I’d argue the biggest impediment to perfecting these apps is content. The biggest impediment to gaining the rights to content is content security. And who already has access to high-quality content and conditional access (CA) / digital rights management (DRM) systems in place? Digital TV operators. We believe the cable, satellite and IPTV operators that already have the rights to broadcast premium content are in the cat bird seat to offer the best live mobile TV experience.

The demand is clear. According to Sandvine, real-time entertainment, including video streaming, now accounts for about 43% of North American Internet traffic, up from 10% in 2008! And for the first time in history, the number of households paying for TV subscriptions is falling, in part due to the rise of Internet TV and over-the-top (OTT) services.

The technology is finally catching up to this demand when you consider what adaptive rate streaming can now enable.

Now, in this new OTT world, the issue of content rights is complicated. Take companies like Ivi and FilmOn.com for example. They have developed technology that captures over-the-air broadcast signals and streams them to mobile devices – without consent from the networks.

Clearly these broadcasters are not thrilled with the so-called loophole that they found in the U.S. Copyright Act. Both of these companies are already in an embattled legal fight with content owners to see if they have the right to do this. According to some attorneys, the law is on the side of the networks.

We recently launched our ViewRight LIVE app in iTunes, which enables secure distribution of premium pay-TV services via WiFi and mobile wireless networks – of live TV. The app provides subscriber/device registration and device-level authentication. ViewRight LIVE also allows operators to customize and brand their mobile TV channel to match the look and feel of their traditional channels.

So with the content rights, technology infrastructure and now the security available to enable a superior live mobile TV experience, digital TV operators have a tremendous opportunity. I’d say it is better to beat fledging online TV operators in the marketplace rather than the courtroom.

What are your thoughts?

The home networking debate has existed for quite sometime. However, as new technologies emerge, such as adaptive rate streaming, standards become mainstream and broadband penetration reaches new heights, this topic is relevant now more than ever. This report illustrates the available choices and implications of alternate multi-screen video architectures.

We sat down with Editor John Moulding for his perspective on why this report breaks new ground on the topic of whole home video.

Tell us why this report, Supporting the ‘any screen, anywhere’ video consumer, was so ambitious on the topic of whole home video?

JM: This is a huge topic that encompasses the future of the home video network, the evolution of multi-platform TV strategies and the long-term evolution of TV delivery itself – looking at whether service providers are going to move from a position where they are married to a physical network to one when they could operate in the ‘cloud’ and deliver services to any home by becoming over-the-top broadband providers.

We wanted to get some informed opinion that reflected the support there is for home network centric and cloud centric approaches to multi-screen delivery. That meant we had to talk to a lot of people – over 20 interviews plus other primary input. We felt it was worth it for Videonet because our editorial focus is on the post-convergence TV experience, and a lot of this is definitely being shaped by the convergence of television, IP and the Internet.

After researching the topic in-depth, do you believe that offering whole home video is one of the key competitive challenges facing operators today?

JM: There is no question that making content available on all important television display screens, including those that are out of the direct control of Pay TV operators (like CE screens bought in retail) is a key competitive challenge. If platform operators do not meet consumer demand for multi-screen viewing around the home they could easily find themselves in the same place as channel owners who were too slow to respond to digital TV and have since struggled to cope with audience fragmentation. They could end up exposed and vulnerable to new competition.

Platform operators have had a great couple of decades and not surprisingly, there are a lot of people who want to eat their lunch. There is a whole ecosystem of online content providers and aggregators who want to gain the attention of consumers on CE screens using broadband and over-the-top delivery. The arrival of connected TV devices like connected televisions, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players makes it so much easier for them to target Pay TV subscribers with alternative content on the television itself – on the main living room TV and in second and third rooms.

Not many Pay TV operators are established as service providers on the PC and mobile and they need to make sure they are not left behind in the race for consumer attention there. I think it’s fair to assume that any successful over-the-top (OTT) service provider who builds an audience online, mainly via the PC/laptop, is going to try to leverage any brand loyalty they have on the TV as soon as they can (as soon as TVs are connected).

