digital tv technology trends and internet convergence farncombe consulting group barry flynn,...
DESCRIPTION
Digital TV Technology Trends and Internet Convergence Farncombe Consulting Group Barry Flynn, Principal Consultant June 2009 – Digimedia 2009, Prague. DIGITAL TV TECHNOLOGY TRENDS. Combination of different enablers and drivers is changing traditional DTV landscape. Increased performance. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
© Copyright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
Digital TV Technology Trends andInternet ConvergenceFarncombe Consulting GroupBarry Flynn, Principal ConsultantJune 2009 – Digimedia 2009, Prague
2© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
Combination of different enablers and drivers is changing traditional DTV landscape
DIGITAL TV TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
Broadband return-path
Increased storage
Increased performance
More permanent storage as hard drives become cheaper More semi-permanent storage as Flash memory becomes cheaper
Increased broadband penetration driving hybridisation with traditional DVB-T, DVB-S Increased penetration of IPTV Increased penetration of DOCSIS on digital cable
More powerful chipsets as processing-power becomes cheaper More memory as RAM etc becomes cheaper
IP everywhere Video encapsulated in IP because more efficient
SDTV→ HDTV Enabled by increased performance, migration from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, DVB-S to DVB-S2 Driven by consumer take-up of HD-Ready flat-screens (Driven by DVD/games console quality versus over-compressed SD??)
3© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
Consumers expect more flexibility in content consumption in general and video in particular
IN PARALLEL, CHANGING CONSUMER TASTES
Expectation of ‘free’ content Experience of Internet music and availability of pirated video leading to expectation that
some premium video content should be ‘free’ at point of consumption
Linear → Non-linear consumption
Portability/mobility of devices Mobile phones, MP3 players/iPods, portable games consoles – all encourage requirement for
new devices able to deliver portable/mobile video content (although this may be a weaker trend than many have assumed)
In part because of Internet, but also because of increased penetration of PVRs, consumers increasingly understand/accustomed to/expect non-linear video consumption
Portability/mobility of content
STB no longer a dummy device used to decode digital video → in addition to integrating PVR, expectation that STB will enable them to get access to personal content stored on PC and other devices, including photos and videos, and their favourite content from the Internet
Video on the Internet As broadband penetration increases, consumers increasingly accustomed to consuming video
on the ‘open’ Internet, and via new CE devices with Internet connectivity
4© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
What happens when you marry these two sets of trends together?
TV/INTERNET CONVERGENCE?
TV TECHNOLOGY
ENABLERS ?
Confidential and Proprietary
CONSUMER DRIVERS
OVER-THE-TOP (OTT) VIDEO
+ ‘TRADITIONAL’
DTV
5© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
3
1 OVERVIEW OF THE FARNCOMBE GROUP
DIGITAL TV TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
CHALLENGES OF DTV/OTT CONVERGENCE
2
AGENDA
6© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
HYBRIDISING DTV WITH OTT VIDEO: STB PERFORMANCE
STBS are more powerful today than they used to be, but…. Today’s STBs typically decode video with:
– dedicated hardware– limited range of “frozen” standards such as MPEG-2/
MPEG-4 A wide range of OTT video formats that generally demand:
– software-based decoding, and– higher level of processing-power than most STBs can deliver (even
today, after much progress)
This problem can be solved, but …. Requires spending much more per box This makes deployment prohibitive
Today’s STBs are still not powerful enough
7© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
HYBRIDISING DTV WITH OTT VIDEO: ARCHITECTURE
OTT video services change rapidly/are frequently upgraded Media players, Internet browsers used for OTT video playback frequently
upgraded Similar issues arise with Internet technologies such as DRM and HTML
A more fundamental difficulty: marrying a stable technology environment (DTV) with a highly dynamic one (the Internet)
Issue not so much technical as economic Even if engineers could adapt STBs to upgrade dynamically (like PCs), PCs
have scale – 1bn+ now installed around globe (Gartner, 2008) Vast majority are interoperable through use of Windows OS PC software developers can spread costs of codec/player/browser/plug-in
software development across large number of new PCs installed/yr Plus receive occasional upgrade fees from installed base This is not the case with STBs!
8© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
THE PROBLEM WITH STB ARCHITECTURESTBs do not enjoy economies of scale that PCs do, because DTV is highly fragmented
Interactive TV providers have tried over last 20 years to make ‘middleware’ platform-agnostic, e.g. using a Java ‘virtual machine’ (as in DVB-MHP)
But MHP generally acknowledged to have been a failure
MHP implementations have in practice been
– stripped-down and customised
– only nominally independent of platforms
ApplicationsHTML JAVA MHEG5 FLASH
Applications Manager
Middleware ServicesOS + Drivers
Hardware
CANetwork Provider Special Services
Source: Farncombe Consulting Group
Pay-TV providers generally use proprietary combinations of hardware and software tailored to their own needs/territorial standards
9© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?Responses to PC/STB dilemma lie along a continuum, clustered at either end
Accept that STBs will never
be like PCs?
Demand that STBs be PCs by
any other name?OR
10© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?Neither extreme of continuum offers satisfactory solution
Accept that STBs will never
be like PCs?
OTT decoding confined to a restricted range of
video types
Consumer not offered full range of OTT services
available over the Internet
Customers who expect full range of Web video
services may rebel against “walled-garden”
approach
11© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?Neither extreme of continuum offers satisfactory solution
Demand that STBs be PCs by
any other name?
Technical solution problematic: PC
architecture unlike STB’s
Implied power consumption levels run
risk of breaching new EU rules on ‘eco-STBs’
Even if possible for STB to migrate to PC
universal/flexible architecture, cost of ‘STB-
PCs’ prohibitive
12© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?Connected TVs present an intermediate solution
‘Connected TVs’ with
limited HTML browser or
‘widget’
13© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?But limited services and potential non-upgradeability problematic
‘Connected TVs’ with limited
HTML browser or ‘widget’
Technologies not standard/complete,
upgradeable only if TV makers willing to pay
‘Widget’ does not offer PC/Internet functionality,
potential lack of upgrades implies limited
services
Risk of consumer hostility because ‘connected TV’ experience just another
‘walled garden’
14© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?Responses to PC/STB dilemma lie along a continuum, clustered at either end
Accept that STBs will never
be like PCs?
Demand that STBs be PCs by
any other name?OR
15© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?Rejecting PC/STB dilemma by using headend may lead to scalability problems
Traditional DTV
Transcoder
Set-top Box
MPEG
Headend Consumers
Traditional DTV codecs
Video, Audio
MPEG-4/MPEG-2 + OTT codecsStandard MPEG-4/MPEG-2 chipset
OTT video
Place transcoders at network headend Can convert Web video standards in real-time into (narrow) range of
formats supported by STB Solves issue of making STBs dynamically upgradeable But introduces additional, expensive infrastructure which might prove
difficult to scale
16© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
CONCLUSIONS
Clearly, the digital TV industry is at a turning-point:– Consumer expectations are changing– Customers with broadband are creating home networks,
leading to demand for OTT video (to the TV and PC) and to content-sharing between the TV and PC
– Video-capable devices are all being connected to IP/broadband
This represents a major challenge to both operators and equipment-providers
Properly managing CPE strategy is the key to success
(FARNCOMBE CAN HELP YOU WITH THIS!)
© Copyright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
INTRODUCTION
For further information, please contact:
Barry FlynnPrincipal ConsultantFarncombe Consulting Group
E-mail: [email protected]: +44 1256 844161Mob: +44 7720 566585www.farncombe.eu
Thank you!
18© Coypright Farncombe Consulting Group 2009
BBC IPLAYER AND VIRGIN MEDIAAn example of OTT viewing on the TV screen
Virgin Media, which offers the BBC OTT iPlayer service to its VOD cable homes, has reported that its cable network accounted for around a third of all BBC iPlayer views in May 2008
But the Virgin cable platform has a significantly smaller universe than the BBC’s online one
– Around 44% of Virgin’s 3.5m TV customers were regularly watching on-demand content at that time (1.5m)
– But the number of regular online iPlayer users was around 6m, on Farncombe estimates
This would mean viewers on the TV-based platform were each responsible for at least twice as many iPlayer views last May as those on the PC/online one