27 Interoperability of digital interactive
television services
| (25884)
11853/04
COM(04) 541
+ ADD 1
| Commission Communication on the interoperability of digital interactive television services
Commission Staff Working Paper — Extended Impact Assessment
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 30 July 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 17 August 2004
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 1 September 2004
|
| Previous Committee Reports | None; but see (24750) 11496/03: HC 42-xxiii (2003-04), para 10 (16 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
27.1 The arrival of digital television has facilitated the addition
of interactive elements to programmes and the provision of separate
interactive services, making use of the computer-like processing
capabilities in digital set-top boxes and integrated digital television
(DTV) receivers. A standard software interface (an application
programming interface or API) is required in DTV receivers to
enable them to decode the interactive part of TV services provided
by broadcasters. As the market for interactive television has
evolved, several incompatible — mainly proprietary —
APIs have been introduced by different broadcasters. Content or
applications authored for one API cannot be understood by a receiver
containing a different API. This has lead to concerns about lack
of interoperability and possible constraints on consumer choice.
27.2 Article 18(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC on a common
regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and
services (the Framework Directive) required the Commission to
examine the effects of Article 18 concerning television services,
and to ascertain the extent to which interoperability of interactive
digital television services has been achieved in Member States.
If it concluded that interoperability and freedom of choice for
users had not been achieved, the Commission had the power to mandate
the use of certain technical standards throughout the Community
in order for interoperability to be achieved.
27.3 A complex open API standard has subsequently
been developed — MHP (Multimedia Home Platform), an "open
platform" capable of deploying all digital technologies,
developed by the industry-led DVB project,[53]
endorsed by the European Standards Organisation, but in its infancy.
Much of the debate on ways to improve interoperability has centred
on adoption of the MHP open API standard — to date, the
only API which had been published as a standard in the Official
Journal of the European Communities — with the Commission
raising the proposition that this particular open standard should
be made mandatory (known as "mandation").
27.4 In addition to subsidiarity issues, mandation
would effectively outlaw virtually all 10.8 million existing digital
television receivers in the UK — the market with the highest
penetration in Europe. We shared the Government's preference
for a more gradual, market-led "migration" to MHP, rather
than "mandation". In September 2003 we asked the Minister
for Energy, e-Commerce and Postal Services at the Department of
Trade and Industry (Mr Stephen Timms) for further information
concerning the ability of the Commission to impose a compulsory
standard and the extent to which MHP had been endorsed, especially
in the UK. We considered his response in November 2003. It revealed
that a large proportion of the organizations consulted by the
Commission expressed reservations about MHP being mandated, including
the DVB itself; and that no UK group or individual was known to
be in favour of mandating the MHP standard. Moreover, discussions
were already in hand with other Member States on adopting an advanced
version of MHEG, the British standard, as a cheaper, interim measure.
In sum, the UK's main objective was to persuade the Commission
to give closer attention to market conditions and produce a more
complex set of standards, with MHP being adopted eventually through
"migration". We cleared the document, but asked the
Minister to clarify whether he regarded the risk of the MHP standard
being mandated as low or non-existent, since he did not make his
assessment explicit. When he responded in June 2004, the Minister
took the view that the risk was low, though noting that the Information
Society Commissioner was expected to propose a course of action
in line with Article 18 of the Framework Directive before leaving
his post at the end of June 2004. We accordingly accepted the
Minister's offer to report back on any proposals that Commissioner
Liikanen put forward, and expressed the hope that they would not
include a proposal for which there appears to be little support.
The Commission Communication
27.5 In order to ascertain whether interoperability
had been achieved, a Commission Working Paper was published for
consultation on this issue in March 2004. The current Communication
sets out the Commission's position after analysis and consideration
of the responses. Fifty-one responses were received, principally
from broadcasters, manufacturers, network operators, API providers
and some consumer groups. Responses were also received from certain
public authorities (notably the Governments of the UK, France,
Germany and Norway). A response was also submitted by Ofcom.
