Clock is Ticking on FCC Captioning Exemption Requests
The 37-page list, a Word document (there is also a PDF version), can be downloaded from the FCC website, and there is another list on the web on the FCC's captioning exemptions page. These lists are not organized by state, but there is an organized list on the web that makes it easier to quickly locate petitioners in your state and maybe even your home town.
Many of the petitioners produce infomercials. Infomercials are not exempt from captioning requirements. Some of the petitioners are using expensive lawyers at the same time that they are declaring that they have an undue burden. For example, Crozier & Henderson Productions of Dallas, Texas, a producer of new home television programs, is using the law firm Fish & Richardson P.C., which is at 1425 K Street, N.W. in Washington, DC. According to Fish & Richardson's website, "The firm is one of the largest firms practicing intellectual property, litigation, and corporate law..."
Following the instructions provided in the Word document, I downloaded the four-page Crozier & Henderson petition, filed by Fish & Richardson in March 2006. Their argument is that they were not notified until December 2005 of the requirement to caption, and were therefore unable to include that cost in client agreements. They are asking for a two-year exemption until they can "secure funding" and "train sales staff."
Finally, until the FCC issues a decision, petitioners are not required to caption. The exact language on the FCC exemptions webpage is this: "Pursuant to the closed captioning rules, during the pendency of an undue burden determination, the video programming subject to the request for exemption shall be considered exempt from the closed captioning requirements."


Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment