32 Saturday 14.09.13 theibcdaily The future of channel delivery
How wise is it to lock all your playout technology into a single vendor solution asks Tom Gittins, director of sales, Pebble Beach Systems
Given the amount of coverage both online and in print which the industry dedicates to the Channel in a Box (CiaB) debate, and the phenomenal rise in the number of vendors entering in this space over the past 24 months, one could be forgiven for believing that there is a CiaB solution for every channel. Indeed, many vendors make exactly this claim. But what if development on
your chosen solution ceases, or if changes in the ownership of the technology mean that the features you need are simply not implemented? While it is feasible to live with workarounds for the control of some functions in the transmission chain, can your operation really tolerate compromise in the control layer of your playout? Vital to the decision process
is the rigorous definition of what each channel is intended to play out. From simple clip
playback through to highly dynamic channels with complex graphics and audio handling requirements, few channel playout requirements are the same. The risks in adopting fixed channel delivery technology are clear. Channels evolve and programming requirements change. However, CiaB delivers real
benefits in terms of its ease of integration, speed of deployment, lower energy consumption and ease of maintenance. Our own Stingray has been adopted by a number of broadcasters for these reasons, and because of its client server architecture it is more flexible than many CiaB solutions. The development of CiaB
technologies and availability of high power multi-core processors has enabled many functions to be delivered in a purely software-based environment, where previously bespoke hardware and
standalone devices were required. These innovations are already acting as the catalyst for a revolution in the construction of broadcast playout facilities, and there are a number of key technology steps along this path: • The adoption of standard IT hardware platforms, and eradication of bespoke hardware for both ‘signal’ processing and control systems • A move toward IP-based infrastructures and the removal of SDI • Migration from dedicated IT hardware to the adoption of virtual machine architectures, allowing the creation of private cloud-based systems. The business drivers for
using IP, VM and ultimately cloud-based solutions seem compelling, with the promise of lower capital investment, lower running costs, savings in real estate costs and the delivery of more localised channels.
Broadcasters now face the challenge of assessing the risks involved in maintaining highly reliable broadcast operations, and balancing them against their channel revenue and audience size, in order to decide at what point to join this revolution. However, the use of public
cloud solutions in broadcast environments raises additional challenges when it comes to the protection of copyrighted media and the negotiation of service level agreements. There is, for example, a question about who will pay the costs of channel downtime. Broadcasters adopting cloud solutions should also factor in whether they will find themselves locked in to a specific vendor, and evaluate whether the physical location of their media is a concern. Given the potential loss of
revenue, the restraint of legal obligations, and the risk of
Opinion
Tom Gittins: ‘Catalyst for a revolution’
public embarrassment, broadcasters have understandably been conservative adopters of ground-breaking technology. It is likely that cloud-based
delivery will first be adopted for lower revenue channels or used for disaster recovery and backup, with national state broadcasters or high value commercial channels not committing for some considerable time – especially those that have complex dynamic schedules. But that day will certainly come. 8.B58
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 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132