EBU Technical Review : No. 277 (Autumn 1998)

Standards? Who needs them?

Following the publication of the Final Report of the EBU/SMPTE Task Force for Harmonized Standards for the Exchange of Programme Material as Bitstreams, this issue of EBU Technical Review includes further explanations of the work of this Task Force.

The EBU has long recognized that formal standardization is important for broadcasting systems and for production systems. Nevertheless, there are arguments in favour of de facto standards: for example, the audio CD gained rapid acceptance because it was demonstrably far superior to other products at that time. This meant that its inventors were able to avoid the long processes of consensus building in standards groups – in fact, formal standardization of the audio CD was pursued only after it had become successful in the market place. As some of the participants in standards bodies have a vested interest in preventing or delaying standardization of technologies favoured by their competitors, it is not surprising that some companies prefer de facto standardization.

EBU Members have long played a major role in setting standards. For example, the AES/EBU digital audio interface has been very successful. Similarly, in the early 1980s, the EBU and SMPTE collaborated very closely on the subject of standards for digital component video in the production environment. Throughout this work, the overt goal was to submit the outcome of the EBU/SMPTE's deliberations to the CCIR, which was acknowledged as the global standards body for matters related to broadcasting. At that time, standards (or "Recommendations" in CCIR terminology) had to be formally approved at the CCIR Plenary Assembly, which was held every 4 years. The EBU and the SMPTE realized that if they missed the 1982 Plenary Assembly of the CCIR, they would have to wait until 1986 for formal endorsement of their work. As such a delay was obviously unacceptable, there was great pressure to ensure agreement from the CCIR in 1982.

In retrospect, the CCIR's 4-year cycle was both an advantage and a disadvantage. The participants felt that they had to achieve agreement because they realized that it was "now" or "never". On the other hand, new developments might have to wait almost 4 years to be approved by the CCIR. It is only fair to note that ITU-R (the successor of CCIR) has successfully introduced procedures which allow more rapid approval of Recommendations.

Whilst recognizing the pre-eminence of the ITU, EBU Members now seem to place less emphasis on the ITU activities. Some of their standardization efforts has been diverted to voluntary groupings of specification providers, such as the DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting) Project or DAVIC (Digital Audio-Visual Council), or to collaborative research projects such as the Eureka 147 DAB Project.

The reasons for this drift away from the ITU are complex, but many EBU Members are disillusioned by the failure of the ITU to achieve world-wide agreements on standards. It is difficult to justify ITU Recommendations which recommend that users should adopt "one of the systems, defined in Annexes A, B and C", where typically the Annexes refer respectively to systems developed in the USA, Europe and Japan. Although there is some value in documenting such standards, the real goal of the standardization process should be to avoid multiple standards. In fact, it is unfair to place all of the blame on the ITU. The real culprits are the national and/or regional groupings who are too often driven by the "not invented here" syndrome. The ITU merely reflects the technical, commercial and political divisions of the real world.

The EBU realized in the early 1990s that it could not maintain its influence in the increasingly competitive world of standardization. Whereas RDS, NICAM and PDC were good examples of the EBU's informal role in standardizing broadcasting systems, it was clear that closer co-operation was necessary with the consumer electronics industry. It was also obvious that national standards acted as barriers to trade between the various countries of Europe and, furthermore, that European competitiveness was suffering because of the multiplicity of standards across Europe. To overcome these difficulties, the EBU joined with ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) to set up a Joint Technical Committee (JTC) on broadcasting standards. Although this venture was initially regarded with suspicion by some EBU Members, it is clear that the JTC has benefited both the EBU and ETSI, together with all sectors of industry – not just for broadcasters, but also for consumer electronics manufacturers, network operators and regulators.

The DVB Project has been very successful in obtaining agreement within the Project for its wide range of specifications. However, as the DVB Project is not a standards-setting body, it relies on ETSI and CENELEC to undertake the formal process of standardization. Some people have suggested that this additional step is hardly necessary in the case of DVB since many of the key players have participated in the DVB process. In practice, formal standardization brings some benefits, such as:

	enhancing the status of DVB specifications, notably allowing broadcasters to comply with an EU Directive which specifies that all digital TV services must conform to a standard adopted by a recognized European standards body;
	ambiguities or errors in specifications are occasionally identified in the process of public enquiry.

Almost every week brings details of a new forum aiming to set specifications for the converging worlds of telecommunications, broadcasting and computers. These fora aim to produce specifications very quickly, but this requires that all of the members share the same objective. Experience shows that conflicts of interest can occur even in such groups. If such disagreements do occur, some of the participants simply set up a new forum to promote their particular technology.

Given the bewildering multitudes of standards bodies, fora and specifications providers, the old joke "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" should, perhaps, be changed to "The great thing about standards bodies is that there are so many to choose from".

Philip Laven
Director
EBU Technical Department

European Broadcasting Union
Ancienne Route 17A
CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex
Geneva
Switzerland