has never been an equivalent requirement for digital interfaces to carry closed captioning information in the same way that NTSC connections carried the information over

Line 21. In addition, there has been a proliferation of different source devices to receive broadcast content, most notably multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) set-top boxes. Thus, over a digital interface, the model for delivering closed captioning data changed.

Today, closed captioning data is multiplexed with compressed video and audio into a single stream. Source devices decode the video and audio program from this stream, as well as decode the associated closed captioning information into graphics, and embed this decoded closed captioning into the video signal, effectively changing the closed captioning into open captioning. This video signal is then sent over the video interface (such as DVI, HDMI, etc.), and the television displays the video stream with the closed captioning as part of the picture.

Thus, the television itself no longer is responsible for rendering closed captioning data along with the video image, since this function has already been performed in the source device. In such a setup, decoding and inserting of the closed captioning in the source device is controlled by the user interface and remote control that correspond to the source device.

There are two consequences of this model. First, although many DVD players, Blu-Ray players, and other types of source devices embed the (decoded) closed captioning into the video stream, they are not required to do so, and some do not. This results in inconsistent implementation of closed captioning functionality on source devices. Second, since the television is no longer the single device that combines closed captioning data with the video picture (with a single “CC” button on the television remote), and since the responsibility now lies 4 in a variety of source devices, implementation of closed captioning functionality is inconsistent and at times, difficult for end users to understand. Menus may be difficult to find or navigate, particularly for users who were accustomed to pressing a button to access the captioning feature, and these features may differ among various devices.

C. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ADOPT RULES FOR INTERCONNECTION MECHANISMS

The HDMI interface can today “permit or render the display of closed captions” so long as source devices “render” the captions into open captions, which HDMI carries, to “permit” the display-only video monitor to display the captions. HDMI Licensing believes the HDMI specification is fully consistent with the goals of the CVAA. Furthermore, source devices must have an obligation for closed captioning decoding because the CVAA provides that “any apparatus or class of apparatus that are display-only video monitors with no playback capability are exempt from the requirements” to display or render captions. Therefore an interface that carries open captions in uncompressed format is necessary, and carriage of closed captioning data will not “permit or render the display of closed captions” with such monitors.

HDMI Licensing urges the Commission to defer any action on interfaces until it can more fully evaluate the underlying technical issues with the assistance of the industry (i.e., through the

VPAAC).9 There is no need to regulate in this area now, and any such requirements would impose substantial costs, primarily to the displays that would need to add additional functionality in order to accept closed captioning data through digital interfaces. Rather, the Commission should focus on the primary objectives of Section 203 of the CVAA and allow IP captioning to develop more fully before considering any requirements for interfaces. In any event, the

Commission should not attempt to mirror here the requirements it imposed in the analog space,

9 Notice ¶ 55.

5 as this would foreclose innovation and adversely impact all consumers of IP-delivered programming, including the deaf and hard of hearing.

III. CONCLUSION

Closed captioning functionality currently is available to most consumers of broadcast and

MVPD-delivered programming, although not always to viewers of streaming or disc-based media. Depending on the user’s specific configuration of equipment, accessing this functionality may be more or less complicated; however, it is unlikely to ever be as simple and consistent as it was in the days of analog television. Nevertheless, HDMI Licensing believes that some of this simplicity and consistency can be brought into the digital world and expanded to IP-delivered programming.

It is incumbent on all of us in the industry to continue to improve the ways in which closed captioning functionality is easy to access and consistently available to the public. HDMI

Licensing looks forward to assisting the Commission and consumers in this regard.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Steve Venuti

Steve Venuti President HDMI Licensing, LLC 1140 East Arques Avenue, Suite 100 Sunnyvale, CA 97085 408.616.6316

October 18, 2011

6