As the logic and variety of options are outlined on the Project Canvas web site, offering security mechanisms have clearly been identified as a key technology for Canvas devices. Even in this new video delivery age, a strong core security platform provides the essential support for revenue generating services and complements the fundamental free-to-air and catch-up services central to the Canvas vision. This partnership between commercial pay-TV services and traditional public broadcasting is a healthy example of how common platforms can benefit the industry and the consumer.

We have demonstrated our commercial developments of Marlin Broadband (Marlin BB) on a number of occasions, most prominently at IBC 2009 and IPTV World Forum events. In addition, we have incorporated Marlin support within our MultiRights DRM framework as an important complement to our globally deployed VCAS core technology.

As we move towards delivering fully commercial Marlin solutions, we look to Project Canvas as an important milestone in the selection and deployment of such standards track DRM options. There are a number of other projects around the world evaluating challenges similar to those faced in Canvas and we hope to participate in those initiatives on much the same basis.

Check back here frequently for news on how our value proposition meshes with these large-scale deployments.

Post #3:  Consumer Subsidized TV: The Role of More Open Standards

The era of the dedicated set-top box (STB) for each service to a TV is definitely coming to an end. What is emerging is a picture that involves a series of platforms that can support service specific applications or widgets selected and managed by the consumer. These platforms may themselves be based around standards such that service operators can create the applications that engage the consumer.

In certain kinds of systems, for instance the DirecTV view of the home media server, standards are only necessary to be able to share the content, they are not necessary to manage the device itself.  That device, therefore, can be a completely proprietary system that is wholly owned and subsided by the network or system operator. It is most likely produced exclusively for that network operator, just like traditional STBs have been. 

IP-based standards in such platforms also allows operators to cost-effectively deploy a security system and business rules that can satisfy all demands of content owners while creating the transparent usage model that consumers demand.

We believe that IP and the sophisticated protocols built on IP are the common building blocks to make digital convergence happen inside the home.

One such standards activity is the Open IPTV Forum – a cooperative of technology companies that is seeking to create an end to end platform for the delivery of IP video services. Another recent initiative is Project Canvas propelled by the BBC in the UK.  A standard becomes important like this when it can enable multi-vendor participation. 

As members of both the Open IPTV Forum and Digital TV (DTG), among several other standards consortiums, we are seeing the central role that IP-based technologies are taking. However, we feel that a key component to these specifications is the ability to generate revenue. Creating the right experience that consumers are willing to pay for will most certainly generate continued innovation.

We are watching Project Canvas and others like HbbTV closely, like the rest of the industry.

Stop by our booth at CommunicAsia to discuss the current standards in Asia Pacific.

Post #2:  Can Traditional TV Operators Embrace OTT Video as a Service?

There is an assumption by many market pundits today that the service operators in the world of Internet TV services and that of traditional pay-TV are totally disjointed. We think this is rather too simplistic.

Just like the world of e-commerce in the early generations of Internet, the shift of consumption did not totally upend the value of existing brands and consumer loyalties. A few new players emerged for sure, but by and large, the brick and mortar brands have become just as prominent on the Internet as they are on Main Street – the power of branding transcends the medium.

When you apply this logic to video, the service operators that make the leap to multi-screen delivery can indeed be the same names that dominate the pay-TV market in cable, satellite and IPTV today. They have the content, the subscriber relationships and the scale to make service delivery compelling whatever the physical distribution network, and in many cases they also provide Internet connectivity.

The challenge for existing operators is that this requires a fundamental shift in the way they think. Progressive digital TV operators may have to embrace novel technologies that have been designed to effectively scale and solve IP video issues and apply them over their delivery networks. By integrating OTT and adaptive rate streaming technology with pay-TV services, operators can enhance ARPU, subscriber loyalty and lure incremental advertising dollars.

This convergence of technologies also must encompass a proactive revenue protection and enhancement approach that enables digital TV operators to cast a much wider net with their service offerings. This shifts the central value proposition for the digital video enterprise beyond that of content protection alone, towards the broader perspective of revenue security.

Download our white paper, Pay-TV at an Inflection Point, and let us know if you agree.

• Flexibility in wiring infrastructure (CAT5/6, cable or telephone transmission)
• Fully digital quality distribution and display, including HD support
• Common components with in-room broadband access
• True interactive program guide and guest service utility displays
• Broad choice of middleware, video-on-demand (VOD) and in-room client technologies.  

When combined with earlier release windows that hotels enjoy, IPTV also allows network operators to take advantage of state-of-the-art digital TV security that enables licensing of on-demand content, including and most importantly HD.

Hotels must deal with more stringent content protection requirements to gain access and keep the rights to offer premium movie titles. In fact, the MPAA recently released its 57-page “Content Security Best Practices” document that provides 25 dimensions of content security across three areas. 

We have been developing hospitality security solutions and working with our broad partner ecosystem since 2004. In partnership with our hospitality resellers, including Guest-Tek, InfoValue and Tangerine Global, VCAS for IPTV is operational in many hospitality deployments around the world. 

