text:
There's a reason why she's listed as one of the most trending celebrities! Kim Kardashian is no stranger to controversy. Every move she makes seems to steal the headlines and trend on Twitter. Whether she's posing for a racy photoshoot or fighting someone on Twitter, Kim has the power to shake the world and break the internet. It happens so often (oh what's Kim done now?), it's hardly a surprise anymore when she causes an online kommotion.
Is it her full-time job to get the people talking? From booties to babies, here are Kim Kardashian's craziest and controversial moments so far…
1. Her Tape with Ray J Leaks
Kim has been bringing the controversy since day one. Unless you've been hiding under a rock all this time, you're probably aware that Kim landed in the spotlight and made the Kardashian family famous with an adult tape. She filed a lawsuit against Vivid Entertainment who leaked the clip, but later dropped it and settled for a reported $5 million.
2. Kim Poses for Playboy
She may have been embarrassed after her tape leaked, but it certainly didn't stop her from posing for Playboy. Relatively famous at the time, Kim Kardashian instantly became the talk of the town when she graced the magazine's cover in 2007. Indeed she was "Hollywood's New Sex Star".
3. She Covers Turkish Cosmopolitan on Genocide Day
Kim was accused of disrespecting her heritage when her cover for Turkish Cosmopolitan debuted on Armenia's annual Genocide Remembrance Day – which marks the systematic extermination of the Armenian population by Turkey during and following World War I. Nevertheless, Kim took to her blog to address the situation by saying, "Cosmopolitan Magazine has a number of international editions all around the world that run in various territories, and when I did this shoot for the international covers I had no idea that Turkey was planning to run my story on their cover THIS month, considering Genocide Remembrance Day is this month.
"My Armenian heritage means a lot to me and I've been brought up to be incredibly proud of my family's background and culture so as an Armenian-American woman it is a huge honour for me to be on the first ever Armenian Cosmopolitan cover."
4. Kim Slams Indian Food
Kim was slandered after she branded Indian curry "disgusting" on Keeping Up With the Kardashians. One person even said, "I think it's good Kim doesn't like Indian food, because that means she won't ever visit India and that in itself is a blessing."
Kim later addressed the issue saying, "Just Want to Clear Something Up. In NO way was [my comment] intended as an insult to the Indian people or their culture. This is just my own personal taste. There are a lot of foods I don't like . . . I hate cilantro [coriander] and peppers, and there are definitely some Armenian foods that I personally find disgusting, but that doesn't reflect my opinions on other Armenian people or my culture. My comment wasn't intended to offend anybody. We all have our own opinions and tastes and I was simply expressing mine."
5. She Releases a Single
She's got a cosmetics line, her own perfumes, a clothing deal and believe it or not, she even almost had a record deal. No, really. Call her crazy but Kim did indeed try out the music industry back in 2011 when she released her cringe, hilarious and outright ridiculous single, Jam. As if the song wasn't embarrassing enough, she even had a cheesy video for it too. *Face-Palm*
6. Kim's Marriage Lasts 72 Days
Bet you didn't know this juicy little fact about Kim Kardashian – she's been married not once, not twice, but THREE times. Her first marriage was with music producer Damon Thomas, but they divorced three years later. Her second marriage, which was her most controversial, was with basketball player Kris Humphries. Kim's marriage which lasted just 72 days was a major media scandal and it still haunts her to this very day. Just when we thought she'd prove the haters wrong by sustaining her third marriage to rapper Kanye West, Kimye got divorced in 2021.
Kris Humphries – along with other men – is rumored to be a victim of the "Kardashian Curse" – do you believe it? Read our post and tell us!
7. She gets a Vampire Facial
She denies getting butt implants but she's not afraid to reveal that she's a fan of vampire facials! On an episode of Kourtney and Kim Take Miami, Kim put the "c" in controversy when she injected her own blood into her face to give her skin a more youthful appearance. Posting a photo of her blood-stained face, Kim was labelled "f*****g stupid" "superficial" and "disgusting".
8. Kim Names her Child "North West"
Fans were over the moon for Kim when she gave birth to her first baby girl. What got the people talking however was the little dumpling's name. Kim and Kanye named their daughter "North West", which led to people teasing, scoffing and ridiculing the crazy couple. Seriously, who names their daughter after compass directions?! It didn't get any better when she named her son, "Saint" and her third child, "Chicago". Sigh…
9. She stars in the Bound 2 Music Video
Viewers were Bound 2 be flabbergasted after watching Kanye West's music video for his single, Bound 2. The shocking video saw the rapper and Kim getting hot and heavy whilst riding a motorbike and seductively moving and kissing along to outrageous lyrics. Thank goodness North, Saint and Chicago were too young to understand what mommy and daddy were doing on the television screen!
10. Kim Graces the Cover of Vogue
The world was not pleased to see Kim and Kanye on the front cover of Vogue magazine. It may have been a "dream come true" for the TV-star, however not everyone felt the same. The duo certainly were the "World's Most Talked About Couple" when their Vogue spread debuted. "We all knew Vogue was dying, but this is it. The official death of Vogue," wrote reader Freya Greaves. Even Sarah Michelle Gellar had her say, "Well……I guess I'm cancelling my Vogue subscription. Who is with me???" Ouch. Well at least Kim and Kanye laughed all the way to bank after it. Haters gonna hate, right?
11. She's Pranked in Paris
Kim Kardashian's controversial moments even cross borders! Despite the prestigious front row seats and glamorous outfits, Kim and Kanye became victims of assault during Paris Fashion Week in 2014. As Kim stepped out of the vehicle and made her way towards the Balmain show, she was violently almost pulled to the ground by infamous prankster, Vitalii Sediuk. The video ended up going viral.
12. Kim's Photos are Hacked
When anonymous hackers leaked a bunch of celebrity photos back in September 2014, Kim Kardashian was one of the stars who fell victim. Her personal photo went viral on social media, sending the internet into a meltdown. It's not the first time we've seen Kim in her birthday suit, but the incident was still nonetheless shocking.
13. She Poses for GQ
Kim celebrated her title as GQ's Woman of the Year in 2014 by stripping off for a super-revealing photoshoot that let her famous booty shine. The spread was suggestive indeed, but not half as explicit as her crazier photoshoots to come…
Are you a crazy fan of the equally krazy family? Get your hands on one of these awesome Kardashian gifts, or treat a close friend to something special!
14. Kim Strips off for Paper Magazine
Kim officially broke the internet in November 2014 when her full-frontal shoot for Paper magazine debuted. The outrageous and extremely controversial photos gave rise to millions of Tweets, likes, shares, comments and memes online, making Kim and her body the most talked about subject of the year.
15. She Poses for Love Magazine
In February 2015, everyone wondered whether Kim Kardashian even wore clothes anymore. The regular exhibitionist posed nude again for an explicit photoshoot with Love Magazine, showing off more than just her famous behind.
16. Kim Takes a Pregnant Selfie
When announcing that she was expanding the Kardashian family tree in 2015, the scandalous star was accused of using a surrogate to carry her baby. Six months into her pregnancy, Kim decided to silence the haters and fire back at the critics who doubted her pregnancy by posing with no clothes on in an Instagram photo to prove that she was indeed pregnant.
17. She Shares another Revealing Selfie
Kim sent shockwaves across the world by sharing a controversial selfie in March 2016. The NSFW photo caused a major stir online, leading many to brandish her a bad role model and unfit mother. Kim confronted all her haters and threw even more fuel into the fire by posting another raunchy pic. This time however, she captioned it with a great post about body and slut-shaming…
18. Kim Beefs with Piers Morgan, Bette Midler & Chloe Moretz
The same photo led actress Bette Midler, Chloe Moretz and TV host, Piers Morgan to publicly slam and shame Kim K for posting such a "scandalous" snap. Of course, the brunette beauty stood her ground. After trending on Twitter for posing nude, next, she trended for having an online feud with her fellow celebrities. This Kardashian isn't all about exhibitionism (as many would assume). She's got quite the comebacks, too. Check out her Twitter rant and savage replies to all of her haters…
19. She gets into a War with Taylor Swift
Kim Kardashian and Taylor Swift were trending for days on Twitter after the fashionista exposed the singer as a liar. Taylor tried to sabotage Kanye's career by claiming she had no say in approving his Famous lyrics (where he labelled her a "bitch"). Kim got involved in Kanye and Taylor's ongoing feud by releasing footage which heard the popstar fully approving the lyrics in question. Kim even posted a shady tweet directed to Taylor in celebration of International Snake Day.