If consumers are being offered compelling media experiences, including the all-important catch-up content, on multiple screens in the home, and that is not coming from the Pay TV operator, then the operator is losing time with its customer and potentially revenues. It is handing business straight to alternative providers, the best of whom could grow into strong and permanent competitors. So this is really about holding on to existing customers, making sure they are watching Pay TV services as much as possible, and maintaining revenues as well as looking for new distribution and revenue opportunities.

Why is content security such an important factor when developing a whole home video strategy?

JM: When we talk about whole home video there is an assumption that it is a Pay TV operator who is taking responsibility for creating this kind of multi-room viewing environment. So that means the content includes subscription channels and very possibly exclusive sports and other premium and pay per view programming.

If it’s worth paying for it’s worth stealing and whole-home will just create a nightmare for operators if it exposes them to unauthorized copying and redistribution. Operators will have to invest in these capabilities through media servers (like a DVR) and probably by taking responsibility for home networking issues, with the call centre requirements that suggests. So the last thing they want to do is buy a shiny new bucket with a hole in the bottom.

The big challenge for content security is that Pay TV operators can no longer guarantee they have end-to-end control of the video delivery. If they are handing content into a DLNA-based home network the conditional access (CA) could give way to DTCP-IP link protection. The original CA used by the Pay TV operator may have to hand over to a DRM system to reach target CE devices like PCs or smart phones in the home. So they need security solutions that are very flexible (and where the handover can be achieved securely inside a customer premise device – like the media gateway server).

If operators are delivering content from the ‘cloud’ instead, and using OTT infrastructure to reach multiple screens in the home, they still need to prepare content for different screens with different DRM requirements. In this case, the right DRM for the end target device can be applied from the outset. So the emphasis in the content protection world seems to be shifting from protecting content end-to-end with a single CA/DRM to managing the wider range of security requirements platform operators are going to face. To an extent, the security vendors are starting to act like an interface, managing the subscriber and device views and entitlements but working with any content protection system needed to get content where it needs to go.

What was the most unexpected thing you learned about whole home video while writing the report?

JM: The extent to which the OTT, cloud-based approach is already being seriously considered by operators as an alternative approach to the server/ client whole home video architecture. There is clearly strong support for both approaches. As Tom Lookabaugh, CTO at Entropic Communications says in the report, both models have their champions and even their champions are keeping an eye on the evolution of the other model.

I suppose the surprise is that, given how few platform operators have well established multi-platform services that exploit online distribution, online video technology is being considered not only to reach consumers outside the home but for in-home multi-screen distribution as well.

We continue our conversation with John in Part 2 of this interview where we talk about revenue streams from whole home video, definition of cloud-based TV and both technology advancements and challenges. Stay tuned.

They set out to dispel some commonly held “truths” regarding behavior on consuming mobile TV based on current research.  For me, it added up to the fact that people are using mobile devices to extend their normal viewing habits, around and outside the home.

With the advanced user interface and intelligence of latest generation smart phones, consumers are quite happy to watch full length sitcoms and even movies. Low-quality YouTube clips and mobisodes are not the killer apps that were previously envisioned for mobile TV.

As mobile TV becomes more mainstream, it is important for the content owners and services providers to create the right mix of usage rights and protection on higher value content. As we all know, getting the right balance of protecting assets and meeting customer expectations can be precarious.

I was happy there was at least one bright spot in a rather underwhelming conference . . .

But in at least one respect, the technical advances being made in Internet video delivery seem likely to strongly influence the standards used for offering service over managed networks. We are closely watching the current developments in adaptive rate streaming, which seem to make Internet video much more digestible, while at the same time addressing some of the problematic areas for extending the reach of video material from today’s pay-TV systems.

From a technical sense, can streamed video over the Internet ever trump the much-hyped trend towards higher quality HD delivery systems? Will those folks who have invested in home theater systems with big screens and multi-channel sound systems be content to settle down and watch pixelated video with simple stereo sound?

I personally wouldn’t have thought so, but it seems that if you can move beyond video stuttering, rebuffering and audio squawks in service delivery, many of us can overlook reduced resolution, washed out colors and lack of dynamic range.

But even videophiles would have to admit that this stuff looks and sounds good on an iPhone, so let’s hope that the current trends just help us with offering greater choice of experience in our future pay-TV services.

A longer discussion of these issues can be found in our most recent white paper - please feel free to download and offer your comments!