We will have a team at HITEC, the world’s largest hospitality technology show, June 21-25 in Orlando to discuss how VCAS for IPTV can support a wide range of hospitality applications. Please contact us to schedule a meeting at the show so we can discuss how VCAS for IPTV can secure your:

• VOD Services
• Wholesale IP Broadcast Services
• DTH Broadcast Services 
• Additional Local Broadcast and VOD Encryption Services
• Expanded Capacity and Redundancy

Download a more detailed overview of our VCAS for IPTV has been optimized for a range of hospitality applications.

See you in Orlando!

The conversations were far removed from the hype that has been elsewhere, but rather focused on how service providers can capitalize on advanced OTT technologies to enable new streams of business. 

Steve Christian recently answered questions posed by CSI Editor Goran Nastic on monetizing video on demand (VoD) content that portrays Verimatrix’s perspective on the opportunity of OTT. For the resulting article, click here. 

Q. Monetisation issues of VoD have been around for a while now and given that all evidence suggests that consumers love the service and value it, why has this proved to be such a challenge?

A. The challenge is that some operators have created the consumer expectation of free content and now they are having a hard time putting the “genie back in the bottle” when it comes to charging a fee for that content. It really puts into question the first mover advantage efforts by OTT providers to offer free content, as it appears they have potentially cannibalized their own long-term revenue streams. The question is if they can successfully extract money from existing and/or new viewers.

History confirms that consumers are willing to pay for something that satisfies their threshold of quality, convenience and cost. At this year’s OTTcon, where we presented, the reoccurring theme was how operators can balance the quality-convenience-cost equation. 

• Quality – quality of the overall experience – not just picture quality – including responsiveness and reliability.
• Convenience – how easy is it to browse content, how to conduct channel up & down, how many clicks are required to start a video, how many channels are aggregated in a single location, etc.
• Costs – what is the right price point and fee model, how to price content consumed on different devices, etc. 

People have a high tolerance for intermittent quality if something is free. However if you start charging for the same content, the balance of these dimensions needs to be maintained at a higher level. People will expect an Internet service to function like a cable service – or perhaps better!

Q. Given the widespread availability of free VoD, is there now a risk that the window of opportunity for making money is quite small? 

A. I think it is important to debunk the assumption that content owners are not making money on the content shown on VoD sites. The revenue streams from more traditional viewing forms, like DVDs, are still in operation. 

I feel the availability of free content will actually shrink when operators start finding the right quality-convenience-cost ratio. 

Q. How big is the opportunity given the right strategies? (Parks Associates, for example, expects 38% of free VoD streams could potentially be monetised by 2012)

A. What’s the alternative? Total industry collapse?  I feel it is inevitable that this content will be more effectively monetized as time goes on. So, the opportunity is huge. 

Another common theory – that I believe is still very much only a theory – is that consumers are willing to cancel their pay-TV subscriptions and rely on fee online entertainment options. 

Goldman Sachs released an interesting report on online video (titled “Broadband 100″) that found while the consumption of online video is increasing steadily, it is not cutting into traditional pay-TV viewing. To put it in perspective, the report cites that consumer usage of online video is surging, with time spent currently growing over 60% yoy and at a 40% CAGR since 2007. This is set against a backdrop of more than 75% growth in online video traffic as measured in bits. Yet consumer usage of online video still represents only about five minutes per day for an average consumer.  The report goes on to say that professional long-form content is the fastest growing and most easily monetized. 

Q. What are, in your opinion, the top  ways that broadcasters and/or payTV operators can monetise VoD? 

A. For streaming – yes, the existing methods are advertising-based, subscription or transactional. 

For a download service, there is also the possibility of electronic sell-through – digital delivery of a file. Consumers may pay more for this option because it is potentially higher quality, they can own it forever, and view it in different ways and on different devices. Plus once it is downloaded, you do not need to be connected to the Internet each time you want to view it.

 Q. Assuming VoD is monetised, would you expect advertising, subscription or PPV models to dominate and why?

A. We expect the subscription or transaction model would be more successful than advertising, which we are already seeing with Hulu and Joost talking about a fee-based service. 

Ad-based content has been quite successful for Hulu, but remember that they reach less than 1% of the total broadcast audience, and insert less than one-quarter of the ad time compared to a regular broadcast (in fact, they’ve promised to only show 4-5 ads for an hour show). Even though they can charge a respectable amount for each ad, the total amount of revenue is much lower than traditional broadcast. The overall pot is substantially smaller. This points the way to fee-based revenue models.

 Q. Are there any significant differences between cable, satellite and IPTV platforms that might favour one over another in monetising VoD? 

A. We strongly feel that all operators are headed towards a hybrid network of some description and IP-based technologies are the common thread, which creates an interactive, two-way environment. 

IPTV providers should therefore have an advantage because their networks are intrinsically based on IP-based networks. The case can also be made for the cable operators that own both the broadband and TV pipes into a subscriber’s home, which provide more control over quality of experience. Satellite operators on the other hand need to have a broadband partner to offer the connectivity to take full advantage of a rich VoD service. 

Q. Can on-demand content available on the Web be brought to the living-room TV set in such a way as to complement payTV operators’ VoD offerings rather than bypass them?

A. The Holy Grail seems to be the capability to offer OTT content into the living room – to take center stage for family entertainment. The Verimatrix view is that traditional operators are well positioned to achieve this goal. They clearly already have the premier position on the living room TV and are now experimenting with how to take their TV services beyond the living room and capture viewer’s attention on other devices – PC, mobile, etc. 

Other approaches we’ve seen are to truly blend the TV and Web experiences together. Operators can choose to make this happen on the main TV (such as calling up an actor’s Twitter feed while watching his program) or bring in other devices to provide interactivity (it is become more normal for viewers to watch TV while working on their connected laptop). The market is so wide open at this point that there’s no 100% right answer.

It would seem that it’s about time that someone called Adobe’s bluff here! This might be construed as a clash of CEO personalities, a Silicon Valley technology tiff or simply good PR tactics, but I sense something more profound at work. Why should a single proprietary video codec, file format and delivery protocol become the de-facto delivery standard for OTT services?

Doesn’t this go against every other basic tenet of  standards use in web publishing? And doesn’t it fundamentally limit the ecosystems that help to monetize video in every other delivery system globally? H.264 video is the acknowledged open standard – yes backed by Apple, but also by every other vendor in the video world. Even Microsoft is on board now after trying to bend the world to their own video codec and file standards.

We should not confuse Flash video with Flash as a presentation engine. Lets face it – if you want to use Flash as an authoring system for animated web pages – good luck. It’s obviously found a niche there. But please don’t try and pass it off as the salvation of Internet video delivery.

As one of the more future looking alternatives, Apple’s HTTP adaptive video treaming proposal provides video monetization options that doesn’t lock us into siloed Flash delivery systems. It enables the use of best of breed hardware and software subsystems woven into the fabric of the web that lies behind HTML 5. And as we can see the iPad (and perhaps its imitators) being the preeminent non-TV video device in the home of the next few years. That’s probably a good thing for the video industry as a whole.

Am I overstating the issues here? Please share your thoughts.

And for more insights into HTTP streaming and its effect on OTT video delivery, please download our white paper, Adaptive Rate Streaming: Pay-TV at an Inflection Point.

But even as we trip over the potholes, perhaps it’s important to focus on the positives, which is truly important for a company like ours that stands to gain so much from the dramatic moves towards an IP infrastructure for our information and entertainment content. Luckily the show was filled with senior-level execs who were conducting due diligence in order to make some major decisions as they build their pay-TV platforms.

Let’s see at next year’s show whether those potholes get filled in.

Euro50

Our warmest congratulations goes to Per-Ola Wester of TeliaSonera for his place on the Euro50 list by Digital TV Europe. Per-Ola has been an instrumental leader of the hugely successful IPTV system deployment at TeliaSonera. He has also been shortlisted for the “Technology Leader” of the year award.

TeliaSonera is a notable customer for Verimatrix not only due to the highly effective technology integration that it represents, but also its expertly managed commercial growth. It is a service that now ranks amongst the  top tier of the industry and shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, concepts that Per-Ola and his team are exploring are likely to lead the way in demonstrating how the pay-TV world can expand its frontiers and deliver a truly compelling consumer experience.

Congratulations are also due to our close partners in this endeavour including Motorola, Tandberg and Edgeware.

The awards will be presented in London at the Euro50 Awards Dinner on November 17th during  the Digital TV World Summit. Stay tuned . . .

UPDATE: Per-Ola was in fact selected as the Technology Leader at the Euro50 Awards ceremony. We strongly feel that concepts Per-Ola and his team are exploring at TeliaSonera are likely to lead the way in demonstrating how the pay-TV world can expand its frontiers and deliver a truly compelling consumer experience. 

Congratulations!

Their most recent paper, published this  week, on the Common Scrambling Algorithm (CSA) mandate that many pay-TV deployments must accommodate illustrates very succinctly how technical decisions that once were wholly supportable now hobble the transition of traditional pay-TV players to the new competitive world. My only misgiving here is for any sense in which the specifics of this issue might reflect on the reputation as a whole of the DVB. The guidance of the DVB and its contributors has been instrumental  to organize and commercialize digital pay-TV around the globe, and continues to do so. 

The timely critique of a single technical standard should only be a cause to celebrate open debate – and legacy CA players who rush to the defense of this particularly sacred cow should see it as such. Rather, like scientists who see a grand theory smashed on the rocks of experimental evidence, we should recognize that the changing landscape does require a new assessment of the relevance of certain standards and grasp the challenge that this brings.

An alternate reality like this might well be considered alongside  those of recent times in which house prices don’t go on rising without limit, Iraq had no hidden nerve gas or nuclear weapons and revenue-free Internet companies were unworthy of billion dollar IPOs. What would a content security company be doing if it did not help its customers extend their businesses and find ways to monetize OTT? Follow the herd, avoid the issue and jump into the middleware quagmire?

I am happy to continue this relevant industry discussion.