David Cutts responds to last week’s criticisms and says MHEG-5 is established and thriving
It is good to see the standards debate surrounding the vibrant future of interactive TV being conducted so vigorously. With the move to digital broadcasting continuing to advance at a rapid pace throughout the world, so is the requirement to specify appropriate middleware. This is certainly the case in the free-to-air broadcast market where MHEG-5 has so clearly established itself and is now thriving.
The UK has been singled out in this debate. Yes, MHEG-5 in the UK is an industry-driven mandate. The digital TV industry working together in a market is a good thing and agreeing on common standards for DTV implementation helps advance the market as a whole. The UK agreed on MHEG as a common specification in all receivers in order to create a sustainable business. This decision was made before MHP was due to be finished and long before it was delivered.
Far from being “slow and clunky” – the UK implementation has seen the constant and ongoing development of MHEG as a standard – it has supported many key interactive TV propositions, often tempting more than 40% of the audience to use the interactive services associated with a programme. There is also evidence that viewers who use interactivity watch for far longer than those without the option. The UK DTT platform is, I think, the largest single interactive TV network in the world, with many receiver suppliers competing for customers and almost all including MHEG facilities. The MHEG standard continues to be developed with the Interaction Channel (IP connectivity), HD support, enhanced font rendering and PVR integration. MHEG has recently been selected as a mandatory feature of the new Freesat platform in the UK – a significant decision for a new platform.
MHEG is ideally suited for the FTA broadcast market. It simply does precisely what is required in order to provide interactive TV services that enhance the TV viewing experience. It does so at a realistic and affordable price point and that is why its success continues, which will become increasingly apparent over the next few months.
Time and again – and this is far from limited to the television industry – the world sees technologies developed that are simply far too complex for the task at hand. MHEG avoids this trap. MHEG has also avoided the lengthy political and IPR issues that undoubtedly slowed MHP. Where MHP has been tried in FTA markets it has achieved limited adoption by consumers. There is no market where industry agreement has been sustained to make MHP a core part of a FTA platform, other than in Italy where subsidy was involved. Where MHP is optional, the majority of consumers are not prepared to pay the extra cost and don’t buy it. As a result, interactive applications and services reach only a small fraction of the audience making it impossible to build viable interactive business models.
If you look at the rapidly growing Integrated Digital TV (IDTV) market – Europe being the prime example here – then MHEG is included in a huge number of IDTVs from all the major brands. IDTV sales now account for the vast majority of receiver sales in FTA consumer markets. Again this can help to lower the rollout costs for FTA broadcasters and platform operators. This rapidly growing IDTV market segment in Europe does not currently support MHP.
However, it is clear that there are sectors of the industry where MHP and its cousins will have success and no one should deny that. Some pay-TV operators have successful MHP platforms and the US cable industry uses OCAP as part of its True2way system. This is substantially more complex than MHP, although using the same GEM core. The US cable industry is investing large amounts to ensure that the system is finished, complete, interoperable and testable. There are emerging IDTVs, and multiple suppliers of all system components. This effort is so substantial that few markets elsewhere would be able to contemplate or organise it. I think OCAP is going to be successful, but it needs work yet. Once it is stable, then OCAP will be useful elsewhere, with adaptations in European cable possible, for example.
IMPALA’s recent statement on the change in MHP licence costs was very clear. We said then, and I repeat, that we believe that MHEG is the best value for FTA broadcasters and platforms. The removal of the broadcaster license fees for MHP 1.0 does nothing to change the receiver cost where MHP still adds significantly to the price.
Where high-volume, low-cost markets are involved, MHEG can be included in all receivers and a viable interactive TV business created based on a large audience. Especially with its continuing evolution and widening deployment, MHEG provides broadcasters and operators with a key component of digital TV at affordable cost.
David Cutts is managing director, S&T and IMPALA founder member.