20. Kim Poses With Amber Rose
You've got to rate any girl who can hang out with their husband's ex-girlfriend. This may have been one of Kim's most controversial moments, but it also made her look like quite the decent person. Amber hasn't really been particularly nice about the Kardashians in the past so seeing the two together, in a selfie, kinda broke the internet.
21. Kim is Robbed in Paris
Kim made huge headlines in October 2016 when she was reportedly held at gunpoint by five armed robbers during her stay in Paris. The socialite may have had the scare of a lifetime and lost an alleged $10 million worth of jewelry, but that didn't stop people from claiming the robbery was "faked for publicity". Many accused Kim of trying to break the internet once more and get attention by lying about the entire ordeal. Her tears and breakdown on Keeping Up with the Kardashians however, silenced the haters, proving to the incident to be true.
22. She's Accused of Using Drugs
That's right. Kim Kardashian was caught up in a drug scandal in July 2017. In the background of one of her Snapchat videos, a dash of white powder was spotted on her kitchen counter, leading many to assume the socialite was doing cocaine. Kim later hit back at haters, correcting them and reassuring them that it was simply a swirl on the marble counter. It's safe to say the haters have lost their "marbles".
23. Kim Dresses North Inappropriately
Kim was blasted by fans when she was blamed for dressing her daughter, North in "sexualized attire". The cosmetics mogul caused a social media outcry when North was spotted wearing a "corset", which is typically used to sexualize the female body and shrink waists. It didn't help knowing that Kim had previously promoted the use of waist trainers. But she later took to Twitter to confront her haters, telling them she "would never put her [my] daughter in a corset! It's a dress I bought that is fabric that laces up and looks like a corset!'
24. She Defends Jeffree Star
Kim trended on Twitter once again in the summer of 2017 when she defended racist YouTube makeup artist, Jeffree Star. In what was yet another crazy and controversial moment, the E! Star told her fans to "get over" and '"get off his a**", oblivious to the racist things Jeffree had said in the past, such as using the word "n***er". She later apologized and called herself "naive" after learning about the YouTube star's racist past.
25. Kim Wears Cornrows
After multiple times of being criticized for wearing cornrows, Kimmy took no shame in repeating the hairstyle in 2018. Wearing her hair in Fulani braids in her Instagram pics, many fans called Kim out for cultural appropriation. The backlash clearly didn't bother the TV star as she went out in public wearing cornrows soon after!
26. Kimono Controversy
In June of 2019, Kim was dragged by fans and fashion critics after deciding to name her new shapewear line, "Kimono". Now, we all know that Kimonos are traditional Japanese garments that have nothing to do with shapewear, so the fashionista ended up being accused of appropriation and got called out for being disrespectful to Japanese culture. Eventually, Kim acknowledged her ignorant mistake and changed the name of her shapewear to "Skims".
27. Fighting with Kourtney
We're used to seeing Kim strip off or smile for the camera, but this time round, the star made headline news for getting into a catfight with her sister on film. Indeed, Kim and Kourtney had a huge physical fight on Keeping Up With the Kardashians when the former accused Kourtney of not "caring about stuff". Fists were thrown, nails were scratched, and hair was ripped. Watch the controversial clip below:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, Kim! Controversy should be your middle name! Excuse us as we sit back and wait for her next crazy move…
Want more from Kim and her famous family? Check out our list of fun facts about the Kardashian family!


text:
Goddess Fish Promotions is organizing a Virtual Book Blast Tour for Untangling the Knot by Deanne Wilsted, a sweet contemporary romance with some inspirational elements available February 13 from Soul Mate Publishing. The Book Blast Tour will take place on Friday, February 22. This tour will not include interviews or guest blogs; however, a blurb, excerpt and author bio will be provided to every host for inclusion on their blog. Additionally, a PDF copy of this story is available for review in conjunction with a promo post. Please note, because of the inspirational elements in this story, blogs that feature primarily erotic romance are asked not to participate in this book blast.
Deanne will be awarding a $10 Amazon or BN.com GC (winner's choice) to a randomly drawn commenter during the tour, and a $10 Amazon or BN.com GC (winner's choice) to a randomly drawn host.
EDITED TO ADD: The winners of this tour are Andra Lynn (COMMENTER) and Read Your Writes Book Review (HOST). Congratulations!
"I did what?"1. Uplifting Reads
Twenty-eight year old Gabriella Bessu is St. Therese's meticulous wedding ceremony coordinator. So the fact that she has mistakenly signed her newest couple up for an annulment, rather than a wedding, sends her Catholic guilt into overdrive.
But who can blame her? The groom is gorgeous and his two kids tug at Gabriella's heart in a way that overcomes all her best intentions. Before long she's in over her head, fixing her mixed-up plans and helping the children and dad come to terms with their haunting grief for the mother and wife they lost years earlier.
Can Gabriella untangle her own fears and accept the messy life that God has handed them?
2. Stephanie's Book Shelf
3. LizaOConnor
4. Love, Laughter, Friendship
5. Bunny's Reviews
6. Love, Laughter, Friendship
7. Lisa Haselton's Reviews and Interviews
8. My Devotional Thoughts
9. Megan Johns Invites
10. Sandra's Blog
11. Chef John Malik: A Writer Trapped in a Cook's Body
12. Book Reviews by Dee
13. You Gotta Read Reviews
14. Let Romance Light Your Way
15. YA Books of Witchcraft and Wizardry
16. Nickie's Views and Interviews
17. Loose the Hounds
18. Novel Moments
19. The Write to Read
20. Fiction Writing and Other Oddities
21. Maggie's Meanderings
22. Pink Fluffy Hearts: Diary of a Coffee Addict
23. Author Jinni James
24. Fantasy Pages
25. A Writer's Life
26. Imagination in Books
27. Enjoying the Unique Flavors of Life
28. Read Your Writes Book Reviews
29. Travel the Ages
30. Lindsay's Scribblings

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|In the Matter of
|MM Docket No. 99-339
|Implementation of
|Video Description of
|Video Programming
|Adopted: November 18, 1999
|Released: November 18, 1999
Comment Date: January 24, 2000
Reply Comment Date: February 23, 2000
By the Commission:
1. Television plays a significant role in our society. Television programming shapes public opinion and culture in myriad ways. It is the principal source of news and information and provides hours of entertainment every week to American homes.(1) For the millions of Americans with visual disabilities - who watch television in similar numbers and with similar frequency to the general population - the difficulty of being able to follow the visual action in television programs puts them at a significant disadvantage.(2) This disadvantage can be overcome through the use of video description, through which narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements are inserted during the natural pauses in the program's dialogue.(3) Video description is typically provided through the use of the Secondary Audio Programming channel so that it is audible only to those who wish to hear the narration. The narration generally describes settings and actions that are not otherwise reflected in the dialogue, such as the movement of a person in the scene. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to adopt limited requirements to ensure that video description is more available so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of television. We expect to expand these requirements once we have gained greater experience with video description.
2. Public television has been airing described video programming for more than a decade. WGBH's Descriptive Video Service (DVS) has described more than 1600 PBS programs, and in the fall of 1998 provided video description of three daily programs, four weekly programs, selected episodes of three other series and several specials.(4) Many commercial broadcasters also have the technical ability to air described video programming, but few have done so. Many cable systems have the capability to provide described programming, but do so only on very limited channels, such as the Turner Classic Movies channel, and none of this programming is available without the assistance of public funding.(5) As a result, less than 1% of all programming contains video description.
3. The Commission has previously conducted inquiries on video description. The Commission issued its first Notice of Inquiry on video description in 1995.(6) Section 713(f) of the Act,(7) added by the 1996 Act, directed the Commission to commence an inquiry on video description, and report to Congress on its findings. Using the record adduced in response to the First NOI, the Commission issued the required report to Congress in 1996.(8) The Commission then issued a second Notice of Inquiry in 1997,(9) and submitted more information to Congress on video description in its 1997 annual report on competition in the markets for the delivery of video programming.(10) The availability of video description has not meaningfully improved during the past several years while these proceedings were ongoing.
