by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair
FCC Amends Closed Captioning Rules for Video Programmers – Docket No: 05-23125-133: Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking; Delete, Delete, Delete Proceedings
From: Mike Wassenaar, President Alliance for Community Media (ACM) & National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA)
In 2016, the ACM asked the FCC to waive closed captioning registration rules for public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) program producers. On August 26, 2026, this request was granted.
The FCC agreed with this decade-long crusade by releasing a Report and Order that amended its registration and certification closed captioning requirements to alleviate obligations for providers of PEG programming and providers of programming carried on nonbroadcast networks. The Report, when published in the Federal Register, will go into effect in 30 days.
In some trade magazines, there have been headlines that say the FCC has lifted captioning requirements for cable channels. This is not in fact the case. What they have done is lifted the registration requirements for video producers on PEG channels that are exempt from FCC captioning rules.
So what this means is, probably at the end of this calendar year, a simple registration process system will be set up for any cable channel in the United States to get a FCC registration number, and then state whether or not they are an exempt channel or not based upon the captioning rules that exist for the FCC.
Individual local government, educational, and nonprofit operated channels are probably exempt from the FCC’s captioning rules that were set in 1998.
The order from 2016 says that there is a deadline for registering and that each cable channel in the United States should keep a point of contact in case there are consumer complaints, which is actually a useful resource if residents are questioning why videos don’t have captions or if they have problems with the captions that the station is providing. This clarity and point of contact speeds up the process of resolving conflict and actually helps residents understand what is going on with local channels and the community.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-amends-closed-captioning-rules-video-programmers
Statement of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr:
Back in 2016, stakeholders asked the FCC to streamline closed captioning registration and certification requirements for producers that provide programs exclusively to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels. At the time, they raised concerns that requiring volunteers and community groups – such as Cub Scouts or gospel choirs – that were exempt from captioning rules to comply with those underlying obligations was both burdensome and needless. Stakeholders also asked the FCC to relieve program owners from compliance with captioning rules when their programs on linear networks were distributed by MVPDs, since the network already certifies compliance.
In the agency’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, commenters raised these concerns again. And today, 10 years later, we finally take action. We have voted to eliminate these unnecessarily duplicative requirements, saving hundreds of thousands of programmers a total of nearly $2.5 million annually in needless regulatory costs. We’ve concluded from the record that this action would have no negative impact on captioning availability or quality. This item continues the Commission’s work to eliminate outdated rules and minimize duplicative obligations that provide no consumer benefit.
Thank you to staff for their hard work on this item, including Eduard Bartholme, Lisa Edwards, Robert Aldrich, Suzy Rosen Singleton, Michael Scott, Joshua Mendelsohn, and Ike Ofobike, as well as staff from the Offices of Communications Business Opportunities, Economics and Analytics, Enforcement Bureau, General Counsel, and Media Bureau.
Self Implementing Exemptions:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/self-implementing-exemptions-closed-captioning-rules
Closed Captioning Rules Section 79.1(d) of the Commission’s rules contains several exemptions to the closed captioning rules. These are self-implementing exemptions, meaning that a provider does not need to seek Commission approval of the claimed exemption. As such, the Commission does not “certify” that a provider falls within a self-implementing exemption.
If a program or provider does not meet the criteria for one of these self-implementing exemptions and it would be economically burdensome to close caption, Section 79.1(f) outlines the process for seeking an exemption on this basis.
For purposes of determining compliance with Section 79.1, any video programming provider that meets one or more of the following criteria shall be exempt to the extent specified.
(1) Programming subject to contractual captioning restrictions. Video programming that is subject to a contract in effect on or before February 8, 1996, but not any extension or renewal of such contract, for which an obligation to provide closed captioning would constitute a breach of contract.
(2) Video programming or video programming provider for which the captioning requirement has been waived. Any video programming or video programming provider for which the Commission has determined that a requirement for closed captioning is economically burdensome on the basis of a petition for exemption filed in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Programming other than English or Spanish language. All programming for which the audio is in a language other than English or Spanish, except that scripted programming that can be captioned using the “electronic news room” technique, is not exempt.
(4) Primarily textual programming. Video programming or portions of video programming for which the content of the soundtrack is displayed visually through text or graphics (e.g., program schedule channels or community bulletin boards).
