15 Interoperability of digital interactive
television services
| (27274)
6026/06
COM(06) 37
| Commission Communication on reviewing the interoperability of digital interactive television services pursuant to Commission Communication COM(2004) 541 of 30 July 2004
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 02 February 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 09 February 2006
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 27 February 2006
|
| Previous Committee Reports | None; but see HC 42-xxxii (2003-04), para 27 (13 October 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 The arrival of digital television 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 evolved,
several incompatible — mainly proprietary — APIs were
introduced by different broadcasters, resulting in the content
or applications authored for one API not being able to be understood
by a receiver containing a different API. This in turn led to
concerns about lack of interoperability and possible constraints
on consumer choice.
15.2 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
ascertain the extent to which interoperability of interactive
digital television services had 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 to achieve interoperability. This is known as "mandation".
15.3 A complex open API standard was subsequently
developed — MHP (Multimedia Home Platform), capable of deploying
all digital technologies, developed by the industry-led DVB project,[44]
endorsed by the European Standards Organisation, but in its infancy.
Much of the debate on improving interoperability centred on adoption
of the MHP standard — then the only API that 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.
15.4 In addition to subsidiarity issues, mandation
would effectively render obsolete, at least so far as interactive
services were concerned, all existing digital television receivers
in the UK — the market with the highest penetration in Europe.
So when we cleared an all-embracing Communication on access to
information society services on 19 November 2003, we asked the
Minister for further information concerning "mandation".
In subsequent correspondence, it was made clear that a large proportion
of the organizations consulted by the Commission had expressed
reservations about MHP being mandated, including the DVB itself;
and 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 the British
standard — MHEG — 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".
15.5 By the time that we came to consider the subsequent
Commission Communication on the interoperability of digital interactive
television services and Commission Staff Working Document (11853/04;
COM(04) 541 + ADD 1), the Minister felt able to say that the its
approach was compatible with HMG's policy. In particular, concerns
that the Commission might seek to mandate the adoption of MHP
had been allayed, and the Government therefore welcomed the main
conclusions, which were not to mandate any particular standard,
and to re-assess the effects of Article 18(3) of the Framework
Directive in the second half of 2005. Although the Communication
did not state what the process for this review was to be, which
raised the possibility that possible subsequent actions could
include mandating the MHP platform, the Commission had signalled
its intent to add to the British standards (MHEG-5 and WTVML,
which is used by BSkyB) to the Official List. The Minister therefore
judged that the risk of the Commission mandating standards in
a way which would be prejudicial to UK interests was low.
15.6 We were similarly reassured, and cleared the
Communication. But given the possibility of further legislative
action by the Commission in this area after the review of the
effects of Article 18(3), we asked the Minister to report to us
again if — against his expectations — subsequent developments
again threatened the strong UK interest in non-mandation of the
MHP platform.[45]
The Commission Communication
15.7 Referring to the conclusion in Commission Communication
11853/04 — that "there was no clear case for mandating
standards for interactive television" — the Minister
of State for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael) summarises
subsequent developments as follows:
- "MHEG-5[46]
and WTVML,[47] two of
the main interactive standards used by UK broadcasters, have become
open European (i.e. ETSI)[48]
standards alongside MHP. The Commission is in the process of adding
them to the List of Standards published under Article 17 of the
Framework Directive;
- The European Digital Video Broadcasting Project
(DVB) has specified a Portable Content Format (PCF) for interactive
services and sent it to ETSI for standardisation. This authoring
format is designed to provide ease of translation of interactive
services into diverse interactive standards for delivery to receivers;
- Recent developments have underlined the need
for a range of interactive delivery standards. MHP is far too
power-hungry and expensive for applications such as mobile TV.
In countries (e.g. Germany and Italy) where MHP has been strongly
promoted, the majority of set top boxes bought by the public are
'zapper boxes', with no interactive TV capability. These are cheaper
to make than MHP boxes;
- By contrast, almost all the set top boxes bought
by the UK public incorporate MHEG-5 (which is relatively cheap
and lightweight, but nevertheless supports attractive services
like 'red button' interactivity). There are very few zapper boxes
in the UK; and
- As the policy focus in Europe turns to switchover
(i.e. replacing analogue terrestrial television transmissions
with digital transmissions), the advantage of providing interactive
services to ALL televisions in the home becomes more apparent."
15.8 The Commission's own perspective is somewhat
wider. It reviews the work of the MHP Implementation Group; the
situation in digital television in the EU in June 2005; market
developments; standards other than MHP; a "Roadmap on High
Definition Television (HDTV) Technical Interoperability";
and its own position on digital television interoperability. It
comes to the conclusion that these developments "lend support
to its previous analysis and conclusions, namely that mandating
EU-wide standards under Article 18(3) of the Framework Directive
would not contribute significantly to the growth of interactive
digital television in Europe, and could have negative effects".
The Government's view
15.9 The Minister says that "UK broadcasters
and Government have worked hard towards persuading the Commission
and others of the merits of the position now endorsed by this
Commission Communication" and welcomes the Commission's conclusion.
Conclusion
15.10 We share the Minister's welcome for this
outcome.
15.11 We now clear the document, which we are
reporting to the House because of the widespread interest in developments
in Information and Communication Technologies.
44 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
45
HC 42-xxxii (2003-04), para 27 (13 October 2004). Back
46
MHEG-5 is part of an international standard developed by the Multimedia
and Hypermedia Experts Group (MHEG), which is simpler than MHP.
The Commission estimates that there are more than 5 million set-top
boxes using MHEG-5 (COM(06) 37, page 7). Back
47
WTVML is an extension of the Wireless Mark-up Language (WML) for
TV. It is a micro-browser for interactive television applications.
The Commission estimates there to be more than 7 million set top
boxes using WTVML (ibid). Back
48
Based in Sophia Antipolis (France), the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) is officially responsible for the standardization
of Information and Communication Technologies within Europe (including
telecommunications and broadcasting).
Back
| 
