Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 14 November 2005 - Strasbourg

14. Digital switchover

  President. – The next item is the oral question to the Commission (O-0083/2005 – B6-0333/2005) by Mr Chichester and Mrs Barsi-Pataky, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the digital switchover.

  Etelka Barsi-Pataky (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (HU) Mr President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy of the European Parliament has been following very closely the process of switching from terrestrial analogue broadcasting to digital broadcasting in Europe. As a vitally important resource, the frequency spectrum must be utilised efficiently. Europe must not lag behind in this regard. In other words, if we want to achieve the Lisbon goals and be a part of the innovation in this area too, then we must not lag behind with the switchover.

We therefore support the fact that the Commission has proposed 2012 as the target year for switching off analogue broadcasting throughout Europe. The European Parliament therefore calls upon the Member States to give their full support to this schedule, while at the same time aiming to keep the transitional period of ‘simulcasting’ as short as possible.

The digital switchover will be a success if it is carried out in a coordinated manner. We therefore propose that the Commission establish a European Digital Working Party – perhaps within the existing structures – with a view to ensuring that the switchover takes place in as coordinated a manner as possible. We propose that this Working Party have the task of monitoring the progress of Member States and coordinating their objectives and regulations. It should initiate discussion and consultation between Member States and market players. The European Parliament believes that the digital switchover will bring tangible benefits if the additional frequency spectrum released as a result of the change in technology is reallocated on a flexible basis and at European level.

We need to make a timely start as regards working on the question of how to make the best use of the frequency spectrum dividend. In this context I am also referring to the potential it offers for new pan-European services, as in the case of the transport sector, to mention only one of many examples. The aforementioned Working Party would provide an appropriate framework for this.

In order to ensure that the switchover has the desired results, it is impossible to overstate the need for technological neutrality and interoperability, which is one of the pillars of European innovation in this field. We also call upon Member States to ensure that the switchover process and reallocation of the spectrum dividend are impartial, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory.

The European Parliament believes that the transition will be a success if European citizens have access to the most advanced technology for receiving digital broadcasts, for example technology comprising a Multimedia Home Platform or an open Embedded Panel Interface (EPI). This will help prevent vertical bottlenecks. In order to ensure access to these technologies for all European citizens, it may be necessary to subsidise them at national level, in accordance with Community law. We must ensure that a digital divide is not allowed to develop between different regions of Europe. Indeed, we must ensure that the opposite is the case.

We call upon the Commission to publish and present models of best practice with regard to financing aspects. The switchover will not only bring economic dividends, but also better and more sophisticated services for European citizens if the social and cultural challenges relating to it are met. For instance, public service platforms could be the standard-bearers of the digital switchover.

We propose that the common position we need to agree on at the Regional Radiocommunication Conference in 2006 (RRC06) should include a provision making the transitional period for third countries as short as possible. The European Parliament is confident that the December meeting of the Council will take Parliament’s views into consideration in arriving at a decision on the tasks that lie ahead.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission.  (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission has undertaken to accelerate the transition to digital broadcasting at EU level, and to structure this process in such a way that there is no distortion of competition. The aim is to switch off analogue signals by the beginning of 2012 at the latest, and to ensure that the spectrum released by this switch-off is used in such a way that society will derive the maximum possible benefits. Furthermore, the Commission aims to ensure that society can begin to use this spectrum for hybrid television and telecommunications services, or for services that are unrelated to radio or television broadcasting.

The transition to digital broadcasting is gathering pace in the European Union. Spain recently brought forward the date for switching off analogue terrestrial television signals by two years, from 2012 to 2010, while Germany has brought it forward by three years, from 2010 to 2007. Ten Member States have set a date of 2010 or earlier for switch-off, whereas a further 10 have set a date of 2012. Five Member States, as well as Bulgaria and Romania, have not yet decided on a date for switch-off, and Poland, Ireland and Bulgaria have now indicated that they may find it difficult to achieve switch-off in 2012. On the basis of this information, the Commission expects that transition in the European Union as a whole should be well underway by the beginning of 2010, and that the overwhelming majority of Member States should have switched off analogue terrestrial television signals by 2012.

