Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 101

Committee considers that the EC and the Member proposals and apply them in establishing the environ
States should, as a matter of urgency, adopt these ment for the activity of firms .

Done at Brussels, 28 November 1991 .

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Francois STAEDELIN

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the adoption of standards for satellite

broadcasting of television signals

( 92 / C 40 / 24 )

On 30 July 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
abovementioned proposal .

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee 's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 November 1991, in the light
of the Report by Mr Noordwal .

At its 291st plenary session ( meeting of 28 November 1991 ) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a large majority vote in favour and 2 votes
against, with 9 abstentions .

1 . Introductory remarks

1.1 . The draft Directive is put forward to provide
continuity after the expiry on 31 December 1991 of the
EC Directive which is currently valid — 86 / 529 / EEC ( 1 ).
This previous Directive, adopted under Article 100 of
the Treaty, i.e. by unanimous vote of Member States
in the Council — and approved by a positive and unani ­
mous Opinion of the Committee ( 2 ) — required Member
States to ensure use of the MAC Packet family as the
only standard permitted in the Community for direct
operational satellite television broadcasting .

1.2 . The present draft Directive seeks both to take
the place of the previous one for the next ten years
and to extend it to cover not only high-power Direct
Broadcasting Satellites ( DBS ) as before but also low ­
power Fixed Service Satellites ( FSS ) which were left
aside in the earlier Directive because at the time these
satellites were thought to have insufficient power to

t 1 ) OJ No L 311, 6 . 11 . 1986 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 189, 28 . 7 . 1986 .

provide direct home reception . In doing so it provides,
however, ( Art . 3 ) that existing satellite services using
D-MAC, PAL or SECAM standards for the habitual
625 line 4:3 format transmissions may continue indefi ­
nitely .

1.3 . The MAC Packet family of standards has been
developed in Europe to allow for the introduction of
High Definition TV ( HDTV ) — viz . 1 250 lines, 16:9
format — in the future while allowing for the maximum
possible degree of compatibility e.g. so as to avoid
necessarily replacing all existing television sets and
equipment . As such the Committee has expressed in
the past ( 3 ) its ' strong support for the development of
European standards in HDTV ' and in particular for
the Eureka EU 95 Project as the ' standard capable of
introducing HDTV without making existing sets and
equipment obsolete '.

( 3 ) ESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision on High

Definition Television ( OJ No C 159, 26 . 6 . 1989, p. 34 ).

No C 40 / 102 - Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

2 . General comments

2.1 . The Committee, mindful of its many Opinions
on matters related to new technologies, welcomes such
new techniques in the field of HDTV which aim at
meeting consumer demand for more programmes and
increased cultural variety, on condition that consumers
conserve their freedom of choice . As it stated in Sep ­
tember 1990 ' European television set manufacturers
must, via coordinated technology-based and compe ­
tition-oriented production policies, help ensure that the
new breadth of choice can be exploited ' ( 1 ).

2.2 . For this process to succeed it is most important
for the three main partners involved in the audio ­
visual industry — viz . the programme producers, the
broadcasters and re-distributors and the equipment
manufacturers and suppliers — to work together and
to inform their customers fully and truthfully on the
technical and commercial characteristics of their prod ­
ucts . The cost to the consumer in this field is not just
a matter of the purchase price in the shop but also of
service and repair costs, of additional supplementary
equipment, of license fees or other forms of payment
for viewing, compared in each case to the status quo
or other technical solutions .

2.3 . Compatibility

2.3.1 . Whether between old and new equipment or
between different systems, e.g. D-MAC, PAL and
SECAM, compatibility is at the heart of the debate on
the usefulness of the MAC Packet route to HDTV .
Consumer choice clearly sets great store and value on
compatibility ; it is also a matter of general and indus ­
trial interest, though not necessarily that of particular
producers or users . Unlike both the Japanese MUSE
system and, in all likelihood the US digital system
currently in development, D2-MAC and HD-MAC are
designed to be compatible in the broadest sense ; that is
to say they are, in the first place, compatible between
themselves ( D2-MAC as the earlier current phase of
technology followed later by HD-MAC with full high
definition ); in the second place, by adding a decoder,
these can be received on sets currently existing in
Europe .

2.3.1.1 . However, on current published technology,
MAC cannot provide a compatible path for medium
powered satellites since these have insufficient power
for HD-MAC reception by normal domestic dish
antennae . Also it is not compatible with terrestrial
broadcasting .

2.3.1.2 . Further a completely new TV set will be
needed both to receive and to reproduce programmes
in HDTV .

2.3.2 . The decoder required for such compatibility
does represent an additional cost . The cost involved
depends in any case on the scale of production and
should go down as output goes up .

2.3.3 . In view of the above considerations, convinced
of the over-riding importance for all concerned of both
aiming for and achieving compatibility and conscious
that no other existing route to HDTV provides for that,
the Committee renews its support for a set of standards
which have, in its eyes, the great merits of being compat ­
ible with existing systems and home equipment, avail ­
able now or in the near future and, not least, European
in conception and ownership .