4. Various parties have asked the Commission to take steps to enhance the availability of video description. As discussed below, the Commission has received two specific proposals to implement the service, both of which suggest that we phase in video description over a number of years.(11) In addition, the President's Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters has encouraged digital broadcasters to provide video description.(12) The Commission has also received letters of support from Congress and industry.(13) Through this proceeding, we seek comment on ways to increase the availability of video description, without imposing an undue burden on industry.
5. Audience for Video Description. Video description is designed to make television programming more accessible to persons with visual disabilities, and enable them to "hear what they cannot see."(14) Thus, the primary audience for video description is persons with visual disabilities. Estimates of the number of persons with visual disabilities range from more than eight million(15) to nearly twelve million.(16) The group includes persons with a problem seeing that cannot be corrected with ordinary glasses or contact lenses, with a range in severity.(17)
6. A disproportionate number of persons with visual disabilities are older. The National Center for Health Statistics reports that eye problems are the third leading cause, after heart disease and arthritis, of restricting the normal daily activities of persons 65 years of age or older.(18) While only 2-3% of the population under 45 years of age has visual disabilities, 9-14% of the population 75 years of age or older does.(19) This means that as the population ages, more and more people will become visually disabled.(20)
7. Secondary audiences for video description exist as well. For example, at least one and a half million children between the ages of 6 and 14 with learning disabilities(21) may benefit from video description. Because the medium has both audio description and visual appeal, it has significant potential to capture the attention of learning disabled children and enhance their information processing skills. Described video programming capitalizes on the different perceptual strengths of learning-disabled children, pairing their more-developed modality with their less-developed modality to reinforce comprehension of information.(22)
8. The secondary audience may also include persons without disabilities. Just as health club members and sports bar patrons have become beneficiaries of closed captioning, viewers who are doing several things at once, who need to attend to something during a program, or who leave the room during a program, may become beneficiaries of video description.(23) In fact, the Narrative Television Network, which provides video description that is "open" and therefore cannot be turned off, reports that 60% of its audience is not visually disabled.(24)
9. Technology. Video description can be either "open" or "closed." Open description is provided as part of the main soundtrack of a program. As a result, no special equipment is needed for a broadcaster or multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) to transmit the descriptions or for the viewer to receive them. The descriptions cannot, however, be turned off.
10. Closed description is provided on the Secondary Audio Programming, or SAP, channel. The SAP channel allows for an additional audio soundtrack for a program, independent of or separate from the monaural and stereophonic soundtracks. A secondary carrier, or subcarrier, transmits the SAP channel audio soundtrack through a modulator. When the SAP channel is used, a programming distributor transmits two separate audio tracks. The second audio track is transmitted with the main program signal. For example, the SAP channel as currently used by PBS for its video description is transmitted with the main program signal from the network's master control facility and satellite distribution system to the local station's broadcast facility and through the local transmitter. To accommodate the additional soundtrack, changes may need to be made to some network and local stations' plant wiring and equipment. At the local transmitter, the broadcast station or cable operator must have the technical facilities to pass through the subcarrier signal to include the SAP channel information.(25)
11. The CPB-WGBH National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) reports that, as of 1998, 156 public television stations reaching 79 million (80%) of TV households had installed the necessary equipment to distribute descriptions via SAP.(26) In addition, each of the four largest commercial television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) offered Spanish audio on the SAP channel last year.(27) According to NCAM, in the top 25 DMAs, 81% of one major commercial network's affiliates are SAP-equipped, and, in the top 50 DMAs, 69% of cable systems are.(28) NCAM also reports that SAP has been a standard feature of stereo broadcasting for the past fifteen years; as of 1997, 650 TV stations broadcast in stereo, amounting to roughly 40% of total TV stations.(29) For those stations that are not yet SAP-equipped, NCAM estimates that the cost to update equipment to become so is between $5,000 and $25,000, based on the experience of the noncommercial stations that are SAP-capable.(30)
12. To receive information contained within the SAP channel, a viewer must have a receiver (TV set) capable of delivering it. According to the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association, as of January 1998, 59% of TV sets sold, and 90% of VCRs sold, have stereo capability, and most of these are SAP-equipped.(31) The Commission observed several years ago that 52% of American households at the time had SAP-compatible TV sets, and 20% had such VCRs.(32) SAP-capable TV sets and VCRs can be relatively inexpensive, less than $150, and a converter box is also available for use with TV sets and VCRs that are not SAP-capable.(33)
13. Prior Video Description Inquiries. The Commission first considered video description when it issued a Notice of Inquiry on closed captioning and video description on December 4, 1995.(34) Several months later, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law. Section 305(f) of the 1996 Act added new section 713 to the Communications Act of 1934.(35) Entitled "Video Programming Accessibility," section 713 addressed closed captioning and video description. With respect to video description specifically, section 713(f) stated:
VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS INQUIRY. - Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission shall commence an inquiry to examine the use of video descriptions on video programming in order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual impairments, and report to Congress on its findings. The Commission's report shall assess appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition of programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deems appropriate.
14. On July 29, 1996, the Commission released the required report,(36) based on the record adduced in response to the NOI. The Commission did not issue specific guidance on the criteria enumerated in section 713, because "the present record on which to assess video description . . . is limited, and the emerging nature of the service renders definitive conclusions difficult."(37) However, the Commission noted that "the development of rules for closed captioning, which is more widely available, can provide a useful model for the process of phasing in broadened use of video description."(38) Noting that some programming distributors do not have SAP capability, that funding to support the service remains an issue, and that description may implicate certain copyright law issues, the Commission stated:
Irrespective of the level and source of funding, it appears desirable to phase in the service over a period of years. We believe that initial requirements for video description should be applied to new programming that is widely available through national distribution services and attracts the largest audiences, such as prime time entertainment series. Over a period of several years, video description should be phased in for programming with more limited availability, including services distributed in limited areas, and programming that attracts smaller audiences, such as daytime shows. Lower priority for video description should be given to programming that is primarily aural in nature, including newscasts and sports events. Phasing in video description in this manner would follow the model of closed captioning.(39)
The Commission concluded that it should monitor the service and seek more information in the context of its annual report on competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.(40)
15. On January 13, 1998, the Commission released its second report on video description, as part of its annual report to Congress on competition in the market for video programming.(41) In the Fourth Annual Report, the Commission stated that "it is certain that 'closed' video description is feasible," given that it is already being provided by some, such as PBS.(42) The Commission noted the expense of providing the service, citing, for example, information provided by WGBH that the expense of describing programming was approximately $3,400 per hour, and that the expense of noncommercial broadcasters that have upgraded equipment to become SAP-capable ranged from $5000 to $25,000.(43) The Commission again noted copyright issues. Taking these factors into account, the Commission stated:
any requirements for video description should begin with only the largest broadcast stations and programming networks that are better able to bear the costs involved. The appropriate timeframe for any requirements might take into account DTV penetration and availability. For example, a minimal amount of video description could be required to be provided by the larger broadcast stations in the larger markets, and by the larger video programming networks. In any event, any requirement should have an exemption for smaller broadcasters, MVPDs, and programming networks.(44)
The Commission suggested that "priority should be given to programming where there is significant action not apparent to persons with visual disabilities."(45) Finally, the Commission stated that, "[w]hether funded through public sources or through a more direct regulatory requirement, a period of trial and experimentation would be beneficial so that more specific information would be available as to the types of programming that would most benefit from description, the costs of providing video description, and other matters."(46)
16. Coalition and NCAM Proposals. Following the Fourth Annual Report, NCAM submitted a proposal to phase in video description. This proposal was based on an earlier one submitted by the National Coalition of Blind and Visually Impaired Persons for Increased Video Access (Coalition),(47) but modified and updated to take into account the Commission's closed captioning rules.