27.6 In his helpful Explanatory Memorandum of 1 September,
the Minister annexes the Government's response and summarises
the overall outcome:
"The responses to the consultation showed widely
differing views as to the meaning of interoperability. They can
be divided into two main groups. Those who favour the mandatory
imposition of open standards (including MHP) as a means of achieving
interoperability believe that interoperability has not yet been
achieved. Because there is no European API standard, the market
is fragmented, consumers cannot choose any digital receiver and
use it over all digital interactive television platforms, and
manufacturers have difficulty in achieving a critical mass of
sales in order to benefit from economies of scale in production.
Those who oppose mandatory imposition believe that interoperability
has already been achieved as the same interactive services can
be — and are — made available on different platforms.
Technologies exist which allow content to be ported from one platform
to another. Whether interactive applications are made available
on different platforms depends on market demand. Where there is
demand the applications are made available. There are no technical
barriers to a "one box" solution. If one has not evolved
to date it is because the market has not demanded it. Lack of
regulation has lead to Europe having a highly dynamic digital
television market, and to impose standards "ex post"
would prejudice already successful platform operators and act
as a disincentive for future investment.
"The Communication recognises that member States
where digital television does not enjoy high penetration rates
are different from those where a competitive market already exists
in digital television services. In general, the mandatory imposition
of open standards was supported by public authorities and free-to-air
broadcasters from Member States where the digital television market
is less well developed. Respondents from countries where interactive
television is most advanced were in general satisfied that there
was an adequate level of interoperability.
"The Communication concludes that there is no
clear case for mandating standards at present. On the one hand
by the end of May 2004 nine of the Member States had not completed
transposing the Framework Directive into national law and therefore
more time is required to allow the provisions. On the other all
market players have given high priority to the issue of interoperability,
even though their views on the nature of the legal requirement
— in other words the definition of interoperability —
and how best to fulfil it may differ. The Commission will review
the situation during the second half of 2005. Meanwhile a range
of promotional actions are proposed to promote the deployment
of interactive digital services using MHP. These include: improved
co-ordination of Member States' implementation of MHP; consumer
subsidies; addition of two further open standards to the list
of standards published in the Official Journal next time it is
published; monitoring access to proprietary technologies for licensing
by manufacturers."
The Government's view
27.7 The Minister adds:
"The Commission's Communication is compatible
with HMG's policy on interoperability — which is described
in HMG's response to the Commission's earlier call for comments
on the Working Paper put out for consultation — see Annex
1. In particular concerns that the Commission might seek to mandate
the adoption of MHP have been allayed. HMG therefore welcomes
the main conclusions of the Communication which are not to mandate
any particular standard, and re-assess the effects of Article
18(3) of the Framework Directive in the second half of 2005.
"As detailed in the Communication and the summary
above, the assessment of the effects of Article 18(3) of the Framework
directive with regard to interoperability and freedom of choice
for users issue of interactive digital television will be reviewed
during the second half of 2005. The Communication does not state
what the process for this review will be. Possible actions could
include mandating a standard or a set of standards to ensure the
interoperability of digital television platforms in the EU. Given
that the Commission has signalled its intent to add the MHEG 5
and WTVML standards to the Official List, the risk of the commission
mandating standards in a way which would be prejudicial to UK
interests is considered low."
Conclusion
27.8 We are reassured by the Minister's latest
response. However, as he himself notes, further legislative action
by the Commission in this area could follow the review of the
effects of Article 18(3) which it will carry out in 2005. We
therefore ask the Minister to report to us again, if — against
his expectations — subsequent developments again threaten
the strong UK interest in the Multimedia Home Platform (MHP) not
being made mandatory.
53 DVB is an industry-led consortium of over 300 broadcasters,
manufacturers, network operators, software developers, regulatory
bodies and others in over 35 countries committed to designing
global standards for the global delivery of digital television
and data services. Back
|