With regard to the prevention of interference from analogue systems based outside Europe, the Commission is in favour of reaching an international agreement to abolish legal protection for use of the analogue broadcasting spectrum by 2015. Such prompt action should encourage countries that do not belong to the European Union either to switch off their analogue systems or, at the very least, to re-open negotiations with neighbouring EU Member States in order to keep interference with digital systems to a minimum.

The international community’s future approach to planning should ensure that new broadcasting and non-broadcasting services can operate in the same bands. From the outset, the Commission has called for maximum technical flexibility, and for consideration to be given to the possibility of making part of any spectrum dividend available on a pan-European basis for future innovative services.

Europe lends its full backing to research and development through its IST Framework Programmes, which fund research into new supporting technologies that will facilitate the implementation of convergence services. To cite but one example of a newly implemented service, the Community has funded a number of research and development projects on interactive television. The latter has been used as a basis for providing e-government information services to Italian citizens. Furthermore, the development of digital radio came about thanks to a consortium set up under the aegis of an EU research programme. Digital radio signals can now broadcast in all analogue spectrum bands, and several digital stations can be broadcast in hi-fi quality in the same spectrum that was previously used for one analogue station.

If I may, I should like to comment briefly on the motion for a resolution. The Commission welcomes the fact that Parliament is in favour of accelerating the transition and setting the beginning of 2012 as the date by which analogue broadcasts should have been switched off in all Member States, as proposed by the Commission. In view of the fact that you are adopting this resolution today, I cannot now respond directly to all the issues dealt with in detail in this extensive document. The European Commission will give careful consideration to the scope of its competence with regard to policy formulation on new and innovative services that will be operated in the spectrum bands originally used for analogue services. At present, the majority of highly innovative services in this field are still at the research and development stage, and as such are supported through the Commission’s research programmes. In the long term, there will be a considerable need for assessments of the technical and commercial viability of these services.

Spectrum-related issues will be a major focus of the Commission’s work in this field. Such issues will also be the subject of thorough debate with the Member States as part of the ongoing work of the Communications Committee, its sub-groups for radio and television broadcasting, the Radio Spectrum Committee and the Radio Spectrum Policy Group. Problems relating to vertical integration and significant market power are dealt with under the regulatory framework. The wholesale market for the transmission of radio and television signals has been translated into a list of relevant markets, and appropriate regulatory measures are being taken to address SMP problems.

The Commission is currently drafting a communication on the interoperability of interactive television, which it intends to adopt by the end of the year. Within the framework of its decisions on state subsidies, the Commission also issues guidelines on certain aspects of the funding of the transition to digital broadcasting. EU legislation makes a clear distinction between the regulation of electronic transmissions and the regulation of their content. Parliament believes that this clear distinction should be maintained, and the Commission considers this approach to be extremely helpful.

  Ivo Belet, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will allow me, in the short time that is available to me, to draw your attention to two aspects of this digital switchover, starting with the open standards, to which, obviously, Mrs Barsi-Pataky has already made reference. I would remind the Commissioner that the Commission itself decided, in March, that the national governments should foot the bill for pilot projects, for example, but also for the purchase of set-top boxes for individual consumers. I wonder if you should not make this more specific in the sense that you need to indicate that such financial support, or subsidy, is only possible for set-top boxes with a so-called open standard, mainly to avoid two things.

The object should be to avoid putting consumers to great expense twice and also to avoid one or other industrial partner deliberately engineering bottlenecks, because if one thing is clear, Commissioner, it is that this new way of watching television digitally will push up the cost for the consumer. That is why it is crucial that we agree on a basic package of channels that are accessible to everyone both now and in future. I take it that you share our view that providers must, in future, be required to offer their customers the basic channels of the national stations. What is known as must-carry should not get in the way of the digital switchover; on the contrary, it is, in our eyes, a guarantee for maximum distribution.

