If subtitling was a legal requirement on all channels then BSL only programs would be illegal too, but they claim exemption as a minority, and you cannot insist they caption output online, when they claim they don't 'do' English..
More concerns TV output in the UK isn't completely accessible via captions or subtitling..
It's difficult to see WHICH UK channels are depriving us of access in the UK, apart from the obvious 'Parliament' and 'community' channels which ATR lobbied for access to, as we believe access to the prime area running our country and deciding on our lives, and our access, demands equality, but ATR was swamped with deaf and HoH people telling ATR politics is BORING !! who cares about politics ?
Or if it is accessible or not ? But, 'Parliament TV' and regionally covered Assembly TV coverage is NOT the responsibility of the BBC or ITV as the most coverage comes via independent producers, or political areas simply post up to youtube to save money, none are responsible for titled coverage it seems. So all we cannot on the news is excerpts of question time, which focuses on personalities/sound bites, not issues or their background in any detail.
We are too stupid to read the small print obviously. ATR had some welsh political videos removed from youtube that was not captioned, but they were not replaced WITH regular accessible ones. No money to do it, is the argument, there is some light at the end of the tunnel in that they now, after 5 years lobbying, will caption the leader's question time in Wales, but nothing else, mirroring the mainline channel approach.
When ATR insisted we had a right to have Political coverage captioned Ofcom said "It doesn't have the viewers to justify access", 'Go read Hansard' except Hansard is Westminster not Cardiff, or Edinborough or Stormont... There is another angle on our 'statistical' access they are applying. You now have to justify the program you want to see is being watched by others in number. In the welsh case you actually needed NINE TIMES the actual HoH or deaf population to watch a program BEFORE you can demand access it (!!!!). How we do that ? WITHOUT access FIRST being there ?
They also quoted the X9 figures on 'NATIONAL' basis (i.e. UK-wide), despite it being obvious there is no audience for Scottish/Irish or Welsh politics outside own area.
The cut off for access is also based on 'percentages' compared with popular prime-time programs, but it varies as they don't quote what that cut off point really is compared to. Compared with a prime-time program of 10m viewers ? or a fixed number e.g. around 15,000 viewers ? or a 100,000 viewers ? They don't record any TV channel with less than 15K viewers at all, maybe that is the cut off point ?
There are grey areas. Programs like SEE HEAR e.g. can have NO VIEWERS yet you cannot get rid of it, it is a 'protected' program, which I think is ridiculous given they don't have HoH input, don't have a really viable audience, and won't give the disabled area the same access.... Albeit the BBC constantly wants See Hear gone, and removed feedback from its website, it cannot do it, so they moved it away from mainstream instead to put more viable programs on, and has effectively removed it from view. Yes you can go online but the viewing there is dire too.
We DON'T have an automatic right for subtitling every program. We have zero control over output from other countries, and we cannot insist as a requirement of being aggregated to SKY/Virgin UK they must comply either, they can 'ask', and we have asked SKY and Virgin to 'suggest' they do, but these other channels have said the extra cost doesn't justify in terms of extra viewers, they aren't a charity or a social service, but a TV station. Others play hearing viewers off against the deaf. On one channel this caused a backlash against deaf people, accused of putting their favourite channel under threat by demands for access. SKY TV news removed BSL signed access on news bulletins for that.
Some 'facts': ITV terrestrial TV provides 96% subtiling access, the BBC 100 per cent, yet deaf STILL complain they don't have full access and blame primarily the BBC.. The issue isn't just coverage, it's quality, the more access you get the less quality you do, sod's law.... because software is involved, and we all know what software YouTube rely on is like ! and, who is ultimately responsible for provision ? In reality the statistics are 'doctored'..
There seems an issue of how subtitling programmes are actually registered. They are quoting primary TV channels like the main BBC ones and the primary ITV ones, but any programme output subcontracted out by them, means that those who provide that are being held responsible for access, not main channels, who air them, but it can be argued as they are airing subcontracted output, that isn't titled, then they became responsible for that. While they debate the responsibility YOU don't get to watch.
The BBC says they insist on access before they air a program, but deaf viewers are saying that isn't true, they are using the excuse receiver 'issues' as blame when titles don't appear. People with hearing loss have preferences too, and this does extend to not caring if a particular program is captioned/titled or not, because it's not of interest to them.
They want to access all areas or they don't ? a dodgy move others will exploit. Via these debates we keep asking WHICH programs are they saying are not accessible ? and they come back attacking the BBC, the leading channel offering us access. What are they watching ?
Only via DEMAND will you get subtitling, there is no 'blanket' decision on all output. Sign language access is SET at 5-7% even the BDA accepts they will never get more than that. It's telling, the Deaf accept they won't get their access..