17. NCAM proposes that initial video description requirements apply to the largest broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and PBS), and national non-broadcast networks, such as cable networks, that serve 50% or more of the total number of MVPD households. In order to ensure that video description provided by these distributors is capable of being received by viewers, NCAM proposes local pass-through requirements on a staggered schedule.(48) Thus, NCAM suggests that by the end of the first year after any Commission rules become effective, affiliates of the broadcast networks identified above in the top 25 markets would be required to pass through the description provided by the networks, and all cable systems in the top 25 markets would be required to pass through the description provided by those broadcasters and by national non-broadcast networks serving 50% or more of the total number of MVPD households. By the end of the second year, these requirements would be extended to the top 50 markets; by the end of the third year, to the top 100 markets; and by the end of the fourth year, to the top 200 markets.(49)
18. Both the Coalition and NCAM propose that initial video description requirements apply to prime time and children's programming, and suggest that requirements for other programming be deferred for several years until the infrastructure for video description has developed more, and the Commission, the industry, and the public have gained more experience with the technology.(50) Both the Coalition and NCAM propose that the requirements be phased in over a seven-year period. By the end of the first year after any Commission rules become effective, the distributors would be required to describe four hours of prime time programming per week.(51) By the end of each succeeding year, they would be required to describe an additional three hours of prime time programming per week, until all twenty-two hours of prime time programming (excluding live newscasts) are described.(52) In addition, by the end of the second year, both the Coalition and NCAM propose that the applicable distributors be required to describe three hours of children's programming per week.(53)
19. We propose to adopt limited rules to phase "closed" video description into the marketplace. We hope to ensure the more widespread availability of video description, but to proceed incrementally so as not to impose a significant burden on video programming distributors. We thus propose that the largest video programming distributors should provide a limited amount of video description of their prime time and/or children's programming. We believe that requiring these distributors to provide some video description will not be economically burdensome for them. We further believe that requiring them to provide video description of a small portion of their prime time and/or children's programming will ensure the widest availability of video description to audiences that are most likely to benefit from it. We ask for comment on these views.
20. In this section, we outline a particular proposal of the kind that that we envision for the initial implementation of these rules. The proposal would require broadcasters affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC in Nielsen's top 25 Designated Market Areas (DMAs), and larger MVPDs, to provide some "closed" video description.(54) We propose that these broadcasters and MVPDs provide a minimum of 50 hours per calendar quarter (roughly four hours per week) of described prime time and/or children's programming.(55) Larger MVPDs would be required to carry the described programming of the broadcasters affiliated with the top 4 networks, and of nonbroadcast networks that reach 50% or more of MVPD households.(56) We also propose that these broadcasters and MVPDs begin providing the required described programming no later than 18 months after the effective date of our rules. We further propose to adopt procedures to waive our rules if compliance would be unduly burdensome, and to adopt enforcement procedures. These proposals are described in more detail below.
21. This approach is generally modeled after our closed captioning rules. Our approach here is more measured, however, because video description technology is not as developed as closed captioning technology, and all distributors may not have the technical capability now to provide described programming. As the Commission, the industry, and the public gain greater experience with video description, we will review the rules we propose to adopt now, and modify them as the public interest requires. We expect to increase the amount of required described programming over time "in order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual impairments," as envisioned by Congress in the section 713(f) of the Act.
22. We recognize that broadcasters are in the process of converting from analog to digital technology. The flexibility inherent in digital technology may make the provision of video description even easier and less costly. Given that the need for video description exists now and that the transition to digital will not occur overnight, however, we do not wish to wait for the transition to be complete before adopting video description requirements. We are thus proposing to apply the requirements outlined in this Notice to analog broadcasters. We do intend, however, to extend our video description requirements to digital broadcasters in the future. We are inclined not to adopt a specific timetable to apply to digital broadcasters in the Report and Order arising out of this Notice, but rather to address such specifics in a future proceeding. At that time we can craft rules based upon the experience we have gained as a result of analog broadcasters' implementation of our initial requirements. We seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on what technical issues are raised by the provision of video description by digital broadcasters and on how the conversion to digital affects the costs associated with the provision of video description.
23. Entities to Describe Programming. We propose to hold programming distributors, as opposed to producers, responsible for compliance with our video description rules. We recognize that distributors may not actually describe the programming. In the closed captioning proceeding, the Commission observed that others such as producers might more efficiently caption programming, but reasoned that the Commission could more easily monitor and enforce the rules by holding distributors responsible for compliance.(57) We believe this reasoning is equally applicable here, and therefore propose to hold distributors responsible for complying with video description requirements. We seek comment on these views.
24. We propose to apply our rules to all distributors of video programming over which we have jurisdiction. Video programming distributors include television broadcast stations, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators, home satellite dish (HSD) providers, open video system (OVS) operators, satellite master antenna television (SMATV) operators, and wireless cable operators using channels in the multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS). We believe that as many distributors as possible should provide video description to enhance the availability of the service, as well as to ensure a level playing field among distributors. MVPDs are increasingly the primary source of video programming for most Americans,(58) and noncable MVPDs continue to grow.(59) Some MVPDs may require separate SAP generators for each channel they wish to distribute with audio on a SAP channel.(60) It does appear, however, that most of the distribution technologies are capable of transmitting audio on the SAP channel or through other means.(61) We seek comment on this proposal.
25. We believe, however, that our initial rules should only require the largest distributors to provide video description. As the Commission stated in the Fourth Annual Report, "any requirements for video description should begin with only the largest broadcast stations and programming networks that are better able to bear the costs involved . . . . For example, a minimal amount of video description could be required to be provided by the larger broadcast stations in larger markets, and by the larger video programming networks."(62) The costs of providing video description include the cost of having programming described, and, in some instances, the cost of upgrading equipment.(63) We thus propose to require the affiliates of the four largest broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) in the top 25 DMAs, and the larger MVPDs to provide video description.(64) Our proposal is consistent with the first phase of NCAM's proposal. We seek comment on our proposal, and on how to define the larger MVPDs to which our initial rules should apply. We seek to identify those MVPDs that are comparable to the broadcast stations we have proposed to require to provide described programming. As indicated above, we acknowledge and expect that programming networks, and not broadcast stations and MVPDs, will actually describe programming, but we believe, for ease of enforcement and monitoring of compliance with our rules, that we should hold distributors responsible for compliance. Our proposal would not require any noncommercial stations to provide video description at this time, given the financial difficulties that many of them face, particularly during the transition to DTV.(65)
26. To help us better evaluate our proposal and realize our goal of maximizing video description without imposing an undue burden, we also seek further comment on the costs of video description. The Commission has previously noted that the cost of describing prime time programming may be as much as several thousand dollars per hour, although commenters have pointed out that the cost of describing prime time programming is but a small fraction of the total budget of such programming.(66) We seek additional comment on the costs of describing programming, including more information on the costs relative to the production budgets of programming such as prime time programming. The Commission has also noted that the cost of upgrading equipment may be between $5,000 and $25,000, although NCAM reports that 81% of one network's affiliates are SAP-equipped, and 69% of cable systems are. We seek more complete and updated information on the number of broadcasters and MVPDs that are SAP-equipped. We seek further comment on the cost of upgrading equipment, particularly from broadcasters that have already done this.
27. We also seek comment on our proposal to require the largest distributors to provide described programming beginning 18 months after the effective date of our rules. We wish to select a beginning date that ensures more widespread video description is available rapidly, but does not impose an undue burden on distributors.
28. We intend our proposal to require the largest programming distributors to provide a limited amount of video description to be a starting point for further development of the service. The experience of the largest programming distributors will provide us with concrete information upon which to propose a schedule to phase in other distributors. We seek comment on an appropriate timetable for the next phase in.
29. Programming to be Described. We propose that the distributors should initially provide a minimum of 50 hours per quarter (roughly four hours per week) of video description of prime time and/or children's programming. As the Commission stated in the Video Accessibility Report, "initial requirements for video description should be applied to new programming that is widely available through national distribution services and attracts the largest audiences, such as prime time entertainment series."(67) Our proposal to require distributors to describe roughly four hours per week of prime time programming is consistent with first phase of the Coalition's and NCAM's proposals. Although four hours per week appears to be a reasonable starting point, we prefer to express the requirement as 50 hours per quarter in order to grant distributors additional flexibility in selecting the best programming to describe. We propose also to permit distributors to meet the 50 hour video description requirement by describing children's programming in order to meet the needs of children with visual disabilities. As indicated above, NCAM suggests that video description of children's programming would also provide a benefit to children with learning disabilities. Within these broad categories of programming, the distributors would have flexibility to decide which programming will reach the largest audience and be most likely to provide the intended benefits of video description. We seek comment on our proposal, and on any alternatives. Instead of requiring that the minimum number of hours of video description apply to prime time and children's programming, should we allow distributors complete flexibility to choose which programming to describe? Should we establish certain parameters to ensure that distributors select programming that has a significant audience that would benefit from video description?(68) Whether we prescribe prime time and/or children's programming or not, is a minimum of 50 hours per quarter (roughly 4 hours per week) appropriate for the initial requirement? We seek comment on the resources currently available to describe programming. We also seek comment on how to ensure that the public, and in particular people with disabilities, know when described video programming is scheduled.(69)
30. Commenters in our earlier NOI proceedings have noted that Spanish-language audio sometimes competes for use of the SAP channel. We seek comment on the extent to which Spanish or other languages use or plan to use the SAP channel, the impact, if any, of today's proposals on such services, and how such potential conflicts could be avoided or minimized. Further, although we believe that adoption of digital technology will eliminate any potential conflict between competing users of the SAP channel, we seek comment on whether there are any technical solutions to such potential conflicts in the analog environment.
