Introduction and key findings
The Deaf Broadcasting Council (DBC) is a consumer organisation with the remit of ensuring that service providers are aware of the needs of deaf, deafened and hard of hearing people where television, video and audio visual communications are concerned. Throughout this response we use the word "deaf" to cover the full range of hearing impairment.

We welcome the government's recognition of the needs of the people we represent. However, we have concerns to ensure that the framework laid down by the White Paper will resolve our concerns on current gaps in access, for example live elements in regional news programmes are not always subtitled which is frustrating for the viewer. Similarly there is a perception that the number of programmes which are advertised as being subtitled is increasing but when transmitted the subtitles fail to appear which results in great disappointment for the potential audience.

How can these service failures be rectified to improve the quality of access for viewers without putting service providers into a straitjacket?

DBC points out that, for deaf people, the sound element in broadcasting is replaced by text. We do not think the importance of this point is fully understood by service providers and calls upon the government to require service providers to put visual access to television on a par to that of sound.

All PSB on the Internet should be required to carry subtitling.

We particularly welcome the fact that cable and satellite channels will be drawn into the regulatory framework and hope this will be achieved at an early date.

Regulation
In order for the proposed regulatory framework to be effective, each constituent regulatory body within OFCOM will need to be given a clearly laid sector-specific remit. It will also be necessary to ensure that doubtful areas of responsibility can be speedily resolved.

Broadcast signals should be regulated from the transmission suite to the receiver (end-to-end) to ensure that everyone - and especially those in areas with poor analogue reception - can benefit from digital services

Consumer Representation
DBC welcomes the statement in section 7.5 of the White Paper on the establishment of a Consumer Panel; however, our over-riding view is that consumer representation must be strengthened throughout the regulatory framework to reassure consumers who currently perceive regulators as being remote and unaccountable.

Accordingly DBC would like to see representative consumer panels established to bring the consumer voice directly into OFCOM, one such panel should comprise representatives of the full range of hearing impairment as well as hearing impaired people with known technical or disciplinary awareness/skills. In turn, the aim should be for each consumer panel to be represented on the main governing body of OFCOM to facilitate good communications and practice throughout the regulatory process.

In drawing up budgets for OFCOM funding should be allocated to enable constituent bodies and representatives within OFCOM to play a full part in the regulatory process.

Equipment
We welcome the statement in 7.8 that OFCOM will encourage industry to develop standards for the interoperability of communications equipment. We would like to see this requirement strengthened and clear benchmarks laid down as to how it will work in practice. In particular we would like to see a recommendation that Standards to be adopted should conform to recognised European and International benchmarks to facilitate the requirements of Universal Service.

DBC would also like to see the principle of Inclusive Design firmly enshrined in law. For too long provision of equipment to enable us to record subtitles has been left to the goodwill of a few manufacturers and ongoing lobbying by organisations and consumers. There will always be a need for special equipment - eg for deafblind people - but it should be possible to facilitate the needs of the majority of deaf people - including those who wish to watch programmes with sign language - by Inclusive Design.

Good practice in design would require manufacturers to provide clear, concise instructions for use of equipment and bear in mind that many people have difficulty using remote control handsets to their full potential.

If all else fails and special equipment is required to facilitate access to ancillary services, the cost of the equipment should be met from the public purse or lottery funding. It should not be a charge on a sector of the community that is already disadvantaged by disability.

Subtitling quotas
DBC is surprised that the target quota for the provision of subtitling DTT services is set to 80% by the tenth anniversary. We consider that the underlying aim should be for 100% of programmes to be subtitled at the earliest possible date. Technology is improving at a rapid pace and can be harnessed to reduce the time needed to subtitle pre-recorded programmes which in turn will help to bring the cost of providing subtitling down.

We call on the government to recognise that access to television has greatly improved the quality of life for deaf people, it has helped to empower them and convey information, which might otherwise have eluded them. DBC proposes that the basic quota is increased to 100% within five years but that regulators should consult with consumer organisations to negotiate the possibility of exemptions or lower quotas in special cases. We accept that these are tough targets but see no valid reason why they cannot be achieved, especially since legislation will not be on the statute books for at least another year.

Whilst calling for a target of 100%, may we stress that this should be an underlying target, legislation would stipulate a target of 95% to ensure that service providers are not subjected to legal action should they at any time fail to achieve the 100% benchmark.

As a general rule of thumb, exemptions should be the exception rather than the rule. Experience tells us that there is always someone who wants to watch the programme which is not subtitled, providing access should therefore be seen as a means of increasing the broadcasters' share of the audience.

It will be necessary for all parties to consult on how these targets can be reached in terms of suitably qualified personnel both for pre-recorded and live subtitling. DBC is committed to ensuring that increased quantity of access is not at the expense of quality and take this opportunity of congratulating all service providers on the high quality of service currently provided.

All parties should bear in mind that take up of digital services by deaf people will be slow whilst the current subtitling quotas are seen to be so low as to be unrealistic. There is also a need for service providers to promote - or raise the profile - for access to programmes which are subtitled and/or signed. There is an ongoing general lack of awareness of these services which could be overcome, at least in part, by using programme trailers to indicate ancillary accessibility.

Measuring Targets
We are opposed to the proposal in 4.8.1 to measure targets to a yearly average and recommend that the weekly target should be unchanged. Our concern is based on the possibility that this could result in "bundling" of quotas, for example for sporting events, which tends to be unpopular with those who are not interested in particular categories of programmes.

Sign language
We accept that the current targets should be left unchanged for the time being and reviewed on a two-yearly basis. Consideration should be given to commissioning in depth research on an ongoing basis to ensure that the service meets the needs and expectations of the target audience.

Videos
Currently videos are approved for distribution by BBFC on the basis of the picture and dialogue. If and when the video company agrees to incorporate subtitling, the video has to be re-submitted for the subtitling to be approved. This is an expensive process for the video company and DBC hopes that the government will seek to establish a more effective means of certification for videos. Ideally we would like to see subtitling of videos and DVDs subject to a mandatory requirement as not all companies are willing to subtitle them on a voluntary basis.

Conclusion
We hope the government will give due consideration to the issues addressed in this submission and would be happy to respond to queries or provide clarification if required.