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.

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.

What struck me, though, was a feeling that this characteristic phenomenon of a capitalist economy, which is usually associated with innovation, may actually stifle innovation to some extent. What I mean is that if one company has a good idea and tries to add a new feature, new service or a new business model to its system, it is very likely that they need to line up too many of the proverbial ducks in a row. A service provider ordering the end-to-end system may have enough power (or money) to make this happen. Most of the individual players may not have the time and resources to incorporate a speculative feature. 

Case in point, a service provider wants to repackage a set of episodes on a network DVR to a season and offer it again for purchase or rent; it may require cooperation of the storefront vendor, middleware, CA/DRM to re-encrypt the content, content management to keep track of a new asset, user interface, billing system, etc. Not to mention extending the distribution rights obtained from the studio. How can we optimize this process, make it more agile and responsive? 

The Paths to OTT

Another aspect of the conference that perked up my mind was the concept of over-the-top or OTT. What is it, really? When you ask the consumer, it may mean getting content from any source rather than a single TV service provider. It may also mean watching the content on a PC or even more importantly, getting it for free.

 A service provider may be thinking about reaching its subscribers on any device whether the user may be at home, traveling or even outside the provider’s managed network. Or even about reaching a new customer beyond the reach of his fixed network. And the studio may even be thinking about bypassing the service or network operator altogether. A very interesting and intellectually stimulating puzzle, indeed. 

But the bottom line is how is anybody going to make any money and who is going to benefit at the end. Is it like the buzz of the “long tail” content from several years ago? I did not hear it mentioned a single time at the conference. So what are the enablers of a successful OTT strategy? How does one monetize this new opportunity? I personally don’t want to go to too many web sites to get my content, set up numerous accounts, receive multiple bills, learn different user interfaces, set up my preference over and over … you get my point. 

Seems to me that a relatively easy way to deliver OTT is to extend an existing service to new devices and reach existing subscribers wherever they happen to be. This approach represents only incremental cost, reuse of existing content, adding value to the existing brand, extending the current relationship with the subscriber and ultimately increasing or at least maintaining revenue. 

Don’t take me wrong; there will be successful OTT services outside of the traditional service providers. As an example, my family enjoys the Netflix on-line service. But even this one started as an extension of another business strategy rather than a pure OTT, even though it may end up eliminating the mailing of physical DVDs altogether. (By the way, I did end up signing up for a higher tier broadband service indirectly paying for the Netflix service to my DSL provider.) 

This is why Verimatrix has extended content protection services to PCs and smart phones, added support for adaptive rate streaming and provides a multi-rights head-end, shielding the service operator from the complexity of multiple device types, each possibly requiring a different CA or DRM system. These are all necessary enablers of a successful OTT strategy. 

Home Networking Standards and Psychology

Home networking and sharing content among devices in the home in particular is another topic that excites me. It started as sharing content between a DVR and one or more set-top boxes or PCs, sometimes called whole-home DVR or multi-room DVR. This scenario was partially driven by the fact that content is already present in the home on the DVR and the destination devices are compatible as far content format and resolution are concerned. 

Such architecture has been standardized to some extent by UPnP and DLNA and even OCAP-HN. But as one starts adding devices requiring different file formats, video codecs and resolutions, this architecture may no longer be sufficient. The lack of remote access to home content is another serious limitation. As bandwidth is becoming ubiquitous, it will become easier to stream transcoded content in the appropriate format, optimized for the destination device directly from the head-end. 

DLNA may still be used to discover the content in the home but the rights and the device-optimized content may be reacquired for the best user experience. Thus DTCP-IP may not be the only way to protect content in the home. By taking advantage of the more flexible way of signaling content protection and other content attributes using UPnP content discovery services, allows the destination device to copy the content locally, request its own rights and access keys or request a more suitable instance of the content altogether from the service provider. 

Psychology of ownership plays a role here as well, but I believe that over time consumers will become comfortable with the idea of owning rights to content rather than owning the content itself in the DVD form or the digital form. The ultimate challenge is to make this complexity completely transparent to the end user – “search, select and play” nothing more.   

I look forward to continuing these conversations at NAB. See you in Vegas.

Gotta go – last call for boarding!

Now, we’ve all complained about tradeshows – they are costly, require a large amount of company resources to make them successful and can be murder if you don’t have the right footwear.

But at the end of the day, it provides us with a great opportunity to meet with customers, partners and prospects and have meaningful conversations about their conditional access and content security plans. In speaking with service providers – cable, satellite, IPTV – we have picked up on a major theme. They are all contemplating landmark updates to their network to improve their competitive profile, capture additional revenue or simply better serve current subscribers.

More specifically, we are seeing four main trigger points for operators to transition their network and upgrade their content security platform.

• Analog-to-digital transition
• Digital cable-to-IPTV migration
• Cable switch-out to all IP
• Hybrid digital terrestrial/IPTV
• The adoption of IP for video delivery of satellite

Fortunately for us, these transition scenarios take advantage of proven IP-based standards and technologies. It also reinforces our position that eventually all pay-TV networks will be categorized as simply digital TV. Two-way interactivity of IP will underpin almost every aspect regardless if it is a telco TV network or a hybrid satellite/broadband combination. 

Based on strategy sessions with customers, we have identified a unique set of complex issues operators need to consider when upgrading their content security. Namely, they need to make decisions around their long-term “revenue security” strategy.

 Our team has developed a white paper that explores these issues and provides common migration approaches that can be downloaded from our site, “New Content Security Strategies Transform Pay-TV Service Migration: What Operators Should Consider when Upgrading their Networks.”

We have received positive feedback on the paper so far. Please let us know what you think.

And we’ll see you at our next tradeshows: Philippines Cable Television Show (Mar 16-19), IPTV World Forum in London (Mar 23-25) and Convergence India (Mar 23-25), with comfy shoes! 

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.

Operators didn’t want to get stuck with the last MPEG-2 only set-top box. They were waiting to see how Microsoft’s VC-1 was going to compete with the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard. Cablevision and its plans for network DVRs were embroiled in legal battles with film studios and television networks (their latest victory appears to be the final word). And telcos wanted to be sure that software-based content security would deliver on its promise of scalability, performance and cost-effectiveness. 

Now the majority of these outstanding issues have been largely resolved, which frees operators to make solid investment decisions and launch exciting, new services. I call this a “mainstreaming” of the most viable concepts. For operators, the future clearly includes HD, MPEG-4 broadcasts with time and place shifting capabilities, which really have become the standard. 

A contributing factor of this type of standardization is the activity and changes within each technology vendor category. Consolidation and market conditions have produced some obvious winners along the entire development platform. There is generally a handful of established players and a lot less, yet innovative, companies that are offering disruptive technologies.

The irony is that despite the current market conditions, service providers are actually operating on more solid ground. Outstanding issues have been resolved, technologies have caught up with the hype and research suggests people are finding more time to watch TV.

Our VCAS 3.0 release is a good example. We have extended its functionality and focus to secure new revenue streams from content portability (such as supporting adaptive rate streaming for three screens and securing content over unmanaged networks).

Because we have proven software-based security in large IPTV deployments and have executed on our technology roadmap, we are engaged with major TV operators with complex issues. We have been able to mainstream our approach to content security to effectively address issues well beyond IP-based networks.  

Customers have a better understanding of their challenges and know what they want in order to launch their new services.