Bad News, Good News
Jesse Walker | June 1, 2005, 4:06pm
Reader Jeff Patterson passes along two stories from the broadcasting beat. First: In a bizarre case of a punishment not fitting the crime, the Washington TV station WJLA has been fined an astonishing $8,000 for failing to display closed-caption information during a storm report. Why the high penalty? Because the FCC believes that this error is "analogous" to "failure to install and operate Emergency Alert System equipment." (The EAS was not involved with the alert in question.) Two other stations face $16,000 fines -- seems they made the mistake twice.
Patterson, who works in TV himself, comments that it's "the consensus of myself and my counterparts at several other stations that the easiest way to insure we won't get in trouble for improperly captioning our weather alerts is to just not do them."
On the brighter side, Wired News describes the possible emergence of roadcasting:
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are developing an ad hoc networking system for cars that would allow any driver to broadcast music to any other vehicle within a 30-mile radius....
The system -- still largely theoretical -- will also feature a collaborative-filtering mechanism that compares music in a recipients' collection to that of the broadcaster. The filter will pump out a mix of songs matching the listener's tastes.
There are more practical applications as well:
Using 802.11p technology, a Wi-Fi variant designed for vehicles, mobile ad hoc networks would serve two important purposes, [analyst Dan] Benjamin said. First, vehicles with built-in 802.11p could serve as nodes in mesh networks and send each other safety notifications in case of accidents, or potential accidents. Acting as nodes in a mesh, each car would extend the network's signal a mile at a time.
Secondly, Benjamin said, vehicles with such technology could serve as nodes and pass on traffic information that would help drivers choose the most efficient routes to their destinations.
Anon | June 2, 2005, 11:34am | #
Quick, surely incomplete response, because dammit I actually have to work today:
I missed the link to the actual ruling the first time around. I recognize that the reports were voluntary, but I'm more concerned about the definition of "emergency," as given in section...A 5., I think, of the ruling. It seems to me that during those types of events the government would like as many people as possible to receive the relevant information. It still seems to me that the problem is to get companies away from the suboptimal solution without getting them to shut down alerts completely. If the alert is important enough that people should leave their homes and go to shelters, an effort should be made to get that information to everyone.
Jennifer, given your classroom example, what do you feel the analogous action should have been with respect to the stations? Ask them not to do it again? I would note that the ruling suggests that the Commission has already done that:
"Since the adoption of the rules, the
Commission repeatedly reminded video programming distributors of their obligation to make emergency
information accessible [to the hearing disabled]."
I would also note that Jeff suggests that the stations were doing a bit of ratings grabbing -- which doesn't mean the alerts weren't justified. But as I said before, I don't mind if unnecessarily dramatic weather forecasts go the way of the ghost. But real, "there's been an industrial explosion" type reports will remain, and suggesting that stations need to give some thought to the hearing impaired when they prepare their emergency broadcasts is not inherently a bad thing. Unless the information is _EXTREMELY_ time critical -- "the tornado will land in 15 seconds" -- how difficult is it to take a moment to make a chart? Or to write TORNADO WARNING, GO TO YOUR NEAREST SHELTER on a piece of paper? (According to Section III, 11, one of the fined stations had already made up the necessary charts and had used them in the past.) I would argue that most of the time criticality doesn't have to do with the event -- it has to do with ratings, which really shouldn't be the FCC concern.
I feel that the fee is exorbitant, and the tidbit I mentioned in the previous paragraph suggests that the stations are making a good-faith effort to use aids understandable by the hearing impaired, so I would like a solution that cuts them some slack. But (though it pains me to say it), I don't think the ruling itself is _inherently_ unreasonable. I do hope Jeff reports on any Q&A he does with the FCC rep, however. I would like to know what the fallout of this policy has been -- because, again, I can't imagine that any station will really stop, say, giving tornado warnings.
Now, back to wo--er, time for lunch.
Anon