Secondly, with regard to pluralism and diversity, there is, as you referred to a moment ago, the risk that the switchover to digital technology will result in the new markets being controlled by dominant players. That is why, in the draft resolution adopted by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, we explicitly ask you to ensure that the new digital market will not fall within the exclusive control of one or other multinational. The text reads as follows: ‘the majority, or an appropriate part, of the new broadcasting possibilities and broadcasters should not come under the exclusive control or decisive influence of multinational media undertakings’. This should become one of the Commission’s priorities in this whole process of change.

There is no need for me to make the link to the directive on television without frontiers, as we will be discussing this either by the end of this year or the beginning of next. In that area too, it is important to ensure that the national markets do not get into the hands of one dominant player to a disproportionate, and therefore unhealthy, degree. In that debate, Commissioner Špidla, the Commission must side with the consumer. I truly hope that you will not resort to the argument of subsidiarity all too easily in order to avoid your responsibility, because that argument is, to my mind, a totally inappropriate one to use.

  Norbert Glante, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group endorses this own-initiative motion, and also the question to the Commission, to which a clear answer has been given, and I hope that this common strategy will enable us to make headway.

I have been a Member of this House for quite some time and can remember many attempts being made at this. I also recall the problems to which Mr Belet has just referred. Technological neutrality is a very important term where competition is concerned. We had this sort of problem several years ago, when we realised and addressed that the importance of frequency interference with analog broadcasting, could even, to some extent, hamper our development. I believe we must give a great deal of attention to ensuring that it does not do so.

Along with our group, though, I think it very important that the point again be made that we have to succeed in informing the consumers, the public in the European Union, in a transparent, frank and fair manner, and in good time, for it is they who are meant, in due course, to buy and use this technology, and it is their fears that need to be allayed and their resistance that has to be overcome.

If you go, as I do from time to time, into the relevant shops, you can see what the manufacturers have on offer, for the digital television sets are there already. The customers have a look at them; they watch a digital-format DVD and enthuse about the picture quality, and then they see an analog TV programme on the same screen and are astonished at how great the difference is. I believe that, if the public are told about the benefits and are given details of when this changeover is to take place, and if the industry aims for market penetration by charging fair prices for these devices, I am optimistic that we will, by 2010, have caught up with our competitors in this field in other parts of the world. What I do see as important, though, is that we make sure that we do not miss the boat when taking our people into the digital era.

Quite apart from that, let me say how grateful I am for the customary warm, close and good cooperation with Mrs Barsi-Pataky.

  Nikolaos Vakalis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate concerns an official sector which relates directly to the Lisbon objectives.

Europe must bridge the gap which separates it from its competitors. The Commission proposal for a common target date has precisely this objective. Nonetheless, I see the following dimensions or problems:

The first dimension, the cross-border dimension, was also highlighted by the Commissioner. Given that digital switchover in our neighbouring countries affects European digital integration, due to frequency coordination problems, my question is: what measures does the Commission intend to take and what agreements does it intend to conclude in order to help neighbouring countries, so that they too can make the digital switchover? Similarly, within the framework of accession negotiations with candidate countries, will the intention of these countries to proceed with the necessary measures, agreements and commitments be examined?

The second dimension is the geographical dimension. The choice of technology, the cost of installation and operation and the implementation timetable also depend to a large degree on the geography of a country. For example, coverage of mountain and island areas entails more difficulties than coverage of plains. Consequently, does the Commission consider that there is a need to promote digital cohesion actions in order to bridge the so-called digital divide?

My final question is: can we justify subsidising specific technologies, such as set-top boxes, rather than other available technologies? Does this not contradict the principle of technological neutrality?

  Reino Paasilinna (PSE). – (FI) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it hardly pays for us to doubt these benefits, but do not let us forget the problems. Something I wish to address is the tangle of problems relating to public institutions. What will happen in our schools and hospitals? What will happen in old people’s homes? In some places thousands of televisions or digiboxes may have to be replaced. Moreover, the social sector is one where resources are never enough.

My country will have moved into the digital age by 2007. That is a considerable advantage. In some countries these large public institutions are finding it hard to face up to this situation. It is unthinkable that the sick or elderly would have to give up their televisions as a source of entertainment, even though they might not always need new digital services.