(5) Programming distributed in the late night hours. Programming that is being distributed to residential households between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. local time. Video programming distributors providing a channel that consists of a service that is distributed and exhibited for viewing in more than a single time zone shall be exempt from closed captioning that service for any continuous 4 hour time period they may select, commencing not earlier than 12 a.m. local time and ending not later than 7 a.m. local time in any location where that service is intended for viewing. This exemption is to be determined based on the primary reception locations and remains applicable even if the transmission is accessible and distributed or exhibited in other time zones on a secondary basis. Video programming distributors providing service outside of the 48 contiguous states may treat as exempt programming that is exempt under this paragraph when distributed in the contiguous states.
(6) Interstitials, promotional announcements and public service announcements. Interstitial material, promotional announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or less in duration.
(7) EBS programming. Video programming transmitted by Educational Broadband Service licensee pursuant to Part 27 of this Chapter.
(8) Locally produced and distributed non-news programming with no repeat value. Programming that is locally produced by the video programming distributor, has no repeat value, is of local public interest, is not news programming, and for which the “electronic news room” technique of captioning is unavailable.
(See ¶ 158 of 1997 R&O and ¶¶ 57-61 of 1998 Recon Order.)
(9) Programming on new networks. Programming on a video programming network for the first four years after it begins operation, except that programming on a video programming network that was in operation less than four (4) years on January 1, 1998 is exempt until January 1, 2002.
(10) Primarily non-vocal musical programming. Programming that consists primarily of non-vocal music.
(11) Captioning expense in excess of 2% of gross revenues. No video programming provider shall be required to expend any money to caption any video programming if such expenditure would exceed 2% of the gross revenues received from that channel during the previous calendar year.
(12) Channels producing revenues of under $3,000,000. No video programming provider shall be required to expend any money to caption any channel of video programming producing annual gross revenues of less than $3,000,000 during the previous calendar year other than the obligation to pass through video programming already captioned when received pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(13) Locally produced educational programming. Instructional programming that is locally produced by public television stations for use in grades K-12 and post secondary schools.
For the most recent revisions, please visit the eCFR.
Even if a program or a provider is exempt under the Commission’s rules, it may still have obligations under other federal laws to make its video programming accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ADA rules apply to just about everyone and to PEG channels.
There’s a process by which you, whether a nonprofit or a local government, can determine whether or not captioning or other assistive technology is an undue burden or changes the nature of your service. But those are ADA standards and questions about implementing ADA has nothing to do with the FCC.
Please contact us if you are in need of any further information:
Mike Wassenaar, President
Alliance for Community Media
mwassenaar@allcommunitymedia.org
David Garb, Legislative Chair
Jersey Access Group
davegarb@paps.net
Calling on Advocates to Respond to FCC’s Proposed Throttling of E-Rate
From: Lisa Peet, Executive Editor for Library Journal; Joseph Wender, Executive Director, The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition; and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society
Library Journal:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, calling for a major review of the E-Rate program.
E-Rate, under which eligible schools, libraries, and consortia may apply for discounted telecommunications, internet access, and internal connections services, was established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It has become a lifeline to libraries of all sizes, across all regions of the United States, serving a widely diverse range of communities—especially rural, small, and Tribal libraries.
The NPRM, originally released by the FCC on June 26, poses questions as to whether E-Rate should be scaled back, narrowed in scope, or terminated entirely, weighing factors that include nationwide increases in connectivity rates over the program’s 30 years and concerns about excessive screen time among young people.
(SHLB) – How the E-Rate Program Works:
E-Rate lowers the cost of the broadband, internet, and internal network services that schools and libraries buy. The support arrives as a discount on those specific purchases.
The discount is based on need. Schools and libraries serving more low-income communities receive larger discounts, ranging from 20% to 90% of eligible costs.
Funding covers only eligible services and equipment, and applicants must run a competitive bidding process to select their providers. The competitive bidding process ensures that cost is the primary factor in applicants’ choice of provider.
E-Rate does not pay for laptops, tablets, software, or digital content. The program supports connectivity and the network that carries it.
The program operates under an annual spending cap, and participants are subject to audits and oversight.
E-Rate supports more than 100,000 schools and roughly 11,000 libraries across the country, providing approximately $3 billion in discounts every year.
