Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting (from digital 'switchover' to analogue 'switch-off') [SEC(2003)992]
Date: 2003-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, broadcasting, digital technology, technological change

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 17.9.2003
COM(2003) 541 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting
(from digital ‘switchover’ to analogue ‘switch-off’)

[SEC(2003)992]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................5

1.

1.1.

1.2.

Switchover overview ....................................................................................................5

Benefits of digitisation and difficulties.........................................................................5

Status of digital broadcasting in the EU .......................................................................7

1.2.1. Digital television...........................................................................................................7

1.2.2. Digital radio ..................................................................................................................8

1.3.

1.4.

Market complexity; plurality of scenarios and stakeholders ........................................8

The case for public intervention ...................................................................................9

1.4.1. Modalities ...................................................................................................................10

1.4.2. Risks 11

2.

Policy orientations ......................................................................................................12

2.1.

General strategy and co-ordination.............................................................................13

2.1.1.

Transparent strategy and monitoring ..........................................................................13

2.1.2. Regulation allowing for business autonomy and co-operation...................................13

2.1.3.

Proportionate and technologically neutral regulation .................................................14

2.2.

Digital reception..........................................................................................................15

2.2.1.

Encouragement to deployment of digital receivers ....................................................15

2.2.2. Consumer information on digital equipment and switchover.....................................16

2.2.3.

Integrated digital television receivers .........................................................................17

2.2.4. Digital connectivity.....................................................................................................17

2.2.5.

Interoperability of services .........................................................................................18

2.2.6. Access for users with special needs ............................................................................18

2.2.7. Removal of obstacles to the reception of digital broadcasting ...................................18

2.3.

Services .......................................................................................................................19

2.3.1.

‘Must carry’ obligations..............................................................................................19

2.3.2. Copyright ....................................................................................................................19

2.3.3. Diversity of digital broadcasting services...................................................................20

3.

3.1.

3.2.

Spectrum management................................................................................................21

Allocation....................................................................................................................21

Assignment .................................................................................................................23

2

ANNEX 1 – DIGITAL TV MARKET IN THE EU (estimates for 2002)................................26

ANNEX 2 – CHECKLIST OF ITEMS THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN MEMBER

STATE PUBLISHED SWITCHOVER PLANS ........................................................27

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

‘Switchover’, i.e. the transition, from analogue to digital broadcasting is a complex process with
social  and  economic  implications  going  well  beyond  the  pure  technical  migration.  Digital
broadcasting  development  is  positive  as  it  improves  both  the  range  and  quality  of  services,
notably  thanks  to  digital  compression.  This  increases  both  spectrum  efficiency  and  network
payloads.

This Communication addresses the switchover process, with a special  focus on Member States’
policies  for  digital  TV  migration.  The  Action  Plan  eEurope2005  requests  Member  States  to
publish their intentions regarding switchover by December 2003. This Communication suggests
the type of information that could be included in such reports.

Market forces and consumer demand must drive  broadcasting digitisation,  which is  a major
industrial  challenge.  Business  freedom  and  incentives  are  instrumental  to  this  goal.  It  is  also
crucial to inform  consumers so that  they  know when  to migrate and  what  the options are.  This
should  be  a  market-led  process,  not  a  simple  infrastructure  change  with  no  added  value  for
citizens.  Successful  switchover  will  be  facilitated  by  co-ordinated  action  from  the  numerous
players involved – broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, retailers, governments and others.

Member  State  policy  interventions  should  be  transparent,  justified,  proportionate,  and
timely to minimise the risks of market distortion. They should be formulated according to clearly
defined and specific policy goals and market difficulties. This requires careful impact assessment
as well as monitoring of policy implementation and market evolution. Trying to force switchover
against industry and users’ interest may lead to unsustainable outcomes.

Member State policy interventions should also be non-discriminatory and technologically neutral.
Differentiated treatment of market players must be justified. Digital TV switchover should be an
inclusive process encompassing various networks, business models and services, including free-
to-air TV, better picture quality or data and interactive services. Analogue switch-off should only
take  place  when  digital  broadcasting  has  achieved  almost  universal  penetration,  taking  all  the
above possibilities into account, to minimise social cost.

Policy  intervention  should  take  place  at  national  level  in  the  first  instance,  considering  market
and policy differences between Member States in the area of broadcasting. However, the EU has
also  a  role  to  play,  in  particular  in  view  of  the  internal  market  aspects.  Possible  EU
contributions  concern  notably:  benchmarking,  equipment  standards,  consumer  information,
facilitating and promoting access to added value services. The Communication also proposes to
launch a debate on spectrum aspects of switchover within the new Community spectrum policy
framework. This would address possible approaches for greater transparency about the economic
value  of  spectrum  allocated  to  terrestrial  broadcasting  services.  The  top-level  objective  is  to
encourage  efficient  and  flexible  spectrum  usage,  while  preserving  the  service  mission  of
broadcasting.

It  is  not  envisaged  to  propose  a  common  switch-off  date  or  the  prohibition  of  selling  analogue
receivers at EU level. However, national digital broadcasting markets and policies will continue
to be monitored.

4

Introduction

The present Communication analyses the main issues arising out of the migration from analogue
to  digital  broadcasting  from  a  market  and  policy  perspective.  Replacing  analogue  broadcasting
with  a  system  based  on  digital  techniques  presents  huge  advantages  in  terms  of  more  efficient
spectrum  usage  and  increased  transmission  possibilities;  these  will  lead  to  new  services,  wider
consumer choice and enhanced competition. These advantages are underlined in the Action Plan
eEurope  2005.1The  objective  of  this  Action  Plan  is  to  provide  a  favourable  environment  for
private  investment  and  for  the  creation  of  new  jobs,  to  boost  productivity,  to  modernise  public
services,  and  to  give  everyone  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  the  global  information  society.
eEurope  2005  therefore  aims  to  stimulate  secure  services,  applications  and  content  based  on  a
widely available broadband infrastructure.

In this context, the European Commission takes an active interest in the development of digital
television and, more generally, in the future of digital broadcasting  and  in the migration  to this
new technology. However, the Commission does not take any position on the timing of analogue
switch-off, which is a matter to be decided at the level of the Member States or of the regional
authorities.

The first chapter of the Communication presents  the  market  situation  of  digital  broadcasting  in
the  European  Union;  the  many  advantages  are  counterbalanced  by  a  number  of  significant
migration  obstacles.  This  leads  to  a  discussion  of  the  circumstances  that  may  justify  policy
intervention to address these obstacles and certain general requirements to be respected by such
interventions.

The second chapter discusses the main options facing Member States, drawing on European law
and market  experience. This covers  various aspects relating to national switchover  strategies  in
general, and specific issues on digital broadcasting reception and services. Moreover, it reminds
Member States  that the Action Plan eEurope 2005 requires them to ‘publish  by  end  2003  their
intentions regarding a possible switchover’ and provides them with guidance in this regard.

The  third  and  final  chapter  addresses  the  spectrum  implications  of  the  move  to  digital
broadcasting  and  suggests  launching  a  wide  debate  on  this  issue,  which  will  represent  a
significant component of any future Community spectrum policy.

1.

2
SWITCHOVER OVERVIEW

1.1.

Benefits of digitisation and difficulties

In the  field of television  and  radio (jointly  referred to as  ‘broadcasting’),  ‘switchover’  refers  to
the  migration  process  from  analogue  to  digital  broadcasting,  starting  with  the  introduction  of
digital  and  ending  with  the  switch-off  of  analogue  broadcasting.  Many  routes  are  possible  in
terms of the speed and length of the process, the parties involved, and the degree of government
intervention.

1

2

COM(2002) 263 final, eEurope 2005: An information society for all.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/news_library/documents/eeurope2005/eeurope2005_en.pdf
Several  issues  in  this  section  are  developed  in  detail  in  a  study  by  BIPE  consulting  for  DG  Information
Society  of  the  European  Commission:  ‘Digital  Switchover  in  Broadcasting’,  April  2002.  The  final  study
report was preceded by 2 public workshops and followed by one public consultation. See
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/studies/index_en.htm

5

                                                
Each country follows its own switchover path, often influenced by local broadcasting legacy.
Ideally, the final analogue switch-off  should  take  place  when  digital  broadcasting  has  achieved
widespread  penetration  and  very  few  analogue  homes  remain.  Otherwise  the  impact  would  be
socially  regressive,  if  many  homes  were  simply  deprived  of  TV  or  radio  services;  or
economically damaging, if expensive or distorting public policy measures were implemented to
avoid such a negative outcome.

Switchover  implies  much  more  than  a  technical  migration.  Considering  the  role  of  TV  and
radio  in  modern  societies,  that  impact  is  not  only  economic  but  also  social  and  political.
Switchover  affects  all  segments  in  the  broadcasting  value-chain,  namely:  content  production,
transmission  and  reception.  All  require  technical  upgrading  to  support  digital  broadcasts.  The
main challenge is on the reception side: to replace or upgrade the huge installed base of analogue
receivers. This can be done with integrated digital television or radio receivers, or ‘set-top-boxes’
connected to the analogue TV set. Moreover, connection points (antennas, dishes, cabling) must
often also be adapted.

The switchover cases for TV and radio are quite different. Digital TV market penetration is much
greater. Analogue  and  digital  TV  are  provided  on  various  networks,  mainly  cable,  satellite  and
terrestrial  (over  VHF  and  UHF  frequency  bands).  Digital  audio-visual  content  can  be  also
supported by the internet and, still marginally, Digital Subscriber Lines (‘DSL’) networks. Each
network has specific strengths and weaknesses. So television switchover is a ‘multi-network’ or
‘multi-platform’ process and digital TV is not synonymous with digital terrestrial TV. However,
the debate often focuses on terrestrial TV because of the potential recovery of spectrum currently
used by analogue terrestrial TV, and traditional government involvement in this area.