31. In addition, commenters in our earlier NOI proceedings have argued that a second script, which may constitute a "derivative work" under copyright law, is necessary to provide video description. As noted above, however, many distributors have provided video description for years, and apparently have not found this to be an obstacle. We seek comment on whether copyright issues could become an obstacle to video description, and, what could be done to prevent or minimize such a result.
32. The Coalition points out that public safety messages that scroll across the TV screen are totally inaccessible to persons with visual disabilities, and proposes that an aural tone be required to accompany the messages to alert such persons to turn on a radio, the SAP channel, or a designated digital channel.(70) We believe that it is of vital importance for these emergency messages to be accessible to persons with visual disabilities. We seek comment on the Coalition's proposal, how it relates to the Commission's current standards for broadcasting emergency information,(71) and on any other effective approaches to this problem. Could these messages be provided via "open" description?
33. Waivers and Enforcement Procedures. We also propose to adopt procedures to enforce our rules, and to waive them if compliance would result in an undue burden. The Commission adopted such procedures in its closed captioning rules.(72) Guided by statutory factors, the Commission determined that factors relevant to a showing that compliance with its closed captioning rules would result in an undue burden are the nature and cost of captioning the programming, the impact on the operation of the petitioner, the financial resources of the petitioner, and the type of operations of the petitioner. The Commission also adopted some basic pleading requirements and timetables for petitions for waiver. In terms of enforcement, the Commission did not adopt any reporting requirements, but rather simply adopted pleading requirements and timetables. We seek comment on whether these procedures are appropriate for our initial video description rules.
34. We seek comment on the question whether we possess statutory authority to adopt the above-proposed video description rules. We also seek comment on the question whether the existence or relative strength of such authority varies according to the type of video programming provider - broadcaster, cable operator, or DBS company, for example - potentially subject to the rules.
35. In connection with this jurisdictional question, we note that section 1 of the Act established the Commission "[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service. . . (73) "(74) Also, section 2(a) grants the Commission jurisdiction over "all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio" and "all persons engaged within the United States in such communication. . . (75) "(76) In addition, section 4(i) of the Act empowers "[t]he Commission [to] perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions(77)"(78) Finally, section 303(r) directs the Commission, "as the public interest, convenience, and necessity requires," to "[m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions in this Act . . . (79) "(80)
36. We further observe that Congress has expressed a general legislative preference for the increased accessibility of certain communications services for persons with disabilities. Section 225 requires the Commission to ensure that "interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible and in the most effective manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United States(81)"(82) Similarly, section 255 requires manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, and providers of telecommunications services, to make such equipment and services "accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable(83)"(84) Section 303(u) generally requires television receivers to be equipped with a closed captioning chip.(85) Section 710 provides for compatibility between telephones and hearing aids.(86) In addition, the 1998 amendments to section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act require federal departments and agencies to accommodate persons with disabilities, including both employees and members of the public, with respect to the accessibility of information, technology, and data.(87)
37. Other sections of the Act may also relate to the Commission's authority to adopt video description rules. For example, in order to grant a Title III license, renew such a license, or permit the assignment or transfer of such a license, sections 309(a), 307(c)(1) and 310(d) of the Act, respectively, require the Commission to find that the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" will be served thereby.(88)
38. Also potentially relevant to this inquiry is section 713(f). That provision directed the Commission to "commence an inquiry to examine the use of video descriptions on video programming in order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual impairments, and report to Congress on its findings." As noted above, the report was to address "appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition of programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deems appropriate."
39. We seek comment on the question whether these provisions of the Act, taken together, provide sufficient authority to adopt the proposed video description regulations and on the scope of such authority as it relates to different types of programming providers.
40. We adopt this Notice in order to stimulate greater availability of video description, while at the same time not impose an undue burden on distributors. To meet the needs of the millions of Americans with visual disabilities, many public television stations and a few cable programmers have voluntarily provided some video described programming, and we applaud these efforts. Through the limited requirements we propose today, we hope to make this service more widely available to ensure that all Americans have access to video programming.
41. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before January 24, 2000 and reply comments on or before February 23, 2000. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).
42. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment via e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form <your e-mail address>." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
43. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.
44. Parties who choose to file paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be addressed to: Wanda Hardy, Paralegal Specialist, Mass Media Bureau, Policy and Rules Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 2-C221, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 97 or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case (MM Docket No. 99-339), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase "Disk Copy - Not an Original." Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must sent diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554.
45. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554. Persons with disabilities who need assistance in the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline at (202) 418-0270, (202) 418-2555 TTY, or firstname.lastname@example.com. Comments and reply comments also will be available electronically at the Commission's Disabilities Issues Task Force web site: www.fcc.gov/dtf. Comments and reply comments are available electronically in ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe Acrobat.
46. This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille). Persons who need documents in such formats may contact Martha Contee at (202) 4810-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or firstname.lastname@example.com.
47. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding, subject to the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description or the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b).
48. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") is contained in Appendix A. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. � 603, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the possible economic impact on small entities of the proposals contained in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on the IFRA. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the television broadcasting industry. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice, and must have a distinct heading designating them as a response to the IRFA. The Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
49. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Notice may contain either proposed or modified information collections. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on the Notice. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (c) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room C-1804, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to email@example.com and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to firstname.lastname@example.com.
50. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Eric Bash, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2130, (202) 418-1169 TTY.
51. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, and 713 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 613, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is ADOPTED.
52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Magalie Roman Salas
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. � 603 ("RFA"), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above in paragraph 38. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. � 603(a). In addition, the Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See id.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
Section 713(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. � 613, directed the Commission, within six months of its enactment, to "commence an inquiry on video descriptions on video programming in order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual impairments, and report to Congress on its findings." Section 713(f) required the report to "assess appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition of programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deems appropriate."
Legal Basis
This Notice is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, and 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 613.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small business concern" under section 3 of the Small Business Act.(89) A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.(90)
Small TV Broadcast Stations. The SBA defines small television broadcasting stations as television broadcasting stations with $10.5 million or less in annual receipts.(91)
The Notice proposes to limit the TV broadcast stations that must provide described programming to the TV broadcast stations affiliated with the top four commercial networks in the top 25 Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs). According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database, less than five commercial TV broadcast stations subject to our proposal have revenues of less than $10.5 million dollars. We note, however, that under SBA's definition, revenues of affiliates that are not television stations should be aggregated with the television station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from nontelevision affiliated companies.
Small MVPDs. The Notice proposes to limit the MVPDs that must provide described programming to larger MVPDs. The Notice seeks comment on how to define the MVPDs to which the initial rules should apply, and seeks to identify those MPVDs that are comparable to the broadcast stations affiliated with the top 4 commercial networks in the top 25 DMAs. The Notice thus proposes not to apply the initial rules to smaller MVPDs.
It is possible, however, that the MVPDs we ultimately decide to require to provide described programming may constitute a "small business" under some definitions. For that reason, we review below the definition of "small business" for various MVPDs.
SBA has developed a definition of a small entity for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts.(92) This definition includes cable system operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services. According to the Bureau of the Census, there were 1423 such cable and other pay television services generating less than $11 million in revenue that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.(93) We will address each service individually to provide a more succinct estimate of small entities. We seek comment on the tentative conclusions below.
Cable Systems: The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable company for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company," is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.(94) We estimate that there were 1439 cable operators that qualified as small cable companies at the end of 1995.(95) Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1439 small entity cable system operators under this definition.