Benton Institute – So What Happens If E-Rate Goes Away?
Schools and libraries would have to absorb the full cost of their internet service. For institutions already working with tight budgets, that money has to come from somewhere. That money comes out of staff and program budgets that make a school or library more than a building.
The deepest harms fall on the students who can least afford it since E-Rate discounts are tied to need. Schools and libraries in lower-income communities receive the largest discounts, which is a focus of the universal service program. Pull that funding, and the digital divide between well-resourced districts and struggling ones grows. The communities that depend most on E-Rate are the ones that would suffer the greatest.
The FCC also asks whether E-Rate support should be limited to rural areas. Universal service should not draw a distinction between a disadvantaged child in a rural town and a disadvantaged child in a city. Congress did not write that difference into the law, and there is no reason to invent it now.
It is also worth remembering that E-Rate does not stand alone. It is one of four programs funded through the Universal Service Fund, and those programs reinforce one another. Weakening E-Rate weakens the entire system that brings affordable connections to schools, libraries, rural and urban communities, low-income families, and health care providers. A threat to one is a threat to all.
Library Journal:
The NPRM, originally released by the FCC on June 26, poses questions as to whether E-Rate should be scaled back, narrowed in scope, or terminated entirely, weighing factors that include nationwide increases in connectivity rates over the program’s 30 years, concerns about excessive screen time among young people, and interpretations of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA).
A companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) proposes stricter oversight on third-party consultants and more streamlined administration of the program’s funds.
All libraries, schools, and community stakeholders are strongly urged to respond to the NPRM. Initial comments are due on or before midnight Eastern time on October 13; responses to those comments are due by November 12.
The Jersey Access Group has been representing the interests of municipal and community media in both Trenton and Washington, DC for over 25 years. The Legislative Committee keeps a watchful eye on bills and actions that may affect the interests and needs of our diverse communities. This includes analyzing and addressing emerging developments and changes in the telecommunication industry that could be an issue for our operations, and that of our local municipalities.
JAG’s efforts on behalf of our members and the residents of New Jersey have never been more important!
Like this:
Like Loading...
News from Trenton & Washington, DC and FCC Legislation Changes
Posted: September 20, 2026 by Rich Desimone
by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair
FCC Amends Closed Captioning Rules for Video Programmers – Docket No: 05-23125-133: Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking; Delete, Delete, Delete Proceedings
From: Mike Wassenaar, President Alliance for Community Media (ACM) & National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA)
In 2016, the ACM asked the FCC to waive closed captioning registration rules for public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) program producers. On August 26, 2026, this request was granted.
The FCC agreed with this decade-long crusade by releasing a Report and Order that amended its registration and certification closed captioning requirements to alleviate obligations for providers of PEG programming and providers of programming carried on nonbroadcast networks. The Report, when published in the Federal Register, will go into effect in 30 days.
In some trade magazines, there have been headlines that say the FCC has lifted captioning requirements for cable channels. This is not in fact the case. What they have done is lifted the registration requirements for video producers on PEG channels that are exempt from FCC captioning rules.
So what this means is, probably at the end of this calendar year, a simple registration process system will be set up for any cable channel in the United States to get a FCC registration number, and then state whether or not they are an exempt channel or not based upon the captioning rules that exist for the FCC.
Individual local government, educational, and nonprofit operated channels are probably exempt from the FCC’s captioning rules that were set in 1998.
The order from 2016 says that there is a deadline for registering and that each cable channel in the United States should keep a point of contact in case there are consumer complaints, which is actually a useful resource if residents are questioning why videos don’t have captions or if they have problems with the captions that the station is providing. This clarity and point of contact speeds up the process of resolving conflict and actually helps residents understand what is going on with local channels and the community.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-amends-closed-captioning-rules-video-programmers
Statement of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr:
Back in 2016, stakeholders asked the FCC to streamline closed captioning registration and certification requirements for producers that provide programs exclusively to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels. At the time, they raised concerns that requiring volunteers and community groups – such as Cub Scouts or gospel choirs – that were exempt from captioning rules to comply with those underlying obligations was both burdensome and needless. Stakeholders also asked the FCC to relieve program owners from compliance with captioning rules when their programs on linear networks were distributed by MVPDs, since the network already certifies compliance.