Nor  is  digital  TV  equal  to  interactive  TV.  The  former  concerns  the  type  of  communication
network and is the focus of the present document; the latter refers to specific services that can be
provided over that network. In practice, the roll-out of networks and services are related. Finally,
digital TV is not just pay-TV; free-to-air digital TV offerings also exist in some Member States.3

As to the benefits of digital broadcasting, some are associated with the switchover process itself,
others would be only achieved at the end, by stopping analogue broadcasts. All benefits derive
from the possibility of processing and compressing digital data, making much more efficient
use of network capacity than is the case with analogue signals. This can be exploited in several
ways.  First,  it  enables  the  offering  of  new  or  improved  broadcasting  services:  additional
programming;  programme-related  enhancements;  better  picture  and  audio  quality;  data  and
interactive services, including ‘Information Society’ and internet-like services.

Secondly,  switch-off  of  analogue  terrestrial  TV  could  permit  the  release  of  several  hundreds
megahertz (MHz) in the VHF and UHF frequency bands,4 which could be reallocated to various

3

4

As  opposed  to  pay  broadcasting,  where  users  obtain  access  to  additional  or  premium  content  against
payment of a specific fee, e.g. regular subscription or ‘pay-per-use’. Free-to-air broadcasting is available at
no cost other than the fee paid by all users to receive the basic service broadcasting offer available in one
given area.
In the  VHF  (41-230  MHz)  and  UHF  bands  (470-960  MHz)  slightly  more  than  500  MHz  are  allocated  to
terrestrial  TV  and  radio  in  Europe.  The  frequencies  reserved  for  analogue  and  digital  TV  are  the  same,
unlike  for  radio.  Satellite  broadcasting  uses  higher  frequencies,  apparently  without  spectrum  scarcity
problems.  According  to  BIPE,  ibid.,  p.  22,  switching  off  analogue  terrestrial  TV  could  release  up  to  300
MHz. This is because digital TV can be, depending on the parameters retained, 5 to 8 times more efficient
than analogue TV. In other words, with quality remaining unchanged, 5 to 8 digital channels can be fitted in
the same space occupied by one analogue channel. The potential spectrum gain is significantly lower in the
case of radio.

6

                                                
uses,  for  instance  convergent  services  combining  features  of  mobile  telephony  and  terrestrial
broadcasting,  such  as  mobile  ‘datacasting’.  But  before  such  time,  switchover  may  actually
aggravate spectrum scarcity insofar as analogue and digital broadcasts are ‘simulcast’ in parallel.
So the duration of the switchover period is crucial, especially in areas where the spectrum space
is over-crowded.

Thirdly,  increasing  market  competition  and  innovation  thanks  to  the  potential  arrival  of  new
entrants  at  different  levels  in  the  value-chain,  for  instance  new  broadcasters  or  developers  of
interactive applications.  In addition, switchover implies specific benefits for some categories of
market  players:  reduction  of  transmission  costs;  opportunity  for  increased  sales  of  digital
receivers; easier storage and processing of content. In fact, the potential benefits and difficulties
vary according to the stakeholders, as well as the local context and networks considered.

In  any  event,  in  the  shorter  run,  switchover  involves  significant  costs  and  difficulties
associated with the need to: introduce technical upgrades in all segments of the value chain and
review  spectrum  mechanisms  and  approaches;  develop  attractive  services  to  drive  demand,
without  which  the  overall  process  could  be  financially  and  politically  unsustainable;  and
overcome scepticism and even resistance from some industrial players and citizens, who may see
risks in changing the status quo in the broadcasting sector.

Currently,  the  migration  to  digital  broadcasting  has  been  affected  by  the  situation  in  the
information  and  communications  sector,  characterised  by  limited  capital  availability.  This
removes  part  of  the  pressure  to  accelerate  switchover  in  order  to  release  spectrum.  Moreover,
market  potential  for  interactive  TV  and  convergent  services  is  taking  time  to  materialise  and
consumer  willingness  to  pay  for  this  remains  uncertain.  In  sum,  progress  is  slower  than
anticipated and doubts are expressed about switch-off targets in certain countries. TV and radio
broadcasts  will  be  fully  digital  one  day  but  it  is  difficult  to  know  when  and  how.  In  some  EU
countries  switchover  could  be  a  long  process  and  its  outcome  is  uncertain.  For  instance,  the
extent  to  which  spectrum  will  be  recovered  and  reallocated  more  efficiently  will  depend  on
political and market circumstances.

1.2.

Status of digital broadcasting in the EU

1.2.1. Digital television

Digital TV was introduced in 1994 in the USA and in 1996 in Europe, first on satellite and soon
after  on  cable  and  terrestrial  networks,  based  on  Digital  Video  Broadcasting  (‘DVB’)
specifications. The EU average household penetration was estimated in 2002 at 32 million (21%):
satellite: 21.5 million (13.9%); cable 8.1 (5.2%); terrestrial 2.6  (1.7%).5 Digitisation of satellite
TV  is  market-led.  Digitisation  of  cable  is  also  largely  driven  by  the  market  but  the  prospect  of
analogue  switch-off  is  more  distant  than  in  the  case  of  satellite.  The  most  difficult  switchover
case  is  with  terrestrial  TV  due  to  such  factors  as  lack  of  spectrum  in  certain  areas,  cost  of
achieving  wide  coverage,  relatively  limited  network  capacity,  competing  TV  offers  already  in
place, and business mistakes.

5

See details in annex 1.

7

                                                
The  ‘Television  without  frontiers’  Directive6  provides  a  common  frame  of  reference  for  the
provision  of  television  services  in  the  European  Union.  However,  there  are  significant  national
differences,  notably  in  relation  to  market  variables  like  penetration  of  individual  TV  networks
(terrestrial, cable and satellite) and business models (free-to-air versus pay-TV), but there are also
differences between national policies regarding the migration to digital broadcasting.

So  far,  digital  TV  has  mainly  grown  on  the  back  of  satellite  pay-TV,  with  free-to-air  still
accounting  for  less  than  20%  of  total  digital  TV  viewing.  In  turn,  pay-TV  has  been  driven  by
multi-channel  and  premium  programming,  together  with  operators’  subsidies  for  set-top-boxes.
Pay-TV,  and  digital  TV,  has  mostly  developed  in  countries  where  analogue  terrestrial  TV  was
dominant and, unlike in cable TV  countries, few channels  were  available.  However  the  growth
rate of pay-TV, and of digital TV therefore, has slowed down. It appears that many people will
never subscribe to pay-TV for a variety of reasons (including the additional cost of pay TV and
satisfaction with the range of free-to-air services), at least in its current form, especially in cable
countries;  so  digital  TV  needs  new  drivers  beyond  traditional  pay-TV  and  improved
differentiation from analogue television, achieved through some combination of : more free-to-air
-  including  terrestrial  digital  TV  programming;  better  picture  quality;  data  and  interactive
services; mobile and portable services.

1.2.2. Digital radio

The situation is more delicate for ‘stand-alone’ digital radio services; that is, services not bundled
with  digital  TV  service  bouquets  nor  received  over  the  internet.  Unlike  in  the  USA  and  other
parts  of  the  world,  digital  satellite  radio  services  are  not  yet  broadcast  in  Europe.  Digital
terrestrial  radio  broadcasts  started  in  1995,  based  on  the  ‘Eureka-147  -  Digital  Audio
Broadcasting’  (‘DAB’)  standards.  But  there  are  almost  no  digital  receivers  on  the  market  and
therefore no listeners, although the situation started to improve in 2002, especially in the UK.

The  main  problem  is  to  replace  millions  of  analogue  receivers,  often  very  cheap,  by  more
expensive  digital  receivers.  Most  consumers  are  not  aware  of  digital  radio  and  find  analogue
radio  is  good  value  for  money.  The  added-value  from  digital  radio,  or  at  least  the  information
available to consumers, does not yet seem sufficient to justify the additional cost for the average
consumer, although prices are falling. In addition, subsidisation of receivers is difficult in Europe
as the scope for pay radio is limited. Moreover, even if analogue radio switch-off did occur, little
spectrum would be released in comparison with TV and it would likely be absorbed by increased
demand for radio services.

In fact, both digital TV and radio are in most Member States still nascent markets, whose current
difficulties  are  more  commercial  than  technological.  However,  new  projects  continue  to  be
launched, nearly all EU Member States have adopted policy measures to promote digital TV and
many have done the same for digital radio.

1.3.

Market complexity; plurality of scenarios and stakeholders

There  is  no  single  switchover  pattern  or  formula.  Experiences  vary  according  to  the  local
circumstances and from one network to another. Consequently, the general analysis provided
here can only be a simplification. The switchover debate, and the present Communication, tends

6

Directive  89/552/EEC  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or
administrative  action  in  Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of  television  broadcasting  activities,  OJ  L
298, 17.10.1989, p. 23, amended by Directive 97/36/EC, OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60, and currently under
review. http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/regul/twf/newint_en.htm

8

                                                
to focus on terrestrial TV for two  reasons:  greater difficulties for  a  market-led digitisation  than
other networks; and higher political stakes and government involvement, mainly because of the
pressure to recover spectrum, and a wide-spread perception associating terrestrial with universal
free-to-air broadcasting services.