The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."(96) The Commission has determined that there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, does not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the number of cable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
MMDS: The Commission refined the definition of "small entity" for the auction of MMDS as an entity that together with its affiliates has average gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the proceeding three calendar years.(97) This definition of a small entity in the context of the Commission's Report and Order concerning MMDS auctions that has been approved by the SBA.(98)
The Commission completed its MMDS auction in March, 1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading areas ("BTAs"). Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five bidders indicated that they were minority-owned and four winners indicated that they were women-owned businesses. MMDS is an especially competitive service, with approximately 1,573 previously authorized and proposed MMDS facilities. Information available to us indicates that no MDS facility generates revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We tentatively conclude that for purposes of this IRFA, there are approximately 1,634 small MMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
ITFS: There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but one hundred of these licenses are held by educational instructions. Educational institutions are included in the definition of a small business.(99) However, we do not collect annual revenue data for ITFS licensees and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational licensees would be categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.
DBS: As of December, 1996, there were eight DBS licensees. However, the Commission does not collect annual revenue data for DBS and, therefore, is unable to ascertain the number of small DBS licensees that could be impacted by these proposed rules. Although DBS service requires a great investment of capital for operation, we acknowledge that there are several new entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $11 million in annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently owned and operated.
HSD: The market for HSD service is difficult to quantify. Indeed, the service itself bears little resemblance to other MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more than 265 channels of programming placed on C-band satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution by MVPDs, of which 115 channels are scrambled and approximately 150 are unscrambled.(100) HSD owners can watch unscrambled channels without paying a subscription fee. To receive scrambled channels, however, an HSD owner must purchase an integrated receiver-decoder from an equipment dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD programming package. Thus, HSD users include: (1) viewers who subscribe to a packaged programming service, which affords them access to most of the same programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; (2) viewers who receive only non-subscription programming; and (3) viewers who receive satellite programming services illegally without subscribing. Because scrambled packages of programming are most specifically intended for retail consumers, these are the services most relevant to this discussion.(101)
According to the most recently available information, there are approximately 30 program packages nationwide offering packages of scrambled programming to retail consumers.(102) These program packages provide subscriptions to approximately 2,314,900 subscribers nationwide.(103) This is an average of about 77,163 subscribers per program package. This is substantially smaller than the 400,000 subscribers used it the commission's definition of a small MSO. Furthermore, because this is an average, it is likely that some program packages may be substantially smaller.
OVS: The Commission has certified three OVS operators. On October 17, 1996, Bell Atlantic received approval for its certification to convert its Dover, New Jersey Video Dialtone ("VDT") system to OVS.(104) Bell Atlantic subsequently purchased the division of Futurevision which had been the only operating program package provider on the Dover system, and has begun offering programming on this system using these resources.(105) Metropolitan Fiber Systems was granted certifications on December 9, 1996, for the operation of OVS systems in Boston and New York, both of which are being used to provide programming.(106) On October 10, 1996, Digital Broadcasting Open Video Systems received approval to offer OVS service in southern California.(107) Because these services have been introduced so recently, little financial information is available. Bell Atlantic and Metropolitan Fiber systems have sufficient revenues to assure us that they do not qualify as small business entities. Digital Broadcasting Open Video Systems, however, is a general partnership just beginning operations. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that one OVS licensee qualifies as a small business concern.
SMATVs: Industry sources estimate that approximately 5,200 SMATV operators were providing service as of December, 1995.(108) Other estimates indicate that SMATV operators serve approximately 1.05 million residential subscribers as of September, 1996.(109) The ten largest SMATV operators together pass 815,740 units.(110) If we assume that these SMATV operators serve 50% of the units passed, the ten largest SMATV operators serve approximately 40% of the total number of SMATV subscribers. Because these operators are not rate regulated, they are not required to file financial data with the Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published financial information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated number of operators and the estimated number of units served by the largest ten SMATVs, we tentatively conclude that a substantial number of SMATV operators qualify as small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
The Notice proposes to hold certain TV broadcast stations and MVPDs responsible for providing 50 hours per quarter of described prime time and/or children's programming. Those broadcast stations and MVPDs must keep sufficient records to show that they are providing and have provided at least the required amount of described programming.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
As indicated above, the Notice proposes to limit the TV broadcast stations and MVPDs that must provide described programming to larger TV broadcast stations (specifically, commercial TV broadcast stations affiliated with the four largest commercial broadcast networks in the top 25 DMAs) and larger MVPDs. The Notice seeks comment on how to define the MVPDs to which the initial rules should apply, and seeks to identify those MVPDs that are comparable to the broadcast stations affiliated with the top four networks in the top 25 DMAs. The Commission, therefore, has taken steps to minimize the impact of the proposed rules on small business.
Although the Notice proposes to hold the larger broadcast stations and MVPDs responsible for compliance with the initial rules, the Commission acknowledges that the broadcast and nonbroadcast networks that supply programming to the broadcast stations and MVPDs will most likely provide the actual video description of the programming. The Notice proposes, however, to limit the programming that must be described to that shown on the four largest commercial broadcast networks, and on nonbroadcast networks that reach 50% or more of MVPD households. The Commission has, therefore, taken steps to minimize the impact of the proposed rules on small business.
Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
1. See, e.g., Roper Starch, America's Watching: Public Attitudes Toward Television at 1-2 (1997) (reporting results of survey and stating that "[d]espite an ever-growing array of options, more people find out about what's happening in the world from television than from all other sources combined" and "[t]elevision remain[s] Americans' primary and most credible source of news and product information, as well as a source of information on important social issues").
2. Jaclyn Parker and Corrine Kirchner, Who's Watching? A Profile of the Blind and Visually Impaired Audience for Television and Video at v-vi (1997) (Who's Watching).
3. 47 U.S.C. � 613(g) (defining video description).
4. Letter from Larry Goldberg, Director, CPB-WGBH National Center for Accessible Media, to Meryl Icove, Director, FCC Disabilities Task Force 2 (Nov. 4, 1998) (NCAM Letter). A copy of this letter and its attachments will be placed in the record in this proceeding. DVS receives major support from the U.S. Department of Education.
5. DVS has described more than 50 films for the Turner Classic Movies channel. NCAM Letter at 2. With financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, the Narrative Television Network also provides "open" video description (i.e., as discussed below, the video description cannot be turned off) for the Good Life TV Network. In addition, Kaleidoscope Television, the cable programming network devoted to the needs of persons with disabilities, provides "open" description of movies each week.
6. In the Matter of Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, MM Docket No. 95-176, Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd 4912 (1995) (First NOI). The Commission received over 130 comments in response to the NOI. Commenters included broadcaster, cable and other video programming interests, as well as advocates for persons with disabilities.
7. 47 U.S.C. � 613(f).
8. In the Matter of Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Report, 11 FCC Rcd 19214 (1996) (Video Accessibility Report).
9. Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 97-141, Notice of Inquiry, 12 FCC Rcd 7829 (1997) (Second NOI). The Commission received over 60 comments in the context of the annual assessment of the markets for the delivery of video programming. Commenters included broadcaster, cable and other video programming interests, as well as advocates for persons with disabilities.
10. Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 97-141, Fourth Annual Report, 13 FCC Rcd 1034 (1998) (Fourth Annual Report).
11. See infra �� 16-18.
12. Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters, Charting the Digital Broadcasting Future: Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters at section III.8 (1998). This report is available at www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom/pubint.htm.
13. Letter from Sen. John F. Kerry to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (July 1, 1999); Letter from R.E. Turner, Vice Chairman, Time Warner, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 4, 1999).
14. First NOI, 11 FCC Rcd at 4913, � 1 (NOI) (citing Telecommunications Reform, Hearings on S. 1822 Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1994) (statement of Margaret R. Pfanstiehl, President of the Metropolitan Washington Ear)).
15. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Economics & Statistics Admin., Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S.149 (1998).
16. NCAM Letter at 5.
17. NCAM Letter at 5.
18. NCAM Letter at 5-6.
19. 1998 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. at 149.
20. Who's Watching at v.
21. 1998 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. at 150.
22. NCAM Letter at 6.
23. NCAM Letter at 7-8.
24. NCAM Letter at 8.
25. Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 19256-19257, �� 100, 102.
26. NCAM Letter at 10.
27. NCAM Letter at 13.
28. NCAM Letter at 13.
29. NCAM Letter at 12.
30. NCAM Letter at 10.
31. NCAM Letter at 12.
32. Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 19256, � 101.
33. NCAM Letter at 12.
34. NOI, 11 FCC Rcd 4912.
36. Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd 19214.
