Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-26-Speech-4-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020926.6.4-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the honourable Member’s question relates to the interoperability of interactive television services and the role of the MHP standard. The question contained five points, which I will respond to individually.
Firstly, on the first point, I can acknowledge that the adoption of the framework directive in the field of communications represents a powerful signal both for operators in the digital television market and for consumers. The directives which will come within this framework will allow us to achieve three important objectives. Firstly, to give broadcasters access to the networks and to connected equipment such as electronic guides and programmes. Next, to prevent excessive regulation through the application of proportional access solutions and finally to benefit the consumer by contributing to the provision of a wide range of services.
If we consider the legal position established in Article 18 of the framework directive for electronic communication services and networks, the Member States must encourage openness in relation to the provision of an application programming interface (API). No particular API technology or single API will be laid down. The MHP standard satisfies the needs of interoperability and openness in this field. This is why we are encouraging the voluntary application of this standard by the sector.
The second point relates the date of publication of the standards applicable in the field of MHP. My reply is that the list of standards will be published after the meeting of the committee responsible for communications on 2 October.
Third point; the use of a non-standardised API technology may give a company power on the market. The directive in question lays down specific solutions which may be used by national regulation bodies to control the power of certain companies on the market. Since it guarantees interoperability and offers users greater freedom of choice, standardisation will certainly contribute to preventing the appearance of monopolies. However, in itself competition is not a measure of fair competition. Dominant players may appear, even when there are open standards.
On the fourth, as I said in the reply to the first point of the question, the objectives of the regulation are openness and interoperability. The MHP standard meets the needs of interoperability and openness in this field. This is why we are providing political support for the voluntary application of this standard by the sector. However, the sector also wishes to hold a dialogue on interoperability, particularly on migration. We have therefore launched a debate and sectoral investigation into interoperability.
With regard to the fifth point, in its declaration to the plenum on 12 December 2001, the Commission committed itself to publishing the relevant MHP standards in a list of standards to be published in the Official Journal, in accordance with Article 17 of the framework directive. Pursuant to this directive, the Member States must encourage the application of the standards contained on the list. Secondly, the Commission is committed to examining, a year after the entry into force of the directive, whether interoperability and freedom of choice for users have reached a satisfactory level in the Member States. If that is not the case, the Commission will be able to propose making the use of these standards obligatory. In accordance with our commitments, we will provide a list of standards after the meeting of the competent committee on 2 October, as I have just said. They are scheduled to be examined between now and July 2004.
Article 18 of the framework directive demands that Member States encourage the use of an open API. The Commission will therefore hold a dialogue with the Member States and national regulation bodies, by means of the committee. The MHP will certainly be amongst the subjects discussed within the framework of this dialogue.
The widespread adoption of the MHP seems to be the most obvious means of achieving interoperability. Businesses must take the initiative in terms of creating migration strategies since migration itself raises many technical and commercial problems. We are pleased with the sustained efforts of the sector to resolve these problems and reach agreements, at national or European level, in view of the transfer to MHP."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples