There are many industry pundits that are skeptical of this initiative – for all the reasons people are skeptical of any industry consortium. Not all the major players are supporting it (Disney, Apple); there are too many players involved to make any significant progress; who is pushing their own agenda above the benefit of the group; will it actually work.

One decision the DECE has made, which we feel is critical to the success of Ultraviolet, is the DRM schemes it has chosen to support. To be sure, there are three proprietary DRM technologies on the list – Microsoft’s PlayReady, Adobe Access, and Widevine’s unnamed offering. But they’ve also approved Marlin and OMA as open, non-proprietary DRM standards.

It’s easy to see the advantages of a multi-vendor DRM scheme, especially as we stand knee-deep in the TV Everywhere hype. Although detractors point to the pressing need for accountability and responsiveness in a market that is highly dynamic to say the least, we feel such open DRM standards can go a long way to help enable the type of consumer choice that all digital TV operators are aiming for.

In fact, we see the decision to support multiple standards closely mirrors our MultiRights approach. In short, MultiRights mediates different DRM technologies on multiple devices through a single set of subscriber entitlements interfaces and Web services APIs. Our strong support of the Marlin standard as a key component of this architecture is one key proof-of-concept for our MultiRights approach.

Case in point, although Project Canvas announced it will also support multiple DRM schemes, it has strategically decided to launch with only Marlin. According to an article by Philip Hunter in Videonet, “The DRM was the most important and contentious technology choice facing Canvas, having to meet conflicting objectives. On the one hand, it has to satisfy the BBC Trust’s stipulations for openness and universal access, and on the other make the Internet sufficiently secure to deliver high value premium content from movie studios and others.”

It is Marlin’s support for open standards, flexibility and market acceptance that pushed it to the top of Project Canvas’ list.

What are your thoughts? Has Verimatrix chosen to support the most promising technology in the Ultraviolet boat or are proprietary DRM schemes likely to leave these new promising initiatives stranded in port?

VCAS 3.0 was developed to match operators’ needs that are shifting beyond that of content protection alone, towards the broader perspective of revenue security. 

Disney CEO Robert Iger put it this way, “People are willing to pay for quality. They are willing to pay for choice. They are willing to pay for convenience. There’s plenty of room for people to spend more money on things they are doing online. We’re not monetizing as much as we do in our traditional business,” he said. “I think it is wrong to assume that because there is a lot on the Internet that is free that it is going to be impossible to monetize content.” 

VCAS 3 provides the tools and support for to address new opportunities arising from the accelerating convergence of video delivery over various types of networks – whether managed or unmanaged – to a multitude of devices. It enables operators to meet these new challenges and turn these into opportunities for growth. 

In the past several months, we have announced several customers that have deployed solutions based on the VCAS 3.0 architecture including the rollout of Hybrid DVB-C/IP platforms with New Zealand’s second-largest telecommunications operator TelstraClear, Finecom in Switzerland, Cablemas in Mexico and Gtd in Chile.  Plus the DVB-S deployment with ABS-CBN.

We were able to support these operators’ vision to take their subscribers beyond present one-way broadcast services to a solution that allows new methods of video content delivery and ultimately provide more value to their customers. The new services will deliver PVR functionality, HD, on-demand channels and other interactive and Internet-based services. 

We will be talking more about this at IBC in September. Please be sure to visit our “new” booth in Hall 4 Booth B84. We will be posting more information on what you can expect from us at the show this year!

We tackle the drivers behind whole home video, current definitions of “cloud-based TV” and the technical challenges that operators still need to overcome to meet consumers’ expectations.

You can find the first interview here. 

Do you feel that developing new revenue streams is the main issue driving operators to offer whole home video services?  

JM: The key requirement is to protect the revenue streams they already have. We are about to enter a very disruptive period in television because convergence is finally happening and the wall between Internet entertainment and television entertainment is starting to crumble. Pay TV operators have to keep their younger audiences fully engaged or risk losing them, and that means giving them the content they want, when they want it and where they want it.

For their customer base as a whole, surely the best way to counter the threat of disintermediation from OTT providers is for Pay TV operators to play to their strengths and deliver their great, compelling broadcast and on-demand services (including premium sports and the best kids and nature channels) on every television. If your teenage child can’t watch that content in their bedroom then they are probably watching a terrestrial free-to-air service instead, going to the web with their PC or playing on a games console. I suppose they might do some homework if things get really bad! The key is to keep them ‘on platform.’