37. 11 FCC Rcd at 19269-19270, � 138.
38. 11 FCC Rcd at 19270, � 138. Because of the separate statutory requirements for closed captioning and video description, closed captioning implementation issues became the subject of separate notices and orders in MM Docket No. 95-176. See Closed Captioning and Video Description, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 1044 (1997); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 5627; Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3272 (1997) (Closed Captioning Order); Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19973 (1998) (Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order).
39. 11 FCC Rcd at 19270, � 140.
40. 11 FCC Rcd at 19271, � 142.
41. Fourth Annual Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1034. The Commission had previously released a notice on video description, among other things, to develop a record for this report. See Second NOI, 12 FCC Rcd 7829.
42. 11 FCC Rcd at 1169, � 268.
43. 11 FCC Rcd at 1169, � 269.
44. 11 FCC Rcd at 1170, � 271.
45. 11 FCC Rcd at 1170, � 271.
46. 11 FCC Rcd at 1170, � 271.
47. Report of National Coalition of Blind and Visually Impaired Persons for Increased Video Access, MM Docket No. 95-176, WT Docket No. 96-198 (filed Feb. 7, 1997) (Coalition Report).
48. NCAM Letter at 31.
49. NCAM Letter at 32.
50. NCAM Letter at 32; Coalition Report at 11-12.
51. NCAM Letter at 31; Coalition Report at 10.
52. NCAM Letter at 31; Coalition Report at 10.
53. NCAM Letter at 31; Coalition Proposal at 11.
54. We seek comment below on how to define the larger MVPDs that would be subject to the proposed initial rules. See infra � 25.
55. The proposed requirement that distributors provide roughly four hours per week of prime time and/or children's programming is a hybrid of the first phase of the Coalition's and NCAM's proposals. As mentioned above, they propose that distributors provide four hours per week of described prime time programming the first year after any Commission rules became effective, and some additional hours of described children's programming the second year after any Commission rules became effective.
56. The proposed requirement that larger MVPDs carry the described programming of the top four commercial broadcast networks and nonbroadcast networks that reach 50% or more of MVPD household follows from NCAM's proposal, and the Commission's decision regarding real-time captioning programs of live programs such as newscasts. See infra note 64.
57. Closed Captioning Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3286, �� 27-28.
58. In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 98-102, Fifth Annual Report, 13 FCC Rcd 24284, 24288 at � 8 (Fifth Annual Report) (noting that 76.6 million households subscribed to MVPD services as of June 1998).
59. Fifth Annual Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 24288, � 8 (noting that the number of cable subscribers increased 2%, and the number of noncable MVPD subscribers increased 18%, between June 1997 and June 1998).
60. Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 19259, � 109.
61. Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 19259, � 109 and 19262, � 117 (noting that cable, MMDS, and SMATV operators are technically capable of transmitting information on the SAP channel, but that HSDs are not). Digital technologies, such as DTV and DBS, do not require the use of the SAP channel, but have the capability of transmitting multiple audio programs associated with a single audio program.
62. 11 FCC Rcd at 1170, � 271.
63. 11 FCC Rcd at 1170, � 271.
64. This is similar to the Commission's decision in the closed captioning proceeding with respect to the captioning of programming such as live newscasts. We concluded that "we should impose a real-time captioning requirement on a limited group of the largest video programming providers, including the four major national broadcast networks (i.e., ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC), broadcast stations associated with these networks in the top 25 television markets as defined by Nielsen's Designated Market Areas ('DMAs'), and nonbroadcast networks serving over 50% or more of the total number of multichannel video programming distributor ('MVPD') households." Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19992, � 38. We reasoned that these entities had access to real-time captioning resources and requiring them to use such resources would not be economically burdensome. Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19992, � 37.
65. Because of these financial difficulties, the Commission granted noncommercial stations the longest time period in which to complete the transition to DTV. See In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12852 at � 104 (1997). We also note that noncommercial stations provide video description in the absence of Commission rules requiring them to do so.
66. Coalition Report at 6; Fourth Annual Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 1166, � 263.
67. 11 FCC Rcd at 19270.
68. Cf. In the Matter of Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming, Revision of Programming Policies for Television Broadcast Stations, MM Docket No. 93-48, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 10660, 10706 at � 99 (1996) (Children's TV Report and Order) (limiting "core" children's programming to that aired between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. in order "to encourage broadcasters to air educational programming at times the maximum number of child viewers will be watching").
69. Children's TV Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 10668 -10669, � 57 (requiring broadcasters to identify "core" children's programming as such to publishers of program guides in order to provide parents with advance notice of scheduling of educational programs).
70. Coalition Report at 12.
72. 47 C.F.R. � 79.1(f) (procedures for waiver); 47 C.F.R. � 79.1(g) (procedures for enforcement).
73. 47 U.S.C. � 151 (emphasis added).
74. 47 U.S.C. � 152. Section 3(33) of the Act defines "communication by radio" to mean "the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission." 47 U.S.C. � 153(33). Section 3(52) defines "communication by wire" to mean "the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission." 47 U.S.C. � 153(52).
75. 47 U.S.C. � 154(i).
76. 47 U.S.C. � 303(r).
77. 47 U.S.C. � 225(b)(1).
78. 47 U.S.C. �� 255(b), 255(c). In asserting ancillary jurisdiction to include information services within our section 255 requirements for telecommunications services, we relied on sections 1-3 of the Act as authority. Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, As Enacted by the Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report & Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, FCC 99-181 (Sept. 29, 1999) at �� 93-98.
79. 47 U.S.C. � 303(u).
81. 29 U.S.C. � 794d(a)(1)(A).
82. 47 U.S.C. �� 309(r), 307(c)(1), 310(d).
85. 13 C.F.R. � 121.201 (SIC Code 4833)
86. 13 C.F.R. � 121.201 (SIC Code 4841).
87. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities at Firm Size 1-123.
88. 47 C.F.R. � 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less. See In the Matter of Implementationof Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket Nos. 92-266, 93-215, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd7393 (1995).
89. Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb.29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).
90. 47 U.S.C. � 543(m)(2).
91. 47 C.F.R. � 21.961(b)(1).
92. In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-31 and PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995).
93. SBREFA also applies to nonprofit organizations and governmental organizations such as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. � 601(5).
94. Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming, Third Annual Report, CS Docket No. 96-133, 12 FCC Rcd 4358, 4385 at � 49 (1996).
95. Third Annual Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4385, � 49.
96. Third Annual Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4385, � 49.
97. Third Annual Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4385, � 49.
98. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. Certification to Operate an Open Video System, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 13249 (CSB 1996).
99. Bell Atlantic, Bell Atlantic Now Offering Video Services in Dover Township New Jersey (news release), Nov.1, 1996.
100. In the Matter of Metropolitan Fiber Systems/New York Inc. d/b/a MFS Telecom of New York to Operate an Open Video System, Metropolitan Fiber Systems/McCourt, Inc. Certification to Operate an Open Video System, Consolidated Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20896 (CSB 1996).
101. Digital Broadcasting OVS Certification to Operate an Open Video Systems, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12854 (CSB 1996). Digital Broadcasting Video Systems proposes to use local exchange company facilities for the transmission of video services.
102. Third Annual Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 4403, � 81.
103. Third Annual Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 4403, � 81.
104. Third Annual Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 4403, � 81.


text:
Blanche's Book Club: 'The Bucket List'.
Hey there! It's about 11 on Tuesday night, and while I normally would be tucked in bed by now, I'll admit I've got some nerves keeping me awake. In the morning, I'm heading to a dermatologist to have my skin examined for signs of cancer. Right before I went on vacation, I was putting on […]More


text:
This page exists for historical purposes and the content is no longer valid.
If your family does not have a Memorial Cross, there may be an opportunity to receive one, but only if you take action.
The Memorial Cross (Silver Cross) was traditionally awarded to the mother or widow of a soldier who either died during battle, or shortly thereafter as a result of injury from battle.
In 2001, the requirements were changed so that other family members (ie children & siblings) as well as the mother or spouse, could receive the award. Even if the veterans died after their service ended, as long as death could be attributed to an injury or medical condition acquired during military service, a the Cross could be awarded. Shortly thereafter, it was determined that all HK veterans were qualified because of the conditions and punishment they endured as a POW. If it was established that death was not an accident, or related to a cause for which the veteran did not receive a pension, then the veteran's family could receive the Cross. Many families applied and received the Memorial Cross.