Switchover is a complex and long  process involving many  variables  and affecting more or less
directly many parties, namely: users/ consumers,7 industry and public authorities. Each group can
be further subdivided into smaller segments. For instance, users can be categorised according to
their attitude towards digital TV: current or potential pay-TV subscribers, assuming that all pay-
TV will be digital sooner or later;  current or potential  free-to-air digital TV viewers, who have
bought or are ready to buy a digital receiver; viewers who will be always reluctant to adopt any
form of digital TV, pay or free-to-air, for various reasons. The switchover strategies adopted will
obviously determine,  and be determined by, the respective percentage of each user  category.  In
particular,  the  extent  to  which  market  forces  alone  can  achieve  digitisation  will  depend  on  the
number and resilience of consumers reluctant to migrate to digital TV.

Switchover  also  concerns  many  industry  players,  such  as  content  creators,  service  providers,
network  operators  or  equipment  manufacturers.  Some  were  already  active  in  the  analogue
broadcasting market, others look for new business opportunities. Likewise, various departments
in national and international administrations are interested in switchover insofar as it affects the
achievement of policy objectives.

1.4.

The case for public intervention

A  key  question  is  whether  public  authorities  should  intervene  to  accelerate  switchover  and/  or
otherwise influence the process. That would be justified under two premises: first, the extent to
which  general  interests  are  at  stake;  that  is,  how  far  there  are  potential  benefits  and/  or
problems for the society as a whole, rather than just for certain groups or individuals. Secondly,
market failure; that is, market forces alone fail to deliver in terms of collective welfare. In other
words,  market  players’  behaviour  does  not  fully  internalise  switchover  costs.  Assessing  the
existence  and  intensity  of  both  premises  is  largely  a  matter  of  political  judgement  by  the
competent  authority,  which,  in  the  case  of  broadcasting,  tends  to  be  national  and/  or  regional
authorities. In any case, such judgement should not be arbitrary but supported by sound market
analysis.

As to general interests, potential benefits from digitisation can be oriented towards various policy
goals:  social,  cultural,  political,  economic,  etc.  Usually  there  are  trade-offs  to  make  between
them. For instance, part of the spectrum released by analogue switch-off could be redistributed in
order  to  transfer  this  resource  to  operators  who  would  use  it  to  support  different  services  or
‘reinvested’ in broadcasting to improve and extend the service.

The broadcasting sector is not comparable to any other sector, as it plays a central role in modern
democratic societies, notably in the development and transmission of social values. Broadcasting
offers  a  unique  combination  of  features.  Its  widespread  penetration  provides  almost  complete
coverage  of  the  population  across  different  broadcasting  networks;  provision  of  substantial
quantities  of  news  and  current  affairs  together  with  cultural  programming  mean  that  it  both
influences  and  reflects  public  opinion  and  socio-cultural  values.  Switchover  may  affect  these

7

The  number  of  broadcasting  users,  i.e.  viewers  and  listeners,  potentially  affected  by  switchover  is  much
bigger than the number of consumers, i.e. those buying receivers and taking subscriptions. But it is the latter
who will determine how far the switchover can be led by the market. For a detailed analysis of user attitudes
to digital broadcasting see BIPE, ibid. Also for analysis of other players’ positioning.

9

                                                
general  interests.  It  will  be  important  to  ensure  the  continuing  availability  of  a  variety  of
television services, without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunities, to all parts of
the population. In particular, this is a pre-condition for public service broadcasters to fulfil their
special obligations.

The likelihood of market failure is linked to the complexity of the environment where switchover
takes place, and the interactions between the main parties involved. All have interests to defend
and seek to influence the main variables: introduction or not of digital terrestrial TV, speed of the
migration  and  switch-off  timing,  convenience  and  type  of  public  intervention.  However,  co-
ordinated action from the main stakeholders, rather than confrontation of individual strategies, is
likely  to  lead  to  the  collective  optimum:  a  swift  and  efficient  switch-off,  with  the  minimum
negative social and economic implications.

At least in the case of terrestrial television and radio, a series of structural failures hinder market
co-operation  and  slow  down  switchover,  notably  ‘free  riding’  behaviour,8  oligopoly  situations
and  ‘chicken  and  egg’  deadlocks.  More  specifically,  the  parties  benefiting  the  most  from
switchover  (equipment  manufacturers  or  potential  beneficiaries  of  released  spectrum,  including
new  broadcasters)  may  be  different  from  those  likely  to  bear  the  costs  (final  users  or  current
broadcasters).  So  the  latter  have  little  incentive  to  internalise  the  costs  and  contribute  to  the
switchover. Overcoming this kind of situation would require setting up co-ordination mechanisms
to  share  benefits  and  costs  between  all  parties  involved,  ideally  with  little  or  no  public
intervention. In this regard, public authorities, especially  those responsible for  competition law,
must  make  careful  judgements  as  to  the  right  balance  between  market  competition  and  co-
operation  between  relevant  parties.  Those  judgements  must  be  based  on  clear  understanding  of
both market dynamics and policy goals pursued.

1.4.1. Modalities

If  the  need  for  public  intervention  is  established,  decisions  must  be  taken  about  its  modalities,
within a coherent switchover strategy. Any intervention should be transparent and proportionate
as  to  the  policy  objectives  pursued,  market  obstacles,  and  implementing  details.  This  would
provide certainty for all parties to prepare themselves and would limit the scope for arbitrary or
discriminatory measures.

In  particular,  the  Commission  Communication  “Towards  a  new  framework  for  electronic
Communications  infrastructure  and  associated  services  -  the  1999  communications  review”
established  five  principles  for  regulatory  action.  These  principles  were  re-stated  in  the
Communication  on  “principles  and  guidelines  for  the  Community’s  audio-visual  policy  in  the
digital age”9. Regulation should:

- Be based on clearly defined policy objectives;

- Be the minimum necessary to meet those objectives;

- Further enhance legal certainty in a dynamic market;

8

9

Individual market players avoid contributing to switchover costs as they will anyway be able to enjoy the
collective benefits associated with the process.
COM (1999) 539 and COM (1999) 657 final, respectively available at
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/com9539en.pdf and
http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/legis/key_doc/legispdffiles/av_en.pdf

10

                                                
- Aim to be technologically neutral;

- Be enforced as closely as possible to the activities being regulated.

A key area in national switchover strategies is the approach to digital broadcasting licensing and
regulatory  obligations  attached  thereto.  This  involves  policy  choices  on  network  competition
versus complementarity, number of operators, roll-out calendar and map, etc. Otherwise, there is
a  variety  of  possible  intervention  instruments  and  measures  to  encourage  switchover,  ranging
from  encouragement  measures,  like  information  campaigns,  to  compulsory  ones,  like  analogue
turn-off dates, or mandatory standards for equipment including digital tuners. They can also vary
according  to  the  parties  targeted  (consumers,  equipment  manufacturers,  broadcasters,  potential
users  of  released  spectrum,  others).  The  impact  of  the  planned  measures  should  be  evaluated
through  prospective  economic  analysis  to  ensure  that  the  expected  cost  and  benefits  are  fairly
distributed; public policy should not lead to situations where some parties will be forced to bear
most switchover costs whilst others will enjoy the benefits.

Timing  is  a  key  element  of  any  intervention  on  switchover.  Premature  or  late  action  can  be
useless and even counterproductive insofar as it introduces market distortion. Timely intervention
requires  good  knowledge  of  market  status  and  evolution,  and  therefore  regular  monitoring  and
analysis.  In  principle,  an  early  switch-off  is  likely  to  be  more  controversial,  but  a  more  distant
date may reduce any beneficial impact. In this connection, three main phases can be identified in
TV  switchover:  the  take-up  phase  driven  by  pay-TV,  where  sooner  or  later  operators  convert
subscribers to digital; the consolidation phase, starting now in the countries where digital TV is
the  most  advanced,  where  some  consumers  decide  to  equip  themselves  with  digital  devices  to
receive  free-to-air  digital  TV;  the  closure  phase,  where  users  still  not  interested  in  any  type  of
digital TV  are  forced to  adopt it, with  or without public support  for  the acquisition  of  a  digital
receiver.

Public intervention can support digital TV penetration in all three phases but stronger measures
should be confined  to  the  closure  stage,  after  industry  has  made  all  possible  efforts  to  increase
consumer  uptake.  This  requires  that  authorities  ensure  a  favourable  and  predictable  regulatory
environment, and intensify their action when the market cannot deliver further. That may be the
case when it is considered that digital broadcasting is not progressing quickly enough to achieve
policy targets.

1.4.2.

Risks

Broadcasting  has  a  stronger  tradition  of  policy  intervention  than  other  information  and
communication  sectors  like  telecommunications,  where  the  impact  of  liberalisation  has  been
greater. This is justified by the political and social relevance of broadcasting content, which calls
for the enforcement of minimum quality and pluralism requirements. Policy intervention is even
greater in the case of terrestrial broadcasting because of its heavy use of spectrum, a scarce public
resource,  and  the  already-cited  perception  associating  terrestrial  with  universal  free-to-air  TV
services.

However, the contexts surrounding the introduction of analogue and digital broadcasting are very
different. When analogue  broadcasting  was  introduced, only the terrestrial  option  existed;  there
was  no  competition  and  the  market  was  entirely  shaped  by  regulatory  intervention.  Now,  there
are various types of networks,  high market competition and  faster  technological  change.  Under
these  circumstances,  the  transition  to  digital  broadcasting  represents  a  big  industrial  challenge
that must be led by the market. Intervention from public authorities to facilitate and supervise the
process could be justified insofar as general interests are at stake.

