[opendtv] Re: This from another (open) thread - IPTV on LinkedIn
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:25:54 -0700
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
"MVPDs use STBs to protect their service and generate recurring revenue
streams."
Bert wrote:
"This discussion is about Internet TV. With Internet TV, the idea that
STBs would remain goes away. The Internet medium feeds too many appliances
for which an STB makes no sense. The "TV set" becomes just another one of
these many appliances.
"Therefore, assuming MVPDs want to remain relevant, they will have to
easily accommodate the new IP appliances, including the new "large screen
appliances." The idea that this interface box, inflicted on their
customers for decades, will remain relevant goes away. That STB, at best,
becomes a modem/IP router, for the home. The content must then be fanned
out as STANDARD IP."
Okay, what are we specifically talking about. Perhaps I have muddied the
water in this discussion. Are we specifically talking about the STB that
the MVPD provides its customer? The STB has been many things over the
years: an RF processor (shifting frequencies), a demodulator, a DRM
control box, a D to A, and a whole lot of other things. STBs have been
provided by MVPDs and they have been purchased off the shelf. The way I
define an STB is that if it sits by the TV to provide audio-visuals from
some service provider to the TV (versus local media), it is a Set Top Box.
The role of the STB can and has changed. Under this definition, I would
include Roku, the AppleTV and even the streaming Blu-Ray player. I admit
I might have defined it a bit too broad.
But perhaps the subject of this discussion is limiting the use of the STB
only for the MVPD. But that doesn't really change anything, in my
opinion. I should also note, I am talking in terms of delivery to the
main TV screen; the big one in the living room, not portable devices.
Let's say all video can now be delivered over IP. This is just another
delivery method. There are many benefits to IP but it certainly isn't the
only or necessarily the best way. In the past it has had limited
bandwidth. But let's say that it will have unlimited bandwidth (or at
least sufficient bandwidth) and in the "cloud" is infinite storage and
distribution sites. The question now is can a non-STB supply all the
other roles that an STB currently needs to do, and for the future, at
least within the expected life cycle of television? Where would these
roles be taken up? In the TV itself? In a handheld device? Back at the
distribution hub? Perhaps the functions can be disbursed. But can they
all be covered, anticipating future needs?
Previously, I provided some reasons why I don't think they can (and I am
being a little broader than just the application of an MVPD STB):
1. Disruptive technologies; someone will always be redefining the state
of technology. What happens when someone creates a wildly novel approach
but can't get the CE industry to incorporate it? And if we are only
talking about MVPDs, how do they incorporate it into their product when
they don't control the TV?
2. Impossibility to develop an architecture that every CE manufacture,
MVPD and distributor could work to. How many times have they attempted to
get rid of the STB (especially the MVPD)? Seems like there have been so
many efforts to do this but even well intentioned technological advances
have not been able to accomplish it.
3. DRM, storage, account management and other "control" issues. This is
actually several issues. Perhaps many of these can and have been solved
with IP technologies. But there are other control issues at work (Craig
often illuminates). Can there be IP solutions? The engineer may say yes.
Will everyone?
4. Life cycle of a display screen versus the various components to get it
to the display: reception, codecs, hardware processing, etc. Will we be
required to replace our TV every 2 years (even shorter now for many
portable devices) in order to get the latest hardware to decode and
process the incoming media?
5. People. Wildcard statement, I know. There is so much to say on this
but I can't take the time to write it.
So whether we are talking about just the MVPD or STBs in general, I am not
sure IP and InternetTV solves many other technological and
non-technological issues.
And in my opinion, why not keep the STB? Why do we have to have
everything built into the TV? Why not just make it a display device? Then
we can buy and add all the gadgets we want.
To me, it is more important to get good connection standards to the TV.
Let's get a good wireless protocol so handheld devices can stream to it.
Let's get good protocols that handshake so that the STB or any device can
talk to the TV and properly display a correct aspect ratio with the right
color space. Let's be able to control the TV and other devices without
multiple remote controls and a bunch of programming. Man, can I deviate
from a subject!
These issues have certainly all been covered within previous discussion
threads so I realize I am not being particularly clever. I guess I just
don't see IP as the miracle delivery method that solves all the issues,
even if it does have many benefits that solve some of the issues.
Dan
Other related posts: