Annexes to COM(2006)37 - Reviewing the interoperability of digital interactive television services pursuant to Communication COM(2004) 541 of 30 July 2004 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2006)37 - Reviewing the interoperability of digital interactive television services pursuant to Communication COM(2004) 541 of 30 July ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2006)37  |
| date | February 2, 2006 |
2) the introduction of the subsidy scheme for interactive decoders by the authorities, and
3) the definition of common implementation specifications.
The developments on digital TV in Italy serve to demonstrate how flexibility and consensus among market players can achieve effective interoperability.
In the Nordic countries, although there has been a wide consensus among broadcasters and public authorities around the NorDig agreements, MHP has never achieved a strong penetration, primarily because of its price differential compared with “zapper boxes”, i.e. set top boxes with no interactive television or enhanced broadcasting functionalities. Although prosperous, the Nordic countries are relatively small markets, and the price differential, in the absence of any subsidy scheme, has been the main handicap towards the successful take-up of MHP.
In Germany there have been announcements of support for MHP from cable operators and the public services broadcasters, but there has not been the same degree of stakeholder coordination as in Italy. Commercial broadcasters and pay-TV operators have been more reluctant to invest in interactive television, especially in the absence of a clear business model, and consumer subsidies have not been generally available.
In the region of Flanders, in Belgium, launching MHP on the cable network appears very promising, as cable is, by essence, a two-way interactivity medium and users can really benefit from and appreciate interactive services. Furthermore, the cable operator has established partnerships with broadcasters and content providers.
2.5. Other standards for Interactive digital television
The Commission signalled in the July 2004 Communication its intention to add two more interactive TV standards - namely MHEG-5[5] and WTVML[6] - to the List of standards that is published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 17 of the Framework Directive, conditional upon their adoption by ETSI. These standards have now been adopted by ETSI, and the Commission is in the process of amending the List of standards accordingly[7]. These standards are widely used in the market.
Other standards emerging from the standardisation work programme defined in mandate M331, like the portable content format (PCF)[8], will also be considered for inclusion in the List of Standards when they become available. PCF enhances interoperability by enabling content providers to author their content once and run it on multiple API platforms. PCF covers 80% of interactive television applications. PCF and other deliverables under mandate 331 have the potential to facilitate the development of interactive content as well as to improve interoperability.
With regard to proprietary standards, the Framework Directive requires Member States to encourage proprietors of APIs to make available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and against appropriate remuneration, all such information as is necessary to enable providers of digital interactive TV services to provide all services supported by the API in a fully functional form. The Commission has been monitoring the situation regarding the availability of proprietary technologies for licensing by manufacturers, and has received no complaints concerning licensing arrangements.
2.6. Roadmap on High Definition Television (HDTV) Technical Interoperability
The Commission Services, concerned about possible market fragmentation arising from different - albeit standardised - technical options for HDTV, organised a workshop on 21 January 2005, in Brussels, on HDTV interoperability. The workshop was attended by European public and private broadcasters, manufacturers, infrastructure and service providers and national and European HDTV planning groups.
A labelling scheme for display devices was agreed, according to which ‘HD ready’ consumer equipment will be able to support both the main approaches used internationally, for scanning formats, i.e. 720 lines progressive scanning and 1080 lines interlaced scanning. In the longer term use of the more costly, but very high quality 1080/50 progressive format is also foreseen. The workshop also confirmed that all HD receiving equipment would support MPEG-2 as well as the new advanced compression coding system MPEG-4 AVC[9]. This leaves broadcasters free to make their own choices of scanning formats and coding systems, within the options provided by the ‘HD ready’ displays.
The underlying approach of the European industry representatives present in the workshp is to promote flexibility and interoperability among HDTV specifications. This agreement, which is voluntary and open to all market players, provides certainty for the consumer contemplating the purchase of HDTV equipment, given that the purchase of a large panel display represents a significant investment for consumers. The HD Ready label allows the consumer to distinguish between standard definition and high definition displays. The roadmap has been submitted to the Communications Committee (COCOM) and is available on the COCOM register of public documents[10].