2.4 . In his 1989 Opinion ( 2 ) on the proposal for a
Council Decision on High Definition Television the
Committee ' lays the greatest possible stress on the vital
importance of the economic and social issues at stake
and calls on the Community to mobilize all its forces
unreservedly and with the utmost vigour in support of
the efforts pursued by European industry in this field '.
The Committee on that occasion also emphasised the
need for the widest consultation . It now reconfirms the
position it took by an overwhelming vote in favour in

1989 but, in the light of a number of reservations
regarding the Commission draft expressed by interested
parties, can only approve the proposal subject to the
following comments and changes .

3 . Specific comments

3.1 . Article 1

This Article repeats the injunction on Member States
from the 1986 Directive, albeit in weaker language ; e.g.
' to ensure ' in 1986 is changed to ' promote and support '
in 1991 . The language versions also differ marginally ;
in French the Member States are enjoined to ' facilitate '
HD-MAC . The Committee considers this very general
injunction to be necessary and the least one could ask
for .

3.2 . Article 2

The Committee agrees with Article 2.1 . HD-MAC
should be the only HDTV standard . 2.2 however has
to be made optional by deleting the word ' only '.

( i ) OJ No C 332, 31 . 12 . 1990, p. 174 . ( 2 ) OJ No C 159, 26 . 6 . 1989, p. 36 .

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 103

Making MAC compulsory for new non-HDTV services
is anti-competitive — it would reduce growth in the sat ­
ellite market and entrench the position of existing oper ­
ators and increase cost to the consumer .

3.3 . Article 4

The object of this Article is to provide the consumer
with a wider choice of programmes of higher image
quality . This will probably entail a slight increase in
the cost of bigger domestic TV sets, at least until the
stage of mass production of the necessary additional
equipment has been attained . What is important how ­
ever is the success of the D2-MAC standard, which
alone can in the long run guarantee consumer freedom
by increasing the number of services available without
the need to buy new equipment .

3.3.1 . It might appear however that this Article goes
too far in requiring all sets with screens bigger than
52 cm to have a D2-MAC decoder . The D2-MAC
decoder should only be required on sets capable of
receiving satellite transmissions, whether directly or via
hyperband or cable . Thus, only consumers opting for
sets enabling them to watch satellite transmissions
would pay for a D2-MAC decoder . Such a provision
would leave consumers the choice between the tra ­

ditional and new satellite services .

3.4 . Article 5

3.4.1 . First indent : this is not clearly drafted and sets
out in too great detail to prescribe matters best left to
commercial management .

With current technology, the existing proposal would
limit the number of channels which cable operators
could offer . The Article therefore should be made
optional so that operators can take advantage of the
new MAC developments when the market is right .

3.4.2 . Second indent : this, like the previous indent,
is poorly drafted . It should state quite simply that
existing standards can be used as before but that where
D2-MAC and HD-MAC are received they can be con ­

Done at Brussels, 28 November 1991 .

verted to PAL or SECAM for re-distribution only if the
option to receive them simultaneously in the original
D2-MAC / HD-MAC ( Simulcast ) is also provided .

3.5 . Article 6

The provisions of Article 8 cover the date of entry into
force of the Directive in all respects, including this
Article . There is therefore no need to introduce in this
Article additional time constraints, constraints which
could moreover prevent adaptation to technical pro ­
gress in the field of conditional access systems and
which represent a wrong approach in principle . The
words ' by the date of implementation of this Directive '
should therefore be deleted . This change would permit
improved compatible access systems with a standard
interface, manufactured according to a recognized
European standard, to be used even if such standard be
approved by a European standardization organization
after the date of implementation of the Directive .

3.6 . Article 7

The Committee is satisfied that the biannual Com ­
mission Reports on the application of the Directive will
be sent to it . This is important not only as a means of
keeping the socioprofessional groups represented on
the Committee informed of progress with the introduc ­
tion of this new technology in the world of mass com ­
munications but also of allowing the Committee to
follow closely and express its views on the adaptation
of the Directive to match rapid developments in this
field . Having in mind that these adaptations are pro ­
vided for within the proposed arrangements, and that
it will itself be involved, the Committee also endorses
the Ten-year period of validity proposed .

3.7 . Other business

3.7.1 . This possibility of abuse in matters of intellec ­
tual property in respect of encryption systems, as well
as the D2-MAC and HD-MAC systems in general,
needs to be addressed in some way ( for example in a
recital to the Directive ). There needs to be an open
licensing regime for manufacture, use and compatibility
testing, in order to ensure a free and competitive mar ­
ket . This would be in line with the Commission 's Com ­
munication on industrial policy in an open and competi ­
tive environment [ doc . COM(90 ) 556 final ].

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Francois STAEDELIN