There is evidence that people will pay for whole home video services like multiroom DVR. It is not so clear that people will pay extra to watch their Pay TV services on their PC and it seems to be generally accepted that ‘TV Everywhere’ type services will wrap the online viewing into a bundle with the television subscription. But we spoke to one analyst in the report – Jayant Dasari at Parks Associates – who felt operators could eventually monetize this additional distribution. The example he gave was allowing a customer to watch online free with two devices but charging for access onto a third device.

What is the current definition of “cloud-based” TV services?

JM: It is too early for there to be a defacto standard definition for cloud-based TV. Some commentators refer to the cloud as any network storage and therefore talk about a managed operator cloud (like the headend used to deliver a managed telco IPTV service) and about an unmanaged cloud, which is the Internet. 

The most accepted definition of ‘cloud TV’ today, based on our research, equates it to Internet delivered television services (which could be on-demand or linear). So it means services that harness OTT video infrastructure and protocols.

People are also starting to differentiate the unmanaged Internet from the managed Internet because potentially TV service providers can become CDNs and start providing themselves with some QoS guarantees between the web video servers and the consumer. But that all falls into ‘cloud-based TV’.  

What have you found to be the most significant recent technological developments in whole home video? What are the tough technical challenges that operators still need to overcome to support a satisfactory experience?

JM: We can’t ignore the impact that DLNA seems to be having. Almost anyone you talk to involved in customer premise equipment has this name on their lips. Consumers want their Pay TV services in multiple rooms, the Pay TV industry is looking for ways to achieve this at prices that appeal to the mass-market and there is an increasing emphasis on media gateways feeding thin clients. DLNA can enable different devices to work together, whether they are coming from the Pay TV or the retail CE world.

The reliability of the physical home network itself is crucial. Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) seems to be making strong progress with multiroom services and they claim this is because of their superior reliability compared to wireless or home power cable solutions. Once you start offering whole home video solutions, the Pay TV operator has to take responsibility for that video network so Quality of Service (QoS) is crucial. Some people think media gateways, like a DVR, have an important role to play in managing resources and assuring the customer experience across the home network.

You can view the “Supporting the ‘any screen, anywhere’ video consumer,” report in its entirety on the Videonet site.

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.

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.

It means that cable, satellite and IPTV operators are allowed to offer content that can only be displayed on screens with HDMI connections protected via high-bandwidth digital content protection (HDCP). Any analog or unprotected outputs from the STB device would be disabled during the viewing of that content.

The contention is that, by eliminating the “easy” piracy option of recording the signal from analog outputs of the STB, studios can now consider a new release window for their movie assets. As proposed by Time Warner Cable, it’s called “home theater on demand,” and enables operators to offer a movie for domestic consumption just 30 days after its theatrical release.

While most articles deal with the business dynamics of selling video-on-demand (VOD) movies closer to the theaters and before DVD or BluRay, let’s take a look at the security implications.

The mandatory digital watermark for digital cinema provides some forensic traceability of illegitimate recordings by identifying the theater location and screening time. This helps deter repeat offenders and inside jobs. Nonetheless, some movies are still pirated with a camcorder in cinemas. Apparently, the commercial benefits of selling that movie on illegal DVDs still outweigh the risks for professional pirates. The quality of these recordings is poor and the financial loss to studios is arguably limited in that many who accept that quality would not otherwise buy theater tickets.

It’s also unfortunate that, right after the release of any noteworthy movie on DVD or BluRay, high-quality digital movies can typically be downloaded from Internet file sharing sites in several versions and sizes. The source is of course untraceable in this situation.

This new concept of a home theater on demand window enables the delivery of movies to end user devices. Despite the restriction to HDCP protected outputs, there is no doubt that content released in this high value period will be subject to piracy of commercial and non-commercial flavor. While HDCP provides much better security then that unprotected analog output, it has vulnerabilities.

If these vulnerabilities are too difficult to exploit, pirates will be able to resort to copying content from their HD TV with an HD camcorder in the comfort of their own home – the quality of readily available equipment makes this a relatively easy option. This is where digital watermarking can be used to trace and identify piracy of either approach.

