IPTV@IBC2010 special report
The IPTV community has proven adept at negotiating the stormy waters which have characterised the industry over the last 15 years. Through peaks and troughs of economic excitement & global financial crisis, technology evolution & technical challenge, and evolving competition & business model reinvention, IPTV has survived and to some extent thrived. In uncharted seas, the steering may have been uncertain and the oarsmanship lacking in coordination, but the vessel is still very much afloat and is now at no risk of foundering. On the contrary, IPTV is developing traction in the broader context of TV, with all now understanding the relevance of Internet technology in the development of the way we communicate and in which we are informed, educated and entertained. But although the waters may be less treacherous, navigation is still somewhat unclear, and progress remains slow and uncoordinated.
The IPTV community: pulling in the same direction
I
n its early days, there were few who believed that IPTV was intrinsically linked with the evolution of the Internet, and as a result early IPTV solutions were developed with little thought for standardisation or the need to interoperate with content and applications outside the closed environment of the IPTV service itself. The expectation was that with IPTV as a largely standalone alternative to mainstream broadcast TV, interaction with desirable IP-based services would develop as an extension of a fairly traditional core TV proposition. IPTV was characterised by innovation and exploration with the goal of creating solutions which worked well enough to deliver an alternative TV service over broadband connections, and included what were considered exotic offerings such as VOD, Pause Live TV and PVR. Now, however, digital TV is able to deliver many of the evolutionary benefits which were originally intended to differentiate IPTV. Although the first window of opportunity for IPTV involved VOD and other personal video- based services, the broadcast TV
While early piecemeal activity was critical in establishing the basis for development of commercial IPTV services, much of it did not lay suitable foundations for the development of a true mass market.
community has moved to also adopt these features, so they are no longer an IPTV differentiator. So IPTV must now use its inherent IP capability more aggressively to go further than extended traditional broadcast services are able with their less potent IP capabilities. IPTV must use its IP-centric nature to again seek to differentiate itself from the broadcast-centric competition.
But lack of true differentiation is not the only barrier to smooth-sailing IPTV. While the first IPTV solutions were effective ‘proofs of concept’ for the technical feasibility of IPTV, they were less effective in demonstrating a business case and suffered from a preponderance of bespoke and often highly proprietary technology. With the complexity of IPTV environments increasing to accommodate the multiplay expectations of ‘any device, any content, any location’, better coordination of IPTV activity is required, with a greater emphasis on a common underlying infrastructure to support more cost effective assembly, deployment and evolution of IPTV services.
S20 l ibe l OFFICIAL GUIDE TO IPTV@IBC2010 september/october 2010 l
www.ibeweb.com
And while accepting that some of today’s successful IPTV solutions are largely closed, it’s true that even these are publishing interfaces to allow access by third party services, acknowledging the need to accommodate an increasing portfolio of IP-based functionality, much of it derived from the web experience familiar on the PC. So, while early piecemeal activity was critical in establishing the basis for development of commercial IPTV services, much of it did not lay suitable foundations for the development of a true mass market. Having to assemble each IPTV solution from the ground up, with inherent issues in the areas of compatibility, integration and interoperation, was not sustainable for the long term, and few technology providers established sufficient momentum to allow their bespoke approach to succeed. A need clearly existed for a streamlining of IPTV to allow a common underlying platform to be defined, with innovation and imagination delivering differentiation above this layer and focusing minds and future development efforts on areas of functionality relevant to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32