3. THE COMMISSION’S POSITION ON INTEROPERABILITY OF INTERACTIVE DIGITAL TV
Article 18(3) of the Framework Directive allows the Commission, if adequate interoperability has not been achieved, to invoke the procedure in Art. 17 of the Directive, by which certain standards can be made mandatory. In its July 2004 Communication, the Commission noted the different aspects that are covered by the term interoperability as set out in the Directive, and concluded that the real decision facing the Commission was not so much whether interoperability had or had not been achieved, but whether there was a case to make one or more API standards mandatory for one or more segments of the market.
Drawing on the Extended Impact Assessment set out in SEC(2004) 1028, the Commission concluded that there was no clear case to take action to mandate standards at that time, but that the issue should be reviewed in 2005. One and a half years on, the decision facing the Commission remains the same, but the development of the market in the intervening period, and the extensive discussions that have taken place with stakeholders, have brought to light a number of issues:
- A standard like MHP is a complex specification with a variety of implementation options. One reason for the success of MHP in Italy is that the broadcasters collectively agreed a common technical implementation specification for MHP, and developed appropriate test suites to verify compliance and ensure interoperability of equipment from different manufacturers.This experience demonstrates that interoperability cannot be guaranteed by simply imposing in law a standard like MHP; it can be achieved when stakeholders act together to implement a standard with a common aim of securing interoperability.
- One of the arguments for having a common standard is that it allows manufacturers to achieve economies of scale and hence reduce the price or consumer equipment. Experience over the last year (for example when comparing prices of similar MHP products in Italy and Germany) shows that the price of equipment are governed to a large extent by market conditions, and low prices in one country do not immediately ‘spill over’ into other countries.
- The growth of interactive services has been slower that many expected. There is a need for business models to evolve further before major growth of on-line government services can be envisaged.
- A new paradigm of consensual approach and cooperation on technical interoperability has emerged in the area of High Definition TV, and this appears as a promising model for solving other interoperability issues.
The Commission considers 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 significant negative effects.
4. CONCLUSION
The Commission’s priorities are to:
- Work with Member States to ensure the successful switchover to digital TV – as the facilitator for interactive digital services
The Commission will follow up its Communication of May 2005 on switchover, and will be monitoring closely the progress in Member States. Information on the switchover plans of the Member States will be published regularly on the Europa website.[11]
- Promote open standards and interoperability
In the context of digital switchover, interoperability of digital television services and technologies, the Commission will continue to promote open standards developed by European standards bodies.
- Support cooperation between Member States and between stakeholders
The Commission will continue to bring together Member States in the Broadcasting subgroup of the Communications Committee, as a forum for the exchange of experience and best practice on digital TV in general, and interactive digital TV in particular.
The MHP Implementation group demonstrated the value of having a forum for exchange of views between interested parties, and the industry is taking an initiative to continue stakeholder coordination. This will be based on the successful model adopted for HDTV, where the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the Digital Interoperability Forum (DIF) have established a European HDTV forum.
The Commission supports such industry-led initiatives and will ensure cooperation between the above two activities as necessary.
- Promote international cooperation on digital TV open standards and interoperability
Digital television has the potential to foster digital inclusion and social cohesion. The Commission will continue to promote open, interoperable standards for digital television so that content can be exchanged across the world. The Commission has established and funded a series of actions to promote international co-operation in research, development and standardisation on digital TV. This could be extended to international collaboration in implementation and production of digital TV.
- Monitor use of proprietary technologies
The use of proprietary technologies will remain subject to competition law review.
[1] COM(2005) 204
[2] COM(2004) 541
[3] Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services
[4] This may change with the introduction of home network systems.
[5] MHEG-5 is part of an international standard developed by the Multimedia and Hypermedia Experts Group (MHEG). MHEG-5 is simpler than MHP. There are estimated to be more than 5 million set-top boxes using MHEG-5.
[6] WTVML is an extension of the Wireless Mark-up Language (WML) for TV. It is a micro-browser for interactive television applications. There are estimated to be more than 7 million set top boxes using WTVML.
[7] This involves seeking the opinion of Member States via the Communications Committee.
[8] See SEC(2004) 346, p. 19
[9] Support of the compression coding system VC1 could also be foreseen when this becomes a European standard.
[10] COCOM05-37, available athttp://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/infso/cocom1/library
[11] http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ecomm/todays_framework/digital_broadcasting /switchover/national_swo_plans/index_en.htm