11

The risks from both public intervention or absence of it must be assessed. Non-intervention can
result in market failure and jeopardise general interest goals in the sense explained above. As to
the  risk  from  public  intervention,  it  includes  policy-driven  approaches  captured  by  industrial
parties  seeking  to  offset  commercial  risk,  thus  reducing  competition  and  pressure  to  innovate.
This could result in perverse effects, like ‘moral hazard’10 or market inaction, and ultimately slow
the  switchover  process  down.  In  practice,  these  parties  may  exaggerate  the  advantages  from
digital broadcasting, mixing private and collective benefits. Then, they might persuade authorities
to  support  them  (legally,  financially  or  otherwise)  in  the  name  of  general  interests  to  gain  a
competitive edge over rivals. If not transparently justified, this could distort the market.

Moreover,  public  intervention,  or  the  simple  announcement  of  it,  that  turns  out  to  be
inappropriate  for  any  reason  (disproportionate,  discriminatory,  untimely,  etc)  can  be
counterproductive. It can create additional obstacles to digital broadcasting uptake, by stimulating
an appetite for more public intervention than would have been necessary otherwise. For instance,
if  a  government  announces  too  early  that  digital  receivers  will  be  offered  to  all  remaining
analogue users shortly before analogue switch-off, there will be little incentive for those users to
buy  receivers.  Also,  untimely  imposition  of  technical  standards  that  are  immature  or  require
costly implementation may discourage investment. Finally, all intervention by national authorities
must be compatible with EU law, in particular on the internal market and competition law.

2.

POLICY ORIENTATIONS

As explained, market forces must drive the switchover process focusing on users. The challenge
is to stimulate demand so that it is a service-led process rather than a simple infrastructure
change  with  no  perceived  added-value  for  citizens.  Consequently,  the  various  consumer
segments must be offered packages of services and equipment that are attractive to them; that is,
stimulating, user-friendly and affordable. This is primarily a task for market players.

There is however also scope for policy intervention considering the social and industrial general
interest  at  stake,  and  that  some  key  elements  of  the  process  are  the  responsibility  of  public
authorities. Such intervention must be conducted in the first instance by national and/ or regional
authorities, who are the most directly responsible for broadcasting content policy and licensing.
But  EU  institutions  have  increasing  responsibilities  in  relevant  areas  such  as  electronic
communication  networks,  including  broadcasting  networks.  They  can  also  contribute  to
switchover within the limits of subsidiarity. European co-ordination can improve policy certainty,
facilitate economies of scale in equipment, and ultimately reduce market fragmentation. Indeed,
some  Community  competencies  related  to  the  internal  market  are  relevant  for  switchover.
Ultimately,  switchover  implies  an  industrial  transition  where  the  challenge  is  to  ally  cultural
diversity of Member States with critical mass from the European internal market.

This  chapter  addresses  general  strategy  and  co-ordination  in  section  2.1,  and  in  section  2.2
suggests policy orientations for Member States to facilitate the switchover. This should help them
fulfil the requirement in the Action Plan eEurope 2005 to ‘publish by end 2003 their intentions

10

‘Moral hazard’ is a term from financial regulation describing a situation where investors behave recklessly
because they know the central bank will not allow them to go bankrupt.

12

                                                
regarding  a  possible  switchover’.11  As  in  eEurope,  the  focus  here  is  on  TV,  but  many
considerations are also relevant for radio.

Any  EU  contribution  needs  to  take  into  account  subsidiarity  and  the  specificities  of  national
broadcasting  markets  and  policies.  Consequently,  it  is  not  appropriate  for  the  EU  to  adopt
measures envisaged in  some countries, in or outside the  EU,  such  as  a  common  target  date  for
analogue  switch-off  or  mandatory  digital  receivers.  However,  the  EU  will  continue  monitoring
switchover and supporting digital broadcasting developments in Europe.12

Spectrum issues are dealt with in a separate chapter in view of their relevance and the opportunity
of launching a wider European debate in this area.

2.1.

General strategy and co-ordination

2.1.1.

Transparent strategy and monitoring

As  indicated,  policy  transparency  improves  certainty  for  market  players  (including  consumers),
encourages co-ordinated action, and ultimately facilitates the switchover. eEurope 2005 therefore
calls  upon  Member  States  to  publish  by  end  2003  their  intentions  regarding  a  possible
switchover.  This  could  cover,  in  particular,  the  way  they  organise  and  monitor  the  process,
stakeholders’ involvement, and policy instruments intended to promote switchover.13

At  EU  level,  comparison  of  national  experiences  and  regular  monitoring  would  provide  useful
information  on  policy  and  market  status.  This  would  feed  into  the  EU  policy-making  process,
helping identify possible actions to develop internal market synergies. The Commission will also
continue gathering data on the EU digital TV market on a yearly basis, as in 2001 and 2002.14

2.1.2.

Regulation allowing for business autonomy and co-operation

Developing  digital  broadcasting  markets  is  a  complex  process  requiring  significant  investment
from  many  players  to:  roll-out  networks,  develop  enabling  technologies,  sell  terminals,  offer
compelling  services,  and  encourage  user  uptake.  Industry  must  have  incentives  to  invest  and
autonomy  to  search  for  winning  formulas.  This  requires  a  stable  regulatory  environment,
including licensing terms for service operators with a duration that enables an appropriate return
on  investment,  taking  into  account  the  additional  costs  caused  by  the  transition,  and  with  the

11

12

13

14

Digital  switchover.  In  order  to  speed  up  the  transition  to  digital  television,  Member  States  should  create
transparency as far  as  the  conditions  for  the  envisaged  switchover  are  concerned.  Member  States  should
publish by end 2003 their intentions regarding a possible switchover. These could include a road map, and
an assessment of market  conditions,  and  possibly  a  date  for  the  closure  of  analogue  terrestrial  television
broadcasting  which  would  enable  the  recovery  and  refarming  of  frequencies.  National  switchover  plans
should also be an opportunity to demonstrate a platform-neutral approach to digital television, taking into
account competing delivery mechanisms (primarily satellite, cable and terrestrial).
COM(2002) 263 final, eEurope 2005: An information society for all.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/news_library/documents/eeurope2005/eeurope2005_en.pdf
This approach is also in line with the European Parliament call for “the Commission and the Member States
to make the development of digital television and the availability of digital television to the public at large a
top priority on the political agenda”. See point 1 of European Parliament Resolution B5-0488/2002
http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=TITRE&APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN&TYPEF=TI
TRE&YEAR=02&Find=digital+television&FILE=BIBLIO&PLAGE=1
More detailed suggestions on the information to supply in this context are given in annex 2.
See the report on the implementation of the communications regulatory package
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/implementation/annual_report/8threport/index_en.htm

13

                                                
possibility of licence renewal so as to provide an adequate incentive. Licensing terms should also
facilitate provision of sufficient network capacity to support a variety of services.

However,  authorities  should  monitor  market  evolution,  consult  with  industry,  and  be  ready  to
review  or  flexibly  interpret  conditions  relevant  to  switchover  where  justified,  for  example
conditions  concerning  the  calendar  for  roll-out  and  territorial  coverage,  technical  choices  on
transmission and terminals, ownership thresholds, price caps, taxes, simulcast extent and timing,
or obligations to provide certain programming. Authorities may have trade-offs to make between
a  faster  switchover  and  other  policy  objectives,  for  instance  regarding  the  degree  of  pluralism,
and they need to consider the impact of policy choices on market competition. The challenge is to
find the right balance between different policy objectives while respecting legal requirements, in
order  to  maximise  collective  welfare.  For  instance,  as  argued  below,  co-ordination  and  co-
operation between different industries is important for switchover. However, all forms of industry
co-operation  remain  subject  to  EC  competition  law  scrutiny.  While  various  public  policy
objectives  can  be  taken  into  consideration  in  this  context,  competent  authorities  must  ensure
maximum transparency regarding such objectives and the necessary means to achieve them. This
should  go  beyond  vague  references  to  the  goal  of  digital  switchover  and/or  the  Information
Society.

Co-ordinated  and  synchronised  action  may  be  necessary  to  achieve  critical  mass.  Co-operation
between  industry  players  at  various  levels  of  the  value-chain  must  be  therefore  facilitated,
especially in the initial market stages, which imply trial and error testing. This can be organised
through  joint  investment  and  risk  sharing  schemes  for  technological  research,  launch  of  new
equipment  and  services,  and  promotion.  Authorities  may  contribute  through  financing  or
regulation, as is done in some Member States for both digital TV and radio.

Co-ordination  is  particularly  relevant  in  horizontal  markets,  such  as  free-to-air  broadcasting.
Unlike pay broadcasting, no dominant party controls the value-chain and ‘free-riding’ behaviour
can  result  in  collective  business  failure.  Sharing  responsibility  for  commercial  promotion  and
consumer  after-sale  service,  notably  in  face  of  difficulties  with  signal  reception  or  receiver
equipment, is particularly important.

In the case of digital radio, apart from favourable regulatory frameworks in the Member States, it
appears that synchronised implementation across the EU is important to increase internal market
synergies.  Member  States’  attention  is  drawn  to  the  recommendations  adopted  by  the  ‘Open
Network  Provision’  Committee  in  2002  on  the  ‘regulatory  treatment  of  digital  radio  in  the
Member States’.15

2.1.3.

Proportionate and technologically neutral regulation

In terms of political feasibility, switch-off in a given territory can only take place when nearly all
households receive digital services. In order to promote the fast and efficient achievement of this
objective, all transmission networks should be taken into account (primarily cable, satellite or
terrestrial).16  This  approach  recognises  that  network  competition  contributes  to  the  roll-out

15

16

See working documents ONP-DBEG 02-12Rev1 and ONP-DBEG 02-13Rev2 at
 http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/digital_broadcasting/index_en.htm
An alternative approach would be to measure total household penetration only for one network, usually the
one that was dominant in analogue; terrestrial or cable, depending on the Member State. Moreover, there is
a  debate  in  some  countries  on  how  to  calculate  penetration;  whether  the  criterion  should  be  one  digital
receiver per household or the conversion of all receivers in the household to digital, the secondary reception
issue. See also first paragraph in section 2.2 and accompanying footnote 20.