Schools, too, are in difficulties. If schools are not so progressive as to have broadband, via which they can receive digital services, then they are going to have problems. In other words, by that time all schools would have to be digitalised.

Technological development is normally seen as an economic benefit and not a social or cultural one, something I have a problem with. Our society has changed. If we look at schoolchildren, their world of play is quite different from what we ever did. If, on the other hand, we consider young people, they are certainly interactive, but with the world, and not necessarily with their neighbours. Consequently, our knowledge-based economy may become an economy of incomprehension, because of us, not because of young people or children.

  Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, here in this House, we have a lot to say about issues relating to technology. What we are talking about now, though, is broadcasting. Broadcasting is not just technology; it is fundamental to three areas in our society that should be important to us: culture, social cohesion and the development of democracy. That is why it is not enough to talk only about technology.

Technology is very important; being the engine of the digital revolution in broadcasting, it is also the engine for the creation of urgently-needed jobs with good prospects. It is for that reason, though, that broadcasting is both a cultural and an economic asset. I appeal to the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to take broadcasting’s ambivalence and duality more seriously than it has done in its previous papers and communications. It is for that reason that I welcome the resolution from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and very much hope that we will, in future, be able to develop cooperation between it and the Committee for Culture and Education. The resolution is a very good basis on which to do that, and I urge the Commission to take it seriously if it really does want to accomplish the changeover in the next few years. There is a pressing need for policy goals setting out how this is to be done, not only in terms of the technology involved, but also of cultural, social and democratic cooperation. If you really do want to empower the Member States to do that, then issues of subsidies and of European competition law need to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

It will be apparent to the House that we take this resolution very seriously, and we urge the Commission, for the public’s sake, to do likewise.

  Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like, in this debate, to stress what I consider to be important and what has not yet been said: the European Commission must lead the research and development activities of the new innovative services, so that we can place Europe in a position of technological leadership on a pan-European scale. That is why I believe it is so important that we establish political objectives that clearly define the guarantees, so that the services we are talking about can become as widespread as possible, but, above all, for the benefit of the citizens, of the consumers and also, of course, economic development.

It is therefore important to maintain the date of 2012 for the changeover from analogue to digital, so that Europe is not left behind, because our competitors have set much earlier dates: the United States, 2009, South Korea, 2010, and Japan, 2011. This requires that we coordinate our efforts so that the countries are genuinely committed. As you have pointed out quite rightly, my country, Spain, has brought the date forward, as have certain others, but we must all continue to work in the same direction, because, the longer the transitional period lasts, the more harm will be done to the television broadcasters, the receiver industry, the manufacturing and marketing industry, the distribution sector and, above all, the citizens themselves.

I would finally like to stress that, if the conversion is to be a success, it is very important for the Commission and the Member States to ensure two things in particular: on the one hand, that the significant digital divide in our society is closed, and on the other, that there should be no monopolies, because, if there are any, this transformation will not be possible.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, my household is a fairly typical European household: we have a TV set in the sitting room, one in the kitchen, one in our bedroom and one for the grandchildren when they visit. We subscribe to Sky Digital by satellite, which costs around GBP 40 – EUR 60 – a month, and we pay our TV licence for the BBC public service channels.

Even though there are hundreds of digital channels, we will be able to view only one digital channel at a time on all these sets because we have only one viewing card. At the moment, while my wife watches ‘Extreme Makeover’ and our grandchildren view the cartoon channel on digital, I can still get the news on one of the five analogue channels. After the switchover – which is only two or three years away now in the UK – we will be stuck with only one channel at a time unless we pay for extra decryption boxes and cards. To cover all the interests in a typical household, this could require up to four or five cards. The cost could be GBP 200 – EUR 300 – a month; GBP 2 000 – EUR 3 000 – a year over and above the licence fee.

It is essential that the Commission ensure that the digital service providers, such as Sky, allow multiple-channel choice in each household at reasonable cost and that they do not make the multiple choice that digital can offer so absurdly expensive that it cannot be availed of. I therefore ask the Commissioner: what will you do about the availability and cost of multiple channels in each household? What will you do to ensure monopoly positions are not unreasonably exploited and what will you do to mitigate the cost of even a single set changeover from analogue to digital for the less well off and the socially vulnerable?

