9 Reaping the benefits of the digital
dividend in Europe
| (31082)
15289/09
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(09) 586
SEC(09) 1436
SEC(09) 1437
| Commission Communication: Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth
Commission Staff Working Documents
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 28 October 2009
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 5 November 2009
|
| Department | Business, Innovation and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 9 December 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 5-ii (2009-10), chapter 3 (25 November 2009); also see (29169) 15365/07 HC 16-vii (2007-08), chapter 11 (9 January 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 18 December 2009 Telecommunications Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 The switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial TV by
the end of 2012 will free up large amounts of valuable Ultra High
Frequency (UHF) radio spectrum across Europe. In the UK alone,
estimates of the worth of this "digital dividend" are
between £5.4bn and £14.4bn over 20 years, because of
the opportunity thereby provided to meet the fast growing demand
for new and existing broadcasting and communication services.
The Commission Communication
9.2 This Communication follows an earlier Commission Communication
15365/07 on this topic — Reaping the full benefits of
the digital dividend in Europe: A common approach to the use of
spectrum released by the digital switchover — which
the Committee considered nearly two years ago. As our previous
Report recalls, the then Minister for Competitiveness, now the
Minister for Digital Britain at the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (Stephen Timms), explained his and other Member States'
opposition to the Commission's approach. Though recognising that
there might be advantages to a coordinated approach to the digital
dividend across Europe, he considered that there was a danger
that mandated harmonisation, through attempting to pick winners
and the potential for delay it would introduce to the decision
making process, would distort the development of the market: such
"mandated coordination could thus prove costly and very disruptive."
He noted that spectrum allocation is a matter for Member States
and that, in the UK, Ofcom would award the spectrum freed up nationally
by the switchover through a market-led auction on a technology
and service neutral basis.
9.3 In our previous report, we also recalled our
earlier consideration of a number of related Commission proposals,
which demonstrated that this was not an isolated instance of the
Commission seeking to mandate a particular approach within a framework
that was, instead, supposedly centred on working with Member States
and the relevant industries on a market-led basis. The Minister
had also then put it very clearly: "There is no clear gain,
and much potentially at risk, from setting aside certain spectrum
bands for specific services. There are also tensions in these
proposals with the Commission's stated aim of greater market mechanisms
in spectrum management which we support." The Committee endorsed
his approach and considered it relevant to the then upcoming debate
on the Commission's proposals for reforming the overall regulatory
framework[35] (which
debate took place in March 2008).[36]
Our assessment
9.4 Now, the Commission was again flirting with the
notion of mandatory harmonisation of relevant part of the UHF
band. The Minister was commendably clear; the Government's policy
on spectrum clearly is:
"… to be service and technology neutral
and to allow the markets to decide the best use of spectrum, wherever
possible not mandating the use of specific technologies as often
such decisions can be later shown to be sub-optimal."
9.5 The Minister was likewise clear on the notion
of mandatory harmonisation:
"Mandatory harmonization of the cleared 800
MHz band, which the Commission says it could propose, is considered
unnecessary. There is a clear movement across Europe, driven by
industry, to making that band available for mobile broadband technologies.
As such it is not clear what value would be gained from any Commission
mandate".
9.6 The Minister seemed uncertain about the immediate
timetable. But it also seemed that the Council would be invited
to adopt formal Conclusions on the Communication in the not too
distant future, which would then form the basis upon which the
Commission would take this work forward. Given the general background
outlined above and the Commission's continued hankering after
a more mandatory approach than would appear to be justified, the
Committee decided to retain the Communication under scrutiny,
and asked the Minister to write to us before the relevant Council
meeting, outlining the Conclusions that he expected to be adopted
and explaining how they addressed his justifiable concern.
The Minister's letter of 9 December 2009
9.7 The Minister says that Council Conclusions on
the Communication are due to be agreed at the 18 December Telecommunications
Council, which he is attending, and continues as follows:
"I expect that these will include agreement
to a 'during 2012' recommended timetable for ending analogue television
transmissions that is fully compatible with the UK's Digital Switchover
programme. I do not expect the Conclusions to make reference to
any mandatory harmonisation of the 800 MHz band, to agree to any
proposals for interference-resistance standards or to mandate
that digital receivers have to be H264/MPEG4-AVC compliant.
"The Conclusions should though reflect that
harmonisation of the 800 MHz band is taking place in many Member
States without any Commission involvement. This is in line with
the UK's position whereby primarily the market, rather than policy
makers, decides what standards are appropriate.
"The Conclusions should also state that further
measures regarding the exploitation of the Digital Dividend or
exclusive use of the 800 MHz band for non-broadcasting services
should be raised in planned multiannual radio spectrum policy
programmes, allowing the timely involvement of Council and European
Parliament.
"I therefore believe the UK's position will
be well reflected in the Council Conclusions and will report back
to the Committee after the Council."
Conclusion
9.8 We are grateful to the Minister for his prompt
and helpful response.
9.9 We now clear the Communication.
35 See headnote (29169) 15365/07 HC 16-vii (2007-08),
chapter 11 (9 January 2008). Back
36
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmgeneral/euro/080318/80318s01.htm
for the record of the debate. Back
| 