In the agency’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, commenters raised these concerns again. And today, 10 years later, we finally take action. We have voted to eliminate these unnecessarily duplicative requirements, saving hundreds of thousands of programmers a total of nearly $2.5 million annually in needless regulatory costs. We’ve concluded from the record that this action would have no negative impact on captioning availability or quality. This item continues the Commission’s work to eliminate outdated rules and minimize duplicative obligations that provide no consumer benefit.
Thank you to staff for their hard work on this item, including Eduard Bartholme, Lisa Edwards, Robert Aldrich, Suzy Rosen Singleton, Michael Scott, Joshua Mendelsohn, and Ike Ofobike, as well as staff from the Offices of Communications Business Opportunities, Economics and Analytics, Enforcement Bureau, General Counsel, and Media Bureau.
Self Implementing Exemptions:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/self-implementing-exemptions-closed-captioning-rules
Closed Captioning Rules Section 79.1(d) of the Commission’s rules contains several exemptions to the closed captioning rules. These are self-implementing exemptions, meaning that a provider does not need to seek Commission approval of the claimed exemption. As such, the Commission does not “certify” that a provider falls within a self-implementing exemption.
If a program or provider does not meet the criteria for one of these self-implementing exemptions and it would be economically burdensome to close caption, Section 79.1(f) outlines the process for seeking an exemption on this basis.
For purposes of determining compliance with Section 79.1, any video programming provider that meets one or more of the following criteria shall be exempt to the extent specified.
(1) Programming subject to contractual captioning restrictions. Video programming that is subject to a contract in effect on or before February 8, 1996, but not any extension or renewal of such contract, for which an obligation to provide closed captioning would constitute a breach of contract.
(2) Video programming or video programming provider for which the captioning requirement has been waived. Any video programming or video programming provider for which the Commission has determined that a requirement for closed captioning is economically burdensome on the basis of a petition for exemption filed in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Programming other than English or Spanish language. All programming for which the audio is in a language other than English or Spanish, except that scripted programming that can be captioned using the “electronic news room” technique, is not exempt.
(4) Primarily textual programming. Video programming or portions of video programming for which the content of the soundtrack is displayed visually through text or graphics (e.g., program schedule channels or community bulletin boards).
(5) Programming distributed in the late night hours. Programming that is being distributed to residential households between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. local time. Video programming distributors providing a channel that consists of a service that is distributed and exhibited for viewing in more than a single time zone shall be exempt from closed captioning that service for any continuous 4 hour time period they may select, commencing not earlier than 12 a.m. local time and ending not later than 7 a.m. local time in any location where that service is intended for viewing. This exemption is to be determined based on the primary reception locations and remains applicable even if the transmission is accessible and distributed or exhibited in other time zones on a secondary basis. Video programming distributors providing service outside of the 48 contiguous states may treat as exempt programming that is exempt under this paragraph when distributed in the contiguous states.
(6) Interstitials, promotional announcements and public service announcements. Interstitial material, promotional announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or less in duration.
(7) EBS programming. Video programming transmitted by Educational Broadband Service licensee pursuant to Part 27 of this Chapter.
(8) Locally produced and distributed non-news programming with no repeat value. Programming that is locally produced by the video programming distributor, has no repeat value, is of local public interest, is not news programming, and for which the “electronic news room” technique of captioning is unavailable.
(See ¶ 158 of 1997 R&O and ¶¶ 57-61 of 1998 Recon Order.)
(9) Programming on new networks. Programming on a video programming network for the first four years after it begins operation, except that programming on a video programming network that was in operation less than four (4) years on January 1, 1998 is exempt until January 1, 2002.
(10) Primarily non-vocal musical programming. Programming that consists primarily of non-vocal music.
(11) Captioning expense in excess of 2% of gross revenues. No video programming provider shall be required to expend any money to caption any video programming if such expenditure would exceed 2% of the gross revenues received from that channel during the previous calendar year.
(12) Channels producing revenues of under $3,000,000. No video programming provider shall be required to expend any money to caption any channel of video programming producing annual gross revenues of less than $3,000,000 during the previous calendar year other than the obligation to pass through video programming already captioned when received pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(13) Locally produced educational programming. Instructional programming that is locally produced by public television stations for use in grades K-12 and post secondary schools.
For the most recent revisions, please visit the eCFR.