  Nikolaos Sifunakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, digital television offers a series of benefits to viewers: improved picture quality, better sound, better reception of the picture through mobile and portable devices and interactive services.

At the same time, digital television improves access for people with special needs, such as people with impaired hearing or vision, by providing auxiliary services such as better subtitling, sound commentary and sign commentary.

That is why it is imperative to make the switchover to digital television by no later than 2012, so that we do not fall behind our main competitors, the United States of America and Japan, countries which intend to stop analogue broadcasting in 2009 and 2011 respectively.

However, apart from this, the switchover to digital television and the concomitant cessation of analogue broadcasting will also result in the freeing of analogue frequencies, which can then be used for new, innovative services. The freeing of frequencies must be accompanied by policies which aim to increase pluralism, especially cultural diversity, in the retransmission of European and independent productions. Our objective must be television programmes which will highlight in a qualitative manner the educational, cultural and informative mission of television.

  Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I very much welcome this initiative by Parliament and by our colleagues in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. I asked to make a short statement at the end because last Friday I was invited to participate in a conference held by the British regulator Ofcom under the auspices of the Presidency. One of the major issues on the agenda of that conference was spectrum regulation and management, particularly in the context of the so-called digital dividend – in the phraseology that some will have used this evening – which relates to the releasing of high-quality radio frequency spectrum as a result of the switchover to digital television.

Parliament needs to pay far more attention to the issue of how radio spectrum will be allocated and managed across the European Union, because it is clearly important that we have some alignment of goals there. Member States are already making decisions about how that digital dividend should be spent.

Some people, including the last speaker, have talked about the fact that there will be a unique conjunction of events, in that the same pieces of spectrum will become available in every European country. In the interests of creating a more active market for digital content and breaking away from some of the artificial constraints that we have at the moment in relation to national boundaries for digital content, there are certainly opportunities that we must take, but in order to do so we need to generate ideas that will encourage Member States to take advantage of them.

We are not seeing many such ideas bubbling up so far. I think there is a lot of work for this Parliament to do. I therefore welcome Mrs Barsi-Pataky's initiative in the Committee on Industry, but I hope you will agree that this is just the beginning. First of all we must disseminate the importance of digital switchover; secondly, we must sensitise our colleagues to its fundamental economic importance and, thirdly, we must start to tackle politically the issue of how we deal with spectrum allocation and the digital dividend.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission.  (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you for the debate. The word ‘revolution’ cropped up during it, and quite rightly so in my opinion, since the transition to digital broadcasting is a revolution of sorts, and any major technical transition on a similar scale has widespread consequences. The development of human civilisation has after all been closely tied to developments in the field of information processing. Traditional forms of information were followed by the written word, which in turn was followed by the mass dissemination of information. The latest stage in the process, and the one we have currently reached, is the electronic dissemination of information, but we are already moving towards the next steps, one of which will unquestionably be artificial intelligence. Each of these radical changes has had or will have a wide range of consequences, and you approached this possibility from a great many angles during the debate.

There are two points I should like to highlight. Firstly, the approach adopted by the Commission is based on the scope of its competences. The aim is therefore to find a technical and organisational solution to the problem at hand, rather than to deal with the issue of content. It is generally acknowledged that this solution will increase opportunities and improve quality, and it is also likely that it will cut costs. I expect, and indeed take it as read, that the various stages of this debate will continue until 2012. We place a great value on this process, since it is impossible to take up a position or to find a flexible solution for a change of this magnitude without genuine democratic debate. For all that, I believe that the keynote phrase which the Commission has used and which I used in my introductory speech will continue to hold true, namely ensuring that the spectrum released by the switch-off of analogue transmissions is used in such a way that society derives the maximum possible benefits.

  President. – Pursuant to Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received one motion for a resolution at the end of this debate⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote on this motion for a resolution will take place on Wednesday.

(1) See Minutes.