This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
18 TVBEurope ForumChannel in a Box Channel in a Box answers


TVBEurope’s latest Forum brings you the definitive guide to the Channel in a Box (CiaB) debate, with incisive contributions from 14 vendors in this automation market space delving into the possibilities and complexities of CiaB


IF THERE’S one genuinely confusing area of the industry, it has to be Channel in a Box (CiaB). First, because at last count there were at least 30 CiaB products on offer at NAB and IBC this year. And second, it seems there are as many definitions of CiaB in the playout automation space as there are product offerings …


In a Guest Opinion format, we have invited genuine vendors to our ongoing CiaB Debate. Can every broadcaster trust its new channel, no matter what its purpose, to a current CiaB product offering? Where do we stand now? If ever a TVBEurope debate could be described as ‘definitive’, then this is it. If in doubt, please read on through the next 18 pages of Channel in a Box market answers. — Fergal Ringrose


Target practise: Step outside the box and very few really understand end-to-end graphics workflow in enough detail


www.tvbeurope.com January 2013


A moving target


Have manufacturers’ R&D, marketing and integration teams ever been more challenged to find a successful recipe to achieve broadcast innovation than with Channel in a Box? Our broadcast workflow columnistRussell Grute, Broadcast Innovation, sets the scene by taking a quick look back to help us look forward


ABOUT FIVE years ago new entrants had everything to gain from their innovations. As specialists, while addressing the emerging opportunity for lower cost channels from scratch, players such as Oasys, Playbox and PubliTronic (now Grass Valley) gained new ground and changed the game. In contrast the established and trusted video server and automation manufacturers had to choose their moment more carefully. The very real threat of cannibalising their existing business and product lifecycles greatly affected their motivations and timing. While for example Omnibus (now Miranda) and Snell entered the market early, Grass Valley (ex Technicolor), Harris (recently acquired by Gores Group), Harmonic


(Omneon) and Pebble Beach each took different approaches. Automation vendors have to be especially careful with the balance between their flagship automation and their own integrated playout devices. Others blend capabilities from elsewhere in their product portfolios. It’s content validation and


graphics I hear about most often as the cause of frustration. Step outside the box and very few really understand end-to-end graphics workflow in enough detail. This perhaps prompted graphics vendors Pixel Power and many new entrants to try and leverage their advantages too. Others such as Cinegy have added self- contained playout servers with integrated graphics to their newsroom systems.


The emergence of a new


wave of playout service providers also complicated the picture. Service providers were early to deploy and trial Channel in a Box technology, often with very little established operational best practice to build on. Service providers unexpectedly found themselves at the sharp end, trying simultaneously to meet their contractual service obligations while helping manufacturers to stabilise their new technology often live on air. Playout is still perceived by


broadcasters as their most commercially sensitive area. However, as linear and nonlinear content preparation and delivery converge further in 2013 perhaps the battle lines for Channel in a Box are


already being redrawn. Today many Tier 1 linear channels actually require more complex playout infrastructure than ever before to securely serve new regions and platforms; adding interactivity and access services. These systems require multi-tenant facilities, improved ad management, facility control and monitoring to maintain service levels cost effectively. The emergence and increasing popularity of live IP delivery may yet challenge conventional playout for many less reactive thematic channels and for news.


Channel in a Box was born


in turbulent times, illustrating in practice many of the contemporary challenges in successfully blending IT and broadcast technology. For manufacturers and through the unprecedented challenges to broadcasters’ linear business models driven by internet and mobile delivery, there is still a long way to go. (As an aside I think production solutions are about to undergo a similar transition). Will 2013 bring stability and balance value engineering more effectively? What’s next from Channel in a Box and who is new to the game?


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  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52