Even if a program or a provider is exempt under the Commission’s rules, it may still have obligations under other federal laws to make its video programming accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ADA rules apply to just about everyone and to PEG channels.
There’s a process by which you, whether a nonprofit or a local government, can determine whether or not captioning or other assistive technology is an undue burden or changes the nature of your service. But those are ADA standards and questions about implementing ADA has nothing to do with the FCC.
Please contact us if you are in need of any further information:
Mike Wassenaar, President
Alliance for Community Media
mwassenaar@allcommunitymedia.org
David Garb, Legislative Chair
Jersey Access Group
davegarb@paps.net
Calling on Advocates to Respond to FCC’s Proposed Throttling of E-Rate
From: Lisa Peet, Executive Editor for Library Journal; Joseph Wender, Executive Director, The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition; and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society
Library Journal:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, calling for a major review of the E-Rate program.
E-Rate, under which eligible schools, libraries, and consortia may apply for discounted telecommunications, internet access, and internal connections services, was established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It has become a lifeline to libraries of all sizes, across all regions of the United States, serving a widely diverse range of communities—especially rural, small, and Tribal libraries.
The NPRM, originally released by the FCC on June 26, poses questions as to whether E-Rate should be scaled back, narrowed in scope, or terminated entirely, weighing factors that include nationwide increases in connectivity rates over the program’s 30 years and concerns about excessive screen time among young people.
(SHLB) – How the E-Rate Program Works:
E-Rate lowers the cost of the broadband, internet, and internal network services that schools and libraries buy. The support arrives as a discount on those specific purchases.
The discount is based on need. Schools and libraries serving more low-income communities receive larger discounts, ranging from 20% to 90% of eligible costs.
Funding covers only eligible services and equipment, and applicants must run a competitive bidding process to select their providers. The competitive bidding process ensures that cost is the primary factor in applicants’ choice of provider.
E-Rate does not pay for laptops, tablets, software, or digital content. The program supports connectivity and the network that carries it.
The program operates under an annual spending cap, and participants are subject to audits and oversight.
E-Rate supports more than 100,000 schools and roughly 11,000 libraries across the country, providing approximately $3 billion in discounts every year.
Benton Institute – So What Happens If E-Rate Goes Away?
Schools and libraries would have to absorb the full cost of their internet service. For institutions already working with tight budgets, that money has to come from somewhere. That money comes out of staff and program budgets that make a school or library more than a building.
The deepest harms fall on the students who can least afford it since E-Rate discounts are tied to need. Schools and libraries in lower-income communities receive the largest discounts, which is a focus of the universal service program. Pull that funding, and the digital divide between well-resourced districts and struggling ones grows. The communities that depend most on E-Rate are the ones that would suffer the greatest.
The FCC also asks whether E-Rate support should be limited to rural areas. Universal service should not draw a distinction between a disadvantaged child in a rural town and a disadvantaged child in a city. Congress did not write that difference into the law, and there is no reason to invent it now.
It is also worth remembering that E-Rate does not stand alone. It is one of four programs funded through the Universal Service Fund, and those programs reinforce one another. Weakening E-Rate weakens the entire system that brings affordable connections to schools, libraries, rural and urban communities, low-income families, and health care providers. A threat to one is a threat to all.
Library Journal:
The NPRM, originally released by the FCC on June 26, poses questions as to whether E-Rate should be scaled back, narrowed in scope, or terminated entirely, weighing factors that include nationwide increases in connectivity rates over the program’s 30 years, concerns about excessive screen time among young people, and interpretations of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA).
A companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) proposes stricter oversight on third-party consultants and more streamlined administration of the program’s funds.
All libraries, schools, and community stakeholders are strongly urged to respond to the NPRM. Initial comments are due on or before midnight Eastern time on October 13; responses to those comments are due by November 12.
The Jersey Access Group has been representing the interests of municipal and community media in both Trenton and Washington, DC for over 25 years. The Legislative Committee keeps a watchful eye on bills and actions that may affect the interests and needs of our diverse communities. This includes analyzing and addressing emerging developments and changes in the telecommunication industry that could be an issue for our operations, and that of our local municipalities.
JAG’s efforts on behalf of our members and the residents of New Jersey have never been more important!
Share this:
Like this:
Category: Latest JAG News, Legislation/Regulation