14

                                                
process.  This  is  in  line  with  the  spirit  of  ‘new  regulatory  framework  for  electronic
communications’,17  which  is  based  on  market  initiative  and  technological  neutrality.  It
encourages  facilities-based  competition  and  investment,  thus  contributing  to  the  multi-platform
approach  of  eEurope.  This  implies  a  regulatory  level  playing  field.  In  principle,  each  network
should  compete  on  its  own  strengths.  Any  public  support  for  one  particular  option  cannot  be
excluded  but  should  be  justified  by  well-defined  general  interests,  and  implemented  in  a
proportionate way. Otherwise it would appear discriminatory and could jeopardise investments in
other  networks.  In  particular,  each  individual  network  should  not  necessarily  enjoy  the  same
position in the digital landscape as in the analogue landscape. The objective should be to achieve
a fast and efficient switchover. Efficiency should include preserving the general interest missions
of broadcasting, while limiting public expense.

Finally,  any  public  financial  support  to  digital  broadcasting  needs  to  be  compatible  with  State
aids rules under European law, as well as Commission orientations on the use of structural funds.

2.2.

Digital reception

Ensuring  that  most  users  are  equipped  with  digital  receivers  is  the  main  challenge  for
switchover and a pre-condition for switch-off. Finding a solution for all receivers in the home,
not  just  the  main  receiver,  just  adds  to  the  challenge.18  The  two  basic  options  are  digital
converters  or  set-top-boxes  connected  to  analogue  receivers,  and  integrated  digital  receivers.
Moreover,  additional  reception  facilities  such  as  cabling,  antennas,  dishes,  etc  are  often
necessary.

There  must  be  a  large  range  of  digital  reception  solutions  to  suit  various  user  segments.  This
means  choice  of  functionality,  price  and  commercial  formulas.  Equipment  cost  is  not  a  major
barrier to the consumer of pay-TV services since European pay-TV operators subsidise it, having
already  deployed  millions  of  set-top-boxes.  However,  the  widespread  penetration  of  digital  TV
will  not  be  achieved  by  pay-TV  only.  Now  the  main  challenge  concerns  the  creation  of
‘horizontal’ markets for unsubsidised receivers supporting free-to-air digital TV services, where
consumers pay the full cost from day one. Co-existence of the two business models is important
for wide-spread digital TV market penetration.

Availability  of  cheap  receivers  is  essential  to  minimise  entry  barriers  for  consumers.  Most  of
them must be equipped before the switch-off can take place. Equipment costs should not be much
higher  than  in  analogue  and  services  at  least  comparable,  thus  offering  a  cheap  entry  point  to
digital TV. This is the way the market seems to go now. Of course consumers should also have
options  to  buy  expensive  equipment  supporting  sophisticated  services.  Service  and  equipment
diversity also contributes to wide-spread digital TV market penetration.

2.2.1.

Encouragement to deployment of digital receivers

Free  movement  of  goods  within  the  internal  market  requires  that  national  authorities  do  not
impose  administrative  constraints  for  commercialising  digital  broadcasting  equipment  and
compulsory  technical  requirements  without  previously  informing  the  European  Commission.19

17

18

19

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/maindocs/index_en.htm#directives
Digital terrestrial TV is the option most often considered for secondary reception but there are others, e.g.
home networks conveying cable or satellite transmissions. It is difficult to anticipate market outcomes.
Such measures must be in any case notified to the Commission pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC as modified
by Directive 98/48/EC on ‘the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations’
OJ L 204, 21.7 1998, p. 37 and OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 37.

15

                                                
Where such requirements would be necessary, they  should be introduced Community wide  and
be  based  on  European  standards.  In  particular,  Member  States  should  encourage  the  voluntary
implementation  of  standards  or  specifications  mentioned  in  the  ‘List  of  standards  and/or
specifications  for  electronic  communications  networks,  services  and  associated  facilities  and
services’ (the ‘List of standards’),20 consulting interested industries and consumer associations as
appropriate.

Some EU Member States envisage public subsidies for digital equipment through schemes aimed
at the whole population or just specific groups. Apart from possible concerns with regard to EU
competition law, the risk with the first scheme is discouraging purchases, including purchases of
more sophisticated equipment than the one subsidised. The risk with the second scheme is trading
of devices between subsidised and unsubsidised population groups.21

Several  other  forms  of  incentives  have  been  considered  by  some  Member  States,  for  instance
temporary  and  degressive  reduction  of  the  licence  fee  for  homes  with  digital  equipment  to
encourage fast digital migration, etc. Some Member States allow a reduced rate of VAT on pay-
per-view and subscription broadcasting services. The financial  implications  and  parties  affected
are different, so each option should be carefully analysed and implemented. In  any event, these
measures must comply with EC competition law, in particular State aid rules, and should not be a
source of tax induced distortions.

2.2.2. Consumer information on digital equipment and switchover

Consumer information is crucial to drive digital equipment sales in a market-led approach to
switchover.  Consumers  should  be  empowered  to  plan  their  own  migration  rather  than  being
forced  and  thus  deprived  by  this  process.  They  should  be  well-informed  of  the  timing  and
consequences of switchover so as to take their own decisions on services and equipment from a
wide  range  of  choices.  They  must  be  aware  of  what  various  devices  can  offer,  what  are  the
prospects  of  analogue  equipment  obsolescence  and  the  possibilities  for  upgrading.  Information
and labelling should also be available in accessible formats for consumers with disabilities.

Informing  consumers  is  the  responsibility  of  equipment  manufacturers,  retailers  and  service
providers,  who  need  to  co-ordinate  their  action  and  send  clear  messages  whilst  respecting
competition law. Labelling schemes for analogue and digital equipment, with explanatory notices
and/ or logos,  based on voluntary industry commitment, would be  particularly  useful.  The  goal
would be to send consumers positive and negative signals about, respectively, digital-compliant
and  analogue-only  receiver  equipment.  This  information  should  mirror  national  switchover
policies,  including  indicative  national  or  regional  switch-off  dates.  Especially  as  an  analogue
switch-off date approaches in a particular Member State, its consumers should be clearly warned
about the risks of equipment obsolescence.

Policy  intervention  in  this  area  has  been  proposed  in  some  EU  and  third  countries.  However,
Member States cannot impose de jure or de facto compulsory labelling schemes22 without prior
notification under Directive 98/34/EC , as modified by Directive 98/48/EC. Notification enables a
compatibility  assessment  of  such  measures  with  internal  market  rules  to  be  undertaken.  Where

20

21

22

OJ C 331, 31.12.2002, p. 32.
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=52002
XC1231(02)&model=guichett
The Berlin/ Brandenburg switchover project includes public-funded receivers for certain households.
The definition of measures that are compulsory de jure or de facto can be found in Article 1(11) of Directive
98/34/EC. See footnote 19 for full reference.

16

                                                
necessary, a certain degree of Community harmonisation could be envisaged so that the approach
to labelling would be common whilst tailoring its implementation to local circumstances, such as
national switch-off dates. Labelling specifications could be approved by European consumer and
standardisation bodies.

2.2.3.

Integrated digital television receivers

The  prohibition  of  selling  analogue-only  television  receivers  according  to  a  staggered  calendar
has  been  recently  approved  in  the  United  States  and  debated  in  some  EU  Member  States.  It  is
however  difficult  to  envisage  something  similar  in  the  EU.  Indeed,  whereas  there  are  big
differences  between  the  EU  national  markets,  all  countries  would  have  to  implement  the
obligation more or less simultaneously to preserve homogeneity within the internal market. This
would  have  greater  impact  in  countries  where  digital  penetration  remains  low  and  strain  the
principle of subsidiarity traditionally applied in broadcasting policy.

Another potential drawback of compulsory integrated digital receivers would be the extra cost for
consumers which, depending on the exact technical requirements, could however be partly offset
by economies of scale. The impact would be greater in those countries where digital TV is less
developed, notably some of those joining the EU in 2004. Concerns have been also raised as to
the technological neutrality of the measure. If only one type of digital tuner were to be mandated,
this would presumably favour the dominant analogue TV network, often terrestrial.23

2.2.4. Digital connectivity

Currently,  digital  TV  signals  are  almost  always  displayed  on  analogue  TV  sets  connected  to  a
digital  set-top-box,  which  decodes  those  signals,  through  the  analogue  ‘SCART’24  socket  or
connector. That means digital signals are converted into analogue signals before being displayed.
This is acceptable for today’s television receivers, based on cathode ray tubes and small screen
sizes. However, the quality penalty is more perceptible on big screens using new digital display
technologies.  Moreover,  the  lack  of  systematically  implemented  and  enabled  digital  connectors
prevents the transfer of digital information between digital TV receivers and other digital devices
in  the  home.  But  digital  connectivity  raises  copyright  security  concerns,  in  particular  that
insufficiently protected digital content could be illegally copied or distributed.

