EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/502

(2004/C 78 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/03

by Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE), Christa Prets (PSE), Karin Junker (PSE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) and Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an open interoperable standard in digital television

Mandation is not desirable and should be a means of last resort. In order to avoid mandation we urge the European Commission to explain how it intends to help Member States in their obligation under Article 17(2) of the Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC (1)) to encourage the migration to an open interoperable standard for digital television, such as MHP.

What can the Commission tell us about the Member States' encouragement of interoperability less than nine months before the expiry of the deadline for the implementation of the directive? How far do Member States live up to the strict obligation of the directive?

Can the Commission give a precise date for the publication of its communication on the steps taken by Member States to encourage the migration to an open interoperable standard?

The Commission stated on 26 September 2002 in the plenary debate on interoperability in digital television that it was ‘providing political support for the voluntary application of this standard (MHP) by the sector.’ What have been the concrete measures taken by the Commission to live up to this commitment?

What will the Commission do to overcome the legal uncertainty among national regulatory authorities, broadcasters and viewers that hinders the introduction of digital television? Will it clearly define which national measures aiming at the introduction of digital television it considers unproblematic as far as the rules on state aid are concerned?

When will the Commission publish the criteria it will employ in judging interoperability?

At what point after July 2004 will the Commission start preparing the procedure to mandate standards according to Article 18(3) of the directive in the event that Member States have failed in their obligations? Starting this procedure would bring pressure to bear on Member States to act by signalling that the last resort will indeed be resorted to, if all other options fail.

Or will the Commission remain totally inactive until the expiry of the deadline as it stated on numerous occasions earlier this year risking that mandation will be necessary and ignoring the European Parliament's resolution of 26 September 2002?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

In its recently adopted Communication on the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting (2), the Commission sets out the advantages and benefits of digital television. The document is also intended to provide orientations for Member States as they prepare to fulfil the requirement set out in eEurope 2005: an information society for all (3), namely to publish, by end 2003, their intentions regarding a possible switchover. The Communication contributes to enhancing legal certainty through its analysis of how Community law, including rules on state aid, might affect national switchover plans. Member States are already aware of the need to notify initiatives that might give cause for concern under state aid rules. The Commission can confirm that it is already dealing with one notification and a number of complaints in connection with digital television.

In an earlier Communication on barriers to widespread access to new services and applications of the information society through open platforms (4), the Commission set out its vision of a multi-platform world with digital television — cable, satellite and terrestrial — being one of the important platforms. This Communication stressed the need for interoperability and the value of open standards, and pointed out that Community law provides for access to Application Programme Interfaces (API) technology by third parties under the new electronic communications framework. It also indicates that a business choice to migrate to an open second generation API, such as Multi-media Home Platform (MHP), from proprietary technology would need to be based on a sustainable business plan which takes into account existing investment and the evolving needs of customers.

In addition, the Commission has issued Mandate 331 inviting the European Standardisation Organisations to prepare a standardisation workplan in order to support effective implementation of Article 18 of the Framework Directive (5) (on interoperability of digital interactive television services) across Member States'markets. This will provide complementary standards to MHP in support of interoperability and will ‘inter alia’ facilitate migration to MHP.

The forthcoming review of interoperability of interactive TV services stipulated in Article 18.3 of the Framework Directive has also stimulated market players. There is now a standardisation process underway in European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the MHEG5 API (6), which offers both high levels of interoperability with MHP and reduced implementation costs.

These activities are in addition to the other initiatives in support of the interoperability of interactive television that were launched earlier and listed in the response to oral question H-0449/2002 by Mrs Thors during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session (7).

Member States have also declared their support for interoperability and encouraging openness. The Telecoms Council of 20 November 2003 adopted conclusions on open platforms and in digital television and third generation mobile communications, inviting the Member States to support the Commission in its efforts to take forward the standardisation programme and welcomed the Commission's intention to undertake a public consultation on the interoperability of interactive digital TV as part of its examination of the extent to which interoperability and user choice have been achieved for digital television services in Member States.

Member States do have different ideas on how to achieve interoperability. Those Member States with less developed digital television markets favour introduction of MHP. In Member States where there are substantial deployments of earlier API technologies, it is argued that it would be too costly to replace the 32 million set top boxes already deployed across the Union, and that there are other ways to achieve the interoperability necessary to support freedom of choice for users. The standardisation mandate referred to above is leading to further dialogue with industry on ways of achieving service interoperability.

The Commission continues to support the voluntary application of the MHP standard. The Commission considers implementation of the MHP standard to be the most obvious way to achieve interoperability. As stated by the Commission in the Parliament's plenary of 12 December 2001, the Commission will examine whether interoperability and freedom of choice for users have been adequately achieved in the Member States. If that is not the case, the Commission can propose making implementation of relevant European standards mandatory. Regarding criteria for judging interoperability, the Commission will take into account the criteria identified in the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC, as well as the principles of necessity and proportionality. The Commission plans to launch the public consultation in the near future, and to determine a final position by July 2004, in line with its commitment.

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

(2) COM(2003) 541 final, sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.1.

(3) COM(2002) 263 final.

(4) COM(2003) 410 final.

(5) Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(6) Draft ETSI ES 202184.

(7) Oral reply, 11.6.2002.