We have been working on our digital watermarking technology, VideoMark, for more than five years now, and have proven results in the field. By enhancing the efficiency, invisibility and robustness of the technology, we have added variations that enable efficient and scalable embedding on the server side of managed networks and content delivery networks (CDNs).

This new home theater on demand requirement takes watermarking into additional networks with specific infrastructure and legacy architecture, with new and interesting integration tasks. It also adds possibilities to make watermarking a standard solution to secure content revenues on this distribution channel.

The recent discussions we’ve had with content owners and distributors certainly indicate that the studios understand the potential of digital watermarking to plug the crucial security vulnerability that is opened by home theater on demand and is only closed in part by selectable output control.

The home theater on demand release window, after all, adds a consumer option, and I believe that the combination of selectable output control and traceability is a sufficient deterrent against piracy to keep this option valid and profitable for content owners.

We will be talking more about the benefits of server side watermarking, so stay tuned . .

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.

But in reality, these two worlds are really not exclusive as they might seem.

Some content may start as paid content, and later on may be distributed in the clear with commercials and eventually distributed freely. Other business models allow users to chose between paid but ad-free version or ad-supported version of the same content. Content providers or service operators are not likely to transcode each content for different distribution models if they can avoid it.

As a comment on Google’s apparent position here, I don’t see why an open source codec or open standard should be fundamentally incompatible with revenue generating services. This has been disproved by several standards organizations including MPEG, DVB or OMA, but that is a discussion for another day. The bottom line is that if valuable content will eventually be encoded and distributed using VP8, we’ll be able to protect it if the business model requires it (it is open source after all, isn’t it?) Read on NewTeeVee why open sourcing VP8 matters.

The other issue in debate is whether open source VP8 will stay free. It is unlikely that after a quarter of a century of digital video compression research, Google (or On2) would be able to come up with a codec that is of comparable quality as those developed by MPEG/ITU without infringing on anybody’s patents. If I remember correctly, Microsoft tried something similar with VC-1 and it did not work according to the original plan.

I don’t believe that any serious service provider will jump on the VP8 bandwagon without being able to accommodate all licensing fees into their business model upfront.  Maybe this will speed up MPEG’s effort to create a royalty-free version of MPEG codec, which will avoid splitting the pay-TV and free-TV worlds.

I guess we will wait and see . . .

Post #1:  The Latest OTT Opportunity: Connected TV

Of all the new Internet TV delivery options, the connected TV is especially interesting to service operators: It’s already front and center in the living room, there is perhaps no expensive STB required, it features an already integrated remote control and has the potential for high-quality presentation without distortion or noise from connecting cables.

On the other hand, today’s connected TVs are fundamentally constrained by proprietary interfaces, wholly proprietary aggregation portals and simplistic navigational schemes. Limited or no storage means streaming-only presentation of content. 

Our current feeling is that the Internet-connected TVs are primarily an aspect of a features game in a highly competitive consumer electronics market and is one of the options least likely to be exploited for premium video delivery services. The more likely scenario will be facilitated via connected devices such as Blu-ray players game consoles and last but not least via STBs, although these may take on a new identities such as whole home DVRs, media gateways, etc. 

It is possible that connectivity may be used to blend the TV and Web experiences together. Operators can choose to make this happen on a TV using overlay or screen sharing applications, such as calling up an actor’s Twitter feed while watching his performance.

But given that living room viewing is a shared experience, it may be more realistic to see TV supplemented by other more personal phone or pad devices with better user input capabilities to provide such interactivity. I can attest with my own family’s habits, that it has become more normal for viewers to watch TV while working on their connected laptop!

I presented last week at the TV 3.0 – Future of TV conference (co-located with @DisplayWeek) . I was surprised to hear that nearly 20% of TVs shipped in 2010 will be network‐enabled, which is projected to reach about 60% in 2013!

And we are experiencing some interest from CE manufacturers to embed software-based security technology directly into these next-generation TVs.

Nonetheless, I came back with the opinion that STBs are not going away anytime soon. The issue (and cost) of customer support needs to rest with the operator who ultimately owns the quality of experience.

What are your thoughts?