The possibilities for implementing digital connectors should be further explored as an incentive
to  consumer  equipment  switchover,  in  line  with  recital  33  of  the  new  ‘Universal  Service’
Directive  stating  that  “it  is  desirable  to  enable  consumers  to  achieve  the  fullest  connectivity
possible  to  digital  television  sets.”25  A  number  of  options  exist  to  interconnect  digital  TV
equipment, fulfilling different requirements26 but it is still unclear which way the market will go
and  mandating  a  particular  solution  would  be  premature  at  this  stage.  However,  recommended
options could be signalled in the List of standards. Also the EU Information Society Technologies
(‘IST’)  programme  will  continue  supporting  R&D  projects  on  areas  relevant  to  digital  TV
interconnection, for instance on copyright protection or home networks. The Commission is also

23

24

25

26

Cable, satellite and terrestrial networks require receivers with a specific tuner and, so far, it has in general
been uneconomical to incorporate more than one digital tuner within the same receiver, except in the most
costly products.
‘SCART’ stands for ‘Syndicat des Constructeurs d'Appareils Radiorécepteurs et Téléviseurs’.
Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks
and services. OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/new_rf/documents/l_10820020424en00510077.pdf
Common Interface, Ethernet, IEEE1394, USB, DVI, etc.

17

                                                
following the evolution of technical specifications in the relevant industry consortia and standards
bodies.

2.2.5.

Interoperability of services

Regarding more sophisticated functionalities such as Application Programme Interfaces (‘API’),
interoperable and open solutions for interactive TV services must be encouraged in accordance to
Article 18 of the ‘Framework Directive’.27 Pursuant to this Article, the Commission will review
the market situation by July 2004 and decide whether it is necessary to mandate certain standards
to improve interoperability and freedom of choice for users. Indeed, these two criteria will likely
contribute to consumer uptake of digital broadcasting in  a market-led switchover  scenario, thus
minimising the need for public intervention.

2.2.6.

Access for users with special needs

Access  to  digital  broadcasting  should  include  citizens  with  special  needs,  notably  people  with
disabilities and  older persons.  This  is  also  in  line  with  the  eEurope  2005  action  on  ‘interactive
public  services’  to  provide  access  to  government  services  to  all  citizens  through  various
platforms.28 However, while digital broadcasting offers greater possibilities than analogue in this
area, these are not yet supported by digital equipment on the market. Harmonised EU approaches
can  reduce  costs  through  economies  of  scale,  thus  facilitating  the  marketing  of  relevant
functionalities.29 This will be addressed through the new working group on access by users with
disabilities  to  electronic  communications  services,  under  the  responsibility  of  the  EU
Communications Committee.

2.2.7.

Removal of obstacles to the reception of digital broadcasting

Infrastructure competition stimulates market development, increasing consumer choice, quality of
service and price competition. This may be constrained in some areas by legal, administrative or
contractual  restrictions  on  the  deployment  of  infrastructure  or  reception  facilities.30  Authorities
will  need  to  arbitrate  between  promoting  digital  broadcasting  and  the  fundamental  freedom  to
receive  information  and  services,  therefore  facilitating  network  competition,  and  other  policy
objectives on town planning, environmental protection or other areas. With that proviso, national
authorities  should  encourage  network  competition.  By  way  of  example,  some  Member  States
have  already  adopted  measures  in  support  of  this  objective,  for  instance  by  requiring  the
provision  of  multi-network  reception  facilities  in  new  apartment  blocks,  facilitating  their
installation in existing blocks (for instance by reducing the required threshold of tenants’ votes),
or  by  removing  restrictive  clauses  in  property  or  renting  contracts.  Co-ordination  between
national  and  local  authorities  is  important  since  local  authorities  are  often  responsible  for  the
practical implementation of this type of measure.

27

28

29

30

Directive  2002/21/EC  on  a  common  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications  networks  and
services. OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/new_rf/documents/l_10820020424en00330050.pdf
Op. cit., p. 11.
This  would  help  improve  the  current  situation  where  services,  guides  and  interfaces  frequently  require
simultaneous visual, hearing and dexterity capabilities. Development of multi-modal content in order to use
different  alternative  communication  functions  (audio  description,  sign  language,  teletext,  easy  navigation,
personalisation of interfaces, etc) should be encouraged.
The Commission adopted a Communication on this subject in 2001; Communication from the Commission
on the application of the general principles of free movement of goods and services – articles 28 and 49 EC
– concerning the use of satellite dishes, COM(2001)351final of 27.06.2001.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/satdish/index.htm

18

                                                
2.3.

Services

Services, not technology drive demand for digital broadcasting. Proposing attractive services
is the responsibility of the market, but some policy interventions can contribute. In general, legal
requirements  and  obligations  on  digital  broadcasting  content  should  not  be  more  burdensome
than, or duplicate, those imposed on analogue content.

2.3.1.

‘Must carry’ obligations

In  many  Member  States,  obligations  to  transmit  certain  channels  (‘must  carry’)  have  been
traditionally  imposed  on  certain  networks.  Certain  broadcasters  argue  that  extension  of  must
carry obligations to digital networks will help switchover since users expect to find there at least
the  same  service  they  have  in  analogue.  But  networks  operators  express  concerns  about  the
proportionality  of  these  measures  and  the  absence  of  appropriate  compensation.  In  any  event,
must  carry  obligations  will  have  to  comply  with  Article  31  of  the  new  Universal  Service
Directive,  and  in  particular  be:  necessary  to  meet  clearly  defined  general  interest  objectives,
proportionate and transparent. The Commission services will provide guidance on must carry in
the course of 2003.

2.3.2. Copyright

As a general rule, digital simulcast of a copyright protected service results in a right to additional
copyright payments even though few or no additional viewers are involved. Such demands may
be perceived as a disincentive to provide or extend digital services. Right holders, including their
representatives, should be encouraged to offer appropriate terms for simulcasts of analogue and
digital  through  the  same  delivery  mechanism  where  migration  is  the  aim.  Future  copyright
licences  should  also  facilitate  modifications  or  enrichment  of  services  and  data  to  improve
accessibility for users with special needs.

Developments in  digital  broadcasting  can be  also  constrained by  the  inability  of EU  citizens to
legally obtain access to TV programmes other than those originating in the Member State where
they reside. Although such access is technically possible, it is, in some instances, not authorised
by  right  holders,  given  the  territorial  nature  of  copyright.31  The  European  Parliament,  the
Commission  and  complaints  from  EU  citizens  have  drawn  the  attention  to  this  situation  (as
regards satellite broadcasting) and expressed the desire to improve it.32 This issue is included in
the  programme  for  review  of  the  ‘CabSat’  Directive  in  2003.33  It  will  also  be  addressed  in  the
forthcoming  Commission  Communication  on  the  management  of  Copyright  and  Related  rights
and is mentioned in section 4.4. of the Commission report on legal protection of electronic pay
services.34

31

32

33

34

Satellite-TV  operators  often  encrypt  their  digital  service  in  order  to  ensure  remuneration  and/or  to  limit
viewing to a specific territory.
See  European  Parliament  Resolution  FINAL  A5-0143/2000  (full  reference  in  annex),  points  12-14
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&PUBREF=-
//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2000-0143+0+NOT+SGML+V0//EN
Directive  93/83/EEC  on  the  coordination  of  certain  rules  concerning  copyright  and  rights  related  to
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission. OJ L 248 , 6.10.1993, p. 15. See also
report  from  the  Commission  on  the  application  of  the  mentioned  Directive,  COM(2002)430  final  of
26.7.2002.
Report from the European Commission on the implementation of Directive 98/84/EC on the legal protection
of services based on, and consisting of, conditional access, COM(2003) 198 final of 24.04.2003.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/condac/functioning/index.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/cabsat/index.htm

19

                                                
2.3.3. Diversity of digital broadcasting services

Digital  broadcasting  will  attract  different  consumer  segments  if  it  is  associated  with  a
variety of services not available, or only partially, in analogue, such as portable and mobile
reception;  increased  audio  and  picture  quality,  including  wide-screen  and  high-definition
television;  data  and  interactive  services,  notably  ‘Information  Society  services’.  Such  digital
service  diversity  is  helpful  for  extending  the  appeal  of  digital  TV  beyond  multi-channel  and
premium pay services. These have been the predominant digital TV services since the beginning
of the market, but are usually not a driver where analogue multi-channel is available. Maximising
digital  service  diversity  will  help  ensure  differentiation  from  analogue  and  serve  the  needs  of
population segments and markets that are interested in other types of digital television services.

The  Commission  Communication  on  ‘barriers  to  information  society  services  through  open
platforms’35  identifies  a  series  of  follow-up  actions  to  provide  legal  certainty,  facilitate
investment  and  stimulate  consumer  uptake  particularly  for  data,  interactive  and  transactional
services on TV networks, notably by: clarifying the regulation applicable to information society
services  and  those  responsible  for  its  implementation,  ensuring  consistency  across  the  EU;
improving the security of digital content, notably through technological research on digital rights
management  systems;  promoting  consumer  trust  and  confidence  by  ensuring  data  privacy  and
security, especially for financial transactions.

In  addition,  public  authorities  can  encourage  the  availability  of  added  value  content  on  TV
networks in different ways.  First, ensuring  government information is  increasingly  available, in
line with the eEurope2005 call for Member States to exploit by end 2004 the potential of multi-
platform access for basic public services in the mentioned action on ‘interactive public services’,
and the proposed Directive on the re-use of public sector information.36 Much of this information
is very valuable to citizens and often cheaply available. It is possible to build on the work done
on  e-government  and  ensure  the  information  is  formatted  to  be  displayed  on  TV  in  accessible
formats. EU action can provide critical mass and reduce costs thanks to economies of scale. This
implies  interoperable  and  horizontal  solutions,  as  ‘platform-agnostic’  as  possible,  to  facilitate
exchanges between administrations.

Secondly, various EU initiatives in the  areas  of e-content, e-government, e-learning, e-health,37
and the IST research programme, can support public-private partnerships regarding the provision
of added value content, government-related or not, on digital broadcasting networks.