In 2008, the policy changed again. Now, applications must come from a parent or a surviving spouse. Other family members are no longer allowed to apply, thus eliminating the opportunity for most of the families of HK veterans.
The National Council of Veteran's Association (NCVA), is an association of 60+ veterans associations that has supported the HK vets over the years. The NCVA has been very successful at lobbying the government to made changes so that veterans are justly compensated in relation to military pensions and benefits. The NCVA Executive feel that any changes to the 2008 Military Cross policy should have been "grandfathered" to preserved the right for any sibling, child, or grandchild of HK Veterans to apply.
Here comes the point! NVCA will undertake the objective to push for the reinstatement of the right for HK families to apply, but only if there is sufficient interest. Consider also that the greater time that elaspes, the NVCA will not likely be able to act. This could be your last chance to try.
To determine if there is sufficient interest for the NVCA to pursue it, numbers are needed. Thus far we are aware of only one. If any sibling, child, or grandchild is interested, please contact me in writing either by email (firstname.lastname@example.com) or post (H.K.V.C.A., Suite # 164, 1826 Robertson Road , Nepean, ON, K2H 1B9)
Derrill Henderson
National Council of Veterans Associations


text:
If you search for a way to add tokens in to your Chaturbate account we have good news for you. Now with Chaturbate Token Hack Generator you can easy add unlimited tokens in to your account. After few days of work we finish developing a awesome hack . Is free to download for everybody.
Chaturbate Token Hack Generator
With Chaturbate Token Hack Generator you can add 250 , 1500 , 3500 or 5000 tokens in just few minutes with just few clicks. To begin you need do download and install Chaturbate Token Hack Generator. The run the generator and enter you Chaturbate username in the bok. Now select desired amount of tokens you need and just click add button. Wait few minutes , our hack need to contact the servers. When done go to your account and you will see you have your desired tokens. Chaturbate Token Hack Generator can be used multiple times for multiple account by only one person. Is free to download and use proxy , is 100 % undetectable and safe. You can download free the hack from below by clicking the download button. Have fun.
|Views: 691 | Downloads: 0 |
|Total comments: 0


text:
It's almost summer! I'll level with you, I'm not the biggest fan of the season myself. I know, what's wrong with me? Don't get me wrong, I like that there's no snow or ice to be seen, but I just don't love the heat. My perfect summer day is no hotter than 75 and includes a little breeze. That's not quite reality though, so it's essential to be prepared for the heat and humidity (ugh...). Read on for a look at some of Summer Survival Supplies that will get you through the hottest days and for info on how to enter to win 1 of 10 Cetaphil prizes.
Sephora Collection Sun Disk Bronzer* 30 g $24 USD / $30 CAD | Mark Buenos Aires Vibe Eau de Toilette Spray* 50 ml $24 USD / $28 CAD | The Body Shop Vitamin C Instant Glow Enhancer* 25 ml $24 USD / $20 CAD
Did you really expect a summer post without a bronzer included? The limited edition Sephora Collection Sun Disk Bronzer is a behemoth, but makes quick work of easy summer makeup. I have a less is more motto for warm weather, and this bronzer plays into that nicely. A fluffy brush swirled through the three shades (apricot, tan, and golden bronze) imparts skin with a natural glow that's designed to suit almost all skin-tones. Add a little waterproof mascara and lip gloss, and you're good (nay, golden.)
Not all scents are created equally, and some just don't work well when the temperature rises. Mark Buenos Aries Vibe Eau de Toilette has a tropical fruity-floral vibe that is perfect for sunny days and warm nights. With it's blend of passion fruit, mauve violet, and warm musk it combines a sweet and warm element with soft florals that is quite enticing. Plus, the bottle is pretty great too.
Continuing on the less is more theme, The Body Shop Vitamin C Instant Glow Enhancer gets you one step closer to fresh, radiant skin sans makeup. The peachy-hued lotion lightly moisturizes while adding a subtle tint to skin that perks up any complexion.This is great on it's own for actual no makeup days, and makes a great primer for BB cream or powder foundation if a completely bare canvas isn't your thing.
Imaginary Things by Andrea Lochen* $15.95 USD / $18.95 CAD | The Face Shop Real Nature Aloe Sheet Mask* $1.50 USD / $2 CAD | Montagne Jeunesse Dead Sea Mud Spa Mask* $2.49 USD / CAD
I'm always up for a good book, but a light and easy summer read is essential to see you through long lazy days and evenings. Imaginary Things by Andrea Lochen is a great pick as it's got a light-hearted story that revolves around twenty-two year old single mother Anna Jennings who moves to
her grandparents' rural Wisconsin home for the summer with her four year old son, David. As Anna re-adjusts to the simply charms of small town life, the sudden appearance of dinosaurs forces her to believe she has actually lost her mind or can somehow see her son's imaginary friends. The story is whimsical, but the characters are relate-able and endearing. It's a nice story and something you can pick up or put down at moment's notice.
If you're going to be taking a moment out to read, I say optimize that me time with a sheet mask. Agree? They're so easy to pop on, and if it's particularly sweltering, they can be placed in the fringe for a few moments for an extra relaxing effect. I quite like Montagne Jeunesse Dead Sea Mud Mask for a deep cleaning treatment, while The Face Shop Real Nature Aloe Sheet Mask is a great option post-sun as the natual aloe based essence is soothing and hydrating.
Aubrey Organics Pure Aloe Vera* 118 ml $7.99 USD / $10.99 CAD | Vichy Ideal Body Serum-Milk* 200 ml $22.50 CAD
Let's stay on the aloe train for just a second... We all know SPF is a must, but mistakes happen and even protected skin can feel the effects of the sun. As I'm sure you're well aware, sunburn is painful and uncomfortable. The best option for soothing skin is aloe, and you can't get much better than Aubrey Organics Pure Aloe Vera which is 98% organic and contains nothing but aloe- no fillers, no thickeners, no dyes. Just aloe. Pure aloe soothes and hydrates skin gently and won't disrupt sensitive skin during the healing process. This also works as a great toner/serum post cleansing.
When it's hot, the last thing I want to do after a shower is slather on a heavy moisturizer that's going to end up feeling sticky and blegck. You know the feeling. Thing is, my skin gets too dry to skip a hydrating session. Vichy Ideal Body Serum-Milk is the ultimate answer as it's a super light, serum textured body milk that is deceptively hydrating. The formula features a unique blend of 10 fundamental oils, apricot kernel, passionflower, corn, rice bran,sunflower, blackcurrant pips, rosehip, coriander, macadamia and jojoba oils, to help smooth and calm the skin. It also contains LHA that helps exfoliate and stimulate new skin cell production, while hyaluronic acid helps to promote hydration and prevent water loss. If that's not enough for you, it's also enriched with mother-of-pearl particles to enhance skin.
We all know cleansing cloths are a quick and easy way to remove makeup, but what if that little cloth could do everything- remove makeup, cleanse hands, body, and face too? Cetaphil Gentle Skin Cleansing Cloths do it all and, do it gently. The convenient pre-moistened cloths provide effective cleansing on the go and remove dirt, surface oils and makeup without drying or irritating the skin. They leave skin feeling fresh and clean without disturbing skin's natural pH balance and leave no trace of stickiness or residue.
I love that the packaging has a snap down closure which not only keeps the cloths plenty saturated, but also keep the liquid in the package. An important feature since you're likely going to have these stashed everywhere- purse, gym bag, diaper bag, car... you get the gist.
Cetaphil Canada is giving 10 lucky Canadians an opportunity to try their Gentle Skin Cleansing Cloths in the form of a 10 count package ($4.99 CAD value.) To enter, simply fill in the Rafflecopter widget below. Canadian residents only, please. Givaway will end on Friday June 26th 2015.
a Rafflecopter giveaway
Do you have any products/items that help you get through summer? Tried any of these?
Do you have any products/items that help you get through summer? Tried any of these?


text:
Very glad we found this restaurant on our first night as we will definitely be back.
The food was very tasty, the staff were lovely and it was reasonably priced. We had beef Stifado and pitta chicken which were delicious with just the right amount of food and cost under €10 each.The background music was great and added to the relaxed atmosphere. There was no hurry to leave our table but when we were ready to go they ordered us a taxi back to Lassi which was only €5. Great service. A lovely evening.