Thirdly,  service  competition  can  be  stimulated  through  the  implementation  of  EU  regulatory
provisions  on  third  party  access  to  electronic  communication  networks  and  facilities,  notably
Article  5  of  the  ‘Access  and  Interconnection’  Directive.38  Services  concerned  can  include
traditional  broadcast  programming  but  also  interactive  services,  such  as  messaging  services
allowing for interaction between users, thus stimulating uptake through direct network effects.

35

36

37

38

COM(2003) 410 final of 9.7.2003.
COM(2002) 207 final - 2002/0123 (COD). To be adopted.
See http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/action_plan/index_en.htm
Directive  2002/19/EC  on  access  to,  and  interconnection  of,  electronic  communications  networks  and
associated facilities. OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/new_rf/documents/l_10820020424en00
070020.pdf

20

                                                
Finally, a forthcoming Commission Services Working Document will examine the role of screen
formats  -  wide-screen  and  high  definition  -  in  stimulating  the  consumer  take-up  of  digital
television.

3.

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

Terrestrial  broadcasting  spectrum  is  both  one  important  justification  and  challenge  for
switchover.  As  explained  in  the  first  chapter,  the  closure  of  analogue  broadcasting  offers  the
prospect of releasing several hundreds MHz of “prime” spectrum39. This is a substantial amount
of spectrum, comparable for instance to all the frequencies used by cellular networks in Europe.
But before getting there, it is necessary to manage a scenario of spectrum scarcity during a more
or  less  long  simulcast  phase  where  analogue  and  digital  broadcasts  coexist.  The  spectrum
situation  varies  from  one  European  region  to  another.  In  areas  with  an  over-crowded  spectrum
space simulcasting is more challenging and there is greater pressure for a quick switch-off.

Spectrum  management  has  traditionally  been  closely  controlled  by  national  governments.  In
addition, a high degree of international co-ordination of spectrum management takes place within
the ITU/ CEPT.40 These international for a focus on two major issues: avoidance of cross-border
interference, and promoting  the  circulation  of wireless communications  services and equipment
on a global and/or regional scale by fostering the voluntary harmonisation of the frequency bands
used for specific purposes. Though the EU has until recently only intervened in radio-spectrum
issues via specific legislation to support EU policies41, the scope for co-ordination in this area has
now been reinforced by the adoption of the Spectrum Decision42, which enables the Commission
to  take  technical  implementation  measures  to  satisfy  the  harmonised  spectrum  requirements  of
Community policies.

3.1.

Allocation

In  spectrum  management  it  is  convenient  to  distinguish  “allocation”  and  “assignment”  issues.
Allocation  refers  to  the  types  of  services  delivered  over  specific  spectrum  bands  (terrestrial
mobile, fixed satellite, radio astronomy or  other), on which  harmonisation decisions are  largely
agreed  at  supra-national  level.  The  distinction  between  different  services  may  be  nevertheless
increasingly  challenged  by  market  and  technological  developments,  notably  associated  with
digital  convergence,  calling  for  more  flexible  approaches  to  spectrum  allocation.  This  issue
affects,  but  actually  goes  well  beyond,  the  switchover  debate.  Spectrum  assignment  refers  to
granting of rights to use specific frequencies to companies, organisations or individuals, and has
been  undertaken  nationally  with  little  or  no  consideration  of  the  impact  it  may  have  on  other
countries.43

A major allocation issue for all Member Sates is how to reallocate the ‘digital dividend’; that is,
the  spectrum  released  when  analogue  broadcasting  is  finally  closed  down.  Various  alternative
uses can be envisaged: more and improved TV and radio services (portable reception, improved
audio-visual  quality 
television,  additional
including  wide-screen  and  high-definition 
programming  and  services);  other  wireless  services;  convergent  services;  or  a  mixture  of  the

39

40

41

42

43

This is spectrum which is suited to many applications and therefore most in demand.
‘ITU’  and  ‘CEPT’  respectively  stand  for  ‘International  Telecommunications  Union’  and  ‘Conférence
Européenne de Postes et Télécommunications’.
Directives on GSM, DECT and ERMES, Decisions on UMTS and S-PCS.
Decision N° 676/2002/EC, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p.1.
As exemplified by the auctions and other assignment mechanisms for 3G mobile telephony in Europe.

21

                                                
previous  options.  So  far,  the  momentum  is  towards  keeping  the  spectrum  within  broadcasting,
though  the  potential  alternative  use  of  the  spectrum  by  other  services  is  being  developed  in
various fora. Given the rapidity of technological development, and the medium-term prospect of
switch-off, it is important not to foreclose any options at this stage. This includes scenarios where
broadcasting  would  evolve  towards  more  sophisticated  or  ‘convergent’  services,  for  instance
‘datacasting’ services combining features of mobile telephony and terrestrial broadcasting.

Another  issue  is  the  actual  organisation  of  switchover  and  the  timing  of  switch-off.  This  is  an
important factor in determining the spectrum that may be available for other uses, as continued
provision of analogue services in one country could constrain the use of the concerned frequency
bands  in  another.  This  tension  between  the  priorities  of  different  national  governments  is
particularly acute for broadcasting signals because of the long distances they typically travel, due
to  their  high  power  and  their  use  of  low  transmitting  frequencies  (VHF  and  UHF  bands).  So
switchover progress in some countries, and all its attendant benefits, may be held up by slower
migration in neighbour countries.

Technical discussions on co-ordination issues have been taking place for some  years in the ITU
and  CEPT.  In  particular,  a  two-session  ITU  Regional  Radio  Conference,  covering  the  whole
European Broadcasting Area, Africa and contiguous countries, will take place in 2004 and 2006
to  review  the  current  frequency  co-ordination  planning  for  terrestrial  broadcasting  (the  ‘1961
Stockholm plan’ and subsequent updates), so as to facilitate the digital transition and prepare the
post-switch  off  scenario.  These  inter-governmental  negotiations  have  a  technical  focus  and
decisions are not necessarily based on shared policy goals, with outcomes which may not be in
line with market developments. The selection of co-ordination mechanisms according to specific
technical criteria may  also  lead  to  the  exclusion of  other  alternatives,  possibly  reducing  market
competition and consumers’ welfare.

In this context, it seems justified to develop EU policy orientations on spectrum management and
switchover to achieve the goals of the internal market, addressing in particular the three aspects
mentioned:  new  allocation  and  assignment  mechanisms;  organisation  and  time  scales  of  the
migration; amount and future uses of spectrum potentially released at switch-off. This would help
clarify  the  real  stakes  of  the  switchover,  in  particular  who  will  benefit  from  it,  when  and  how.
That would provide certainty for all those involved, help establish their respective responsibilities
and avoid misunderstandings.

A  framework  for  this  debate  has  been  established  by  the  recent  adoption  of  the  ‘Decision  on
radio-spectrum policy’ and the ‘Decision creating a Radio-spectrum Policy Group’.44 One of the
possible  issues  to  be  discussed  in  this  Group  is  the  Community  spectrum  policy  dimension  of
broadcasting  digitisation.  In  addition,  the  Commission  intends  to  accompany  more  closely  the
European  preparations  for  the  2004  ITU  Regional  Radio  Conference,  as  it  already  does  for
similar events, notably the World Radio Communication Conference45. These events should not
be  exclusively  technical  but  guided  by  political  considerations  related  to  the  achievement  of
Community policy goals, in particular the internal market for equipment and services.

44

45

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/radiospec/radio/legislation/index_en.htm

Decision 676/2002/EC on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community,
OJ  L  108,  24.4.2002,  p.  1.  Decision  establishing  a  Radio  Spectrum  Policy  Group,  OJ  L  198,  27.7.2002,
p. 49.
See  for  instance  the  Commission  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  on  WRC-03,
COM(2003)183, April 14th, 2003.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/radiospec/doc/pdf/wrc_03_documents/wrc_03_en_
final.pdf

22

                                                
3.2.

Assignment

Digital  convergence  calls  for  flexible  management  of  network  capacity  for  communication
services,  including  spectrum  capacity,  and  horizontal  regulatory  treatment.  At  the  same  time,
current  approaches  to  spectrum  assignment  may  lack  efficiency  and  flexibility  to  cope  with
technology  and  market  evolution.  Moreover,  the  fragmented  approach  to  spectrum  licensing
conditions in the EU Member States may constitute an obstacle to an internal market for wireless
communications. In this context, an eEurope2005 action on ‘spectrum policy’ indicates that ‘the
Commission will initiate a discussion  on new approaches to spectrum valuation and  trading of
rights-of-use of frequencies’.46

As for terrestrial broadcasting, the introduction of market mechanisms for spectrum assignment is
not  easy  and  there  are  few  relevant  experiences.  Terrestrial  broadcasters  argue  that  the  service
obligations (universal coverage, service plurality, restrictions on harmful content, etc) limit their
control  over  the  spectrum  they  consume;47  and  that  switchover  already  introduces  in  the  short
term  additional  expense  associated  with  the  need  to  change  consumer  receivers  and  simulcast
analogue and digital offers during a period of uncertain duration.

This said, discussions on more efficient spectrum use in relation to the digitisation of terrestrial
broadcasting  are  taking  place  in  some  countries.48  This  is  also  is  in  line  with  horizontal
approaches  to  communications’  networks  regulation  in  response  to  convergence.  The  Radio
Spectrum  Policy  Group  may  consider  this  topic  in  a  Community  context,  taking  into
consideration  the  linkage  between  allocation  and  assignment,  trans-border  impacts  and
implications for digital switchover in Europe. In particular, this Group could debate whether the
benefits  from  terrestrial  broadcasting  digitisation  would  increase  through  the  introduction  of
market-oriented tools revealing the value of spectrum. This includes techniques linking spectrum
prices  and  opportunity  costs,  such  as  administrative  pricing,  auctions  and  secondary  trading.
Moreover,  technological  developments49  will  increasingly  allow  for  more  efficient  and  flexible
spectrum assignment methods.

Recourse to market mechanisms should be fully compatible with broadcasting policy objectives,
which should be supported through appropriate network capacity, and spectrum valuation can be
considered  in  this  context.  Spectrum  valuation  is  not  synonymous  with  payment.  Payment
could be totally or partially substitutable by service obligations. That would require quantifying
their  financial  impact.50  Indeed,  broadcasters  could  be  compensated  for  their  specific  service
obligations when competing  for  spectrum. This would put them on an equal  footing  with  other
spectrum users, while making them reveal their valuation of the resource.

It is also important to stress the different  nature of network  and content  authorisations,  each  of
which  have  distinct  policy  objectives.  Whereas  efficiency  considerations  should  be  related  to
rights of spectrum capacity usage, content-related goals would be attached  to  authorisations for
provision  of  broadcasting  services.  This  separation  is  established  by  the  new  regulatory

46

47

48

49

50

Op. cit., p. 17.
Although the rationale for these obligations could be  challenged  to  the  extent  that  similar  content  will  be
increasingly available on other networks, including the internet, calling  for  more horizontal approaches to
content regulation and network complementarity to achieve universal coverage.
BIPE,  ibid.,  p.  194,  reports  that  in  the  UK  there  is  a  tax  on  spectrum  use  modulated  according  to  the
penetration of digital broadcasting in a given area.
In areas like software radio techniques, ‘frequency agile’ reception devices or compression algorithms.
See study on ‘general interest objectives linked to broadcasting’, by Eurostrategies, at
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/digital_broadcasting/index_en.htm

23

                                                
framework, in particular, the new ‘Authorisation Directive’.51 On the network capacity side, the
top-level  objective  is  to  encourage  efficient  spectrum  usage  by  introducing  transparency
about the opportunity cost of alternative spectrum uses.52

51

52

Directive 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. OJ L 108,
24.4.2002, p. 21.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/new_rf/documents/l_10820020424en00210032.pdf
In this connection, the Commission has recently started an independent study on ‘spectrum management in
the field of broadcasting’, whose results are expected for early 2004.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/digital_broadcasting/index_en.htm

24

                                                
CONCLUSIONS

Switchover  from  analogue  to  digital  broadcasting  is  a  complex  process  with  far-reaching
implications.  Experiences  will  widely  differ  from  one  national  context  to  the  other,  given  the
different starting positions of Member States. The EU will monitor national switchover policies,
while  ensuring  their  compatibility  with  Community  law,  and  continue  supporting  digital
broadcasting developments.

Policy  intervention  can  facilitate  the  switchover  process  under  certain  circumstances,
contributing to achieve general interest goals. National authorities have a major role to play in
this connection, and the present Communication offers some guidance to them. This consists of
general  recommendations  inspired  by  Community  law  and  policy,  and  by  external  studies
undertaken for the Commission. Recommendations include the need for a market and consumer-
driven approach, policy transparency and non-discrimination between operators. Proportionality
and technological neutrality should characterise public policy measures at national level.

There  is  also  an  internal  market  dimension  to  switchover  and  the  Union  can  facilitate  this
dimension. Several follow-up actions are identified at EU level, in particular concerning:

Transparency and monitoring: Member States will provide information relevant to switchover
in the framework of the Action Plan eEurope and the annual report on the implementation of the
electronic  communications  regulatory  package.  The  Commission  will  analyse  this  information
and report back to the institutions to which this Communication is addressed.

Consumer  information  on  digital  equipment  and  switchover:  the  Commission  will  explore
with relevant stakeholders the possibility of co-ordinated action in this area.

Spectrum:  the  Commission  will  propose  to  Member  States  to  discuss  the  spectrum  aspects  of
switchover within the new Community spectrum policy framework.

The  present  Communication  is  the  first  comprehensive  attempt  to  assess  the  issues  invoked  by
switchover.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the  evolution  of  digital  broadcasting
markets  and  national  policies.  It  will  revisit  as  appropriate  various  issues  relevant  to  the
switchover process, in order to facilitate the efforts of Member States and market players, and to
ensure compatibility of national measures with Community law and policy.

25

ANNEX 1 – DIGITAL TV MARKET IN THE EU (estimates for 2002)

 (in millions and in percentage of national households)

Total HH

Total Digital TV HH

Cable DTV

Satellite DTV

Terrestrial DTV

TV HH

%

TV HH

%

TV HH

%

TV HH

%

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

3.3

4.3

2.4

2.3

25.1

37.9

3.6

1.3

Italy

20.1

Luxembourg

0.2

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

7.1

3.6

12.8

4.6

0.36

0.23

0.92

0.22

4.97

4.14

0.22

0.32

3.13

0.01

1.16

0.34

3.21

1.44

10.7%

0.07

2.1%

5.2%

0.22

5.0%

0.29

0.01

8.7%

0.2%

0.00

0.00

0.0%

0.0%

38.9%

0.55

23.6%

0.36

15.3%

0.00

0.0%

9.4%

0.04

19.8%

0.95

1.6%

3.8%

10.9%

1.94

5.1%

6.0%

0.00

24.4%

0.06

0.0%

4.4%

15.6%

0.02

0.1%

5.3%

0.00

1.0%

16.5%

0.45

6.4%

9.6%

0.04

1.1%

25.1%

0.05

0.4%

0.17

4.02

2.21

0.22

0.26

3.11

0.01

0.69

0.29

2.78

7.3%

0.01

0.5%

16.0%

0.01

0.0%

5.8%

6.0%

0.00

0.00

20.0%

0.00

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

15.4%

0.00

0.0%

4.2%

9.8%

8.0%

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.0%

0.3%

0.5%

21.8%

0.38

3.0%

31.6%

0.46

10.0%

0.84

18.4%

0.15

3.2%

UK

26.3

11.51

43.8%

3.23

12.3%

6.22

23.7%

2.06

7.8%

TOTAL EU

154.73

32.2

20.8%

8.1

5.2%

21.5

13.9%

US

Japan

118

41.9

44.95

38.1%

21.8

18.5%

22.55

19.1%

6.7

16.0%

0

0.0%

6.7

16.0%

2.6

0.6

0

1.7%

0.5%

0.0%

P e rc enta ge  of  digi ta l  TV  hous e holds  ov er  total  house holds  i n  20 0 2

l

s
d
o
h
e
s
u
o
h
f
o

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

A

B

DK

FIN

F

D

EL

IRL

I

L

NL

P

E

S

UK

EU 15

US

Japan

Ca ble  DTV   %  

Sa te llite  D TV   %  

Te rrest ria l  DTV   %  

Source:  Eighth  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  Telecommunications  Regulatory  Package  [COM(2002)  695
final], annex 2 (‘regulatory data’), section 11 (‘digital television’) available at
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/implementation/annual_report/8threport/index_en.htm
and Strategy Analytics, “Interactive Digital TV market forecast data”, October 2002.

26

 
 
ANNEX 2 – CHECKLIST OF ITEMS THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN MEMBER
STATE PUBLISHED SWITCHOVER PLANS53

Strategic plan for switchover, approved or in preparation, if any; Relevant regulation.

Policy objectives for digital broadcasting: social, cultural, political, economic, etc.

Spectrum  management  policy  choices  and  scenarios,  before  and  after  switch-off:
services,  coverage,  assignees,  conditions  of  use,  spectrum  allocation  intentions,
objectives for 2004 Radio Regional Conference negotiations.

Implementation choices to best fulfil policy objectives, trade-offs, justification: types of
networks, modalities of service, role of authorities, main players, licensing, etc.

Tentative  calendar  for  achieving  objectives,  including  target  dates  for  switch-off,  and
status.

Stakeholders’ 
mechanisms for consulting and processing feedback, players involved, commitments.

in  switchover  strategy  design  and 

involvement 

implementation:

Criteria for achievement of policy objectives, mechanism/ indicators for monitoring and
retro-feeding into or reviewing strategy.

Market  assessment  (e.g.  cost/  benefits  analysis)  justifying  certain  modalities  of  public
intervention (rather than others) in and beyond areas of exclusive public competence.

Policy obligations  and  incentives  (political,  informational,  regulatory,  financial,  other);
Implementation  modalities;  Targeted  value-chain  segments  (transmission,  content,
reception, consumption, other).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Areas for possible EU co-ordinated action, now or in future; Justification with regard to
market status and prospects, legal responsibilities, other.

53

eEurope  2005  requires  Member  States  to  report  on  TV  switchover  (see  below).  However,  they  are
encouraged to provide the information listed in this annex also for digital radio.
Digital  switchover.  In  order  to  speed  up  the  transition  to  digital  television,  Member  States  should  create
transparency as far  as  the  conditions  for  the  envisaged  switchover  are  concerned.  Member  States  should
publish by end 2003 their intentions regarding a possible switchover. These could include a road map, and
an assessment of market  conditions,  and  possibly  a  date  for  the  closure  of  analogue  terrestrial  television
broadcasting  which  would  enable  the  recovery  and  refarming  of  frequencies.  National  switchover  plans
should also be an opportunity to demonstrate a platform-neutral approach to digital television, taking into
account competing delivery mechanisms (primarily satellite, cable and terrestrial).
COM(2002) 263 final, eEurope 2005: An information society for all.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/news_library/documents/eeurope2005/eeurope2005_en.pdf

27