[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: OTT: The Challenges of Infrastructure
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:41:06 -0400
On Jul 21, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What a perfectly timed article! This is what broadcast station groups need to
be getting involved in:
FOTFL
Perfectly timed?
This is almost ALL old news being regurgitated by a bunch of ailing video
equipment vendors who missed the digital train two decades ago.
I say almost because:
"'Netflix's stream doesn't go back to California,' explained Yuval Fisher of
Imagine Communications. 'Its content is widely distributed over a VPN, and
the same type of delivery will have to happen with replication at the last
mile. The other thing that we expect is an increase in bandwidth, which could
include putting more fiber in the ground.'
I've known Yuval since the turn of the century. He did not follow the path of
the networks and their local broadcasters, instead focusing on the real
opportunity. As a result his company now plays a major role in OTT content
distribution. In short, he knows what he is talking about.
While Yuval expects an increase in interconnection bandwidth, he understands
that for OTT to work the content must be distributed close to the edge of the
networks. I hope he is saying that he expects more fiber to be put into the
ground to provide real competition in fixed broadband.
In this context, local broadcasters are already close to the edge. The problem
is that they are not close to the companies they need to work with to offer OTT
in their markets.
Local broadcasters have antagonized and alienated the MVPDs for many decades,
using government regulation to take over large chunks of the cable MVPD
networks when they were constrained to only 12 to 40 channels, then convincing
their buddies in Congress to give them retransmission consent.
When you "greenmail" the MVPDs that deliver your content to 90% of the homes in
your market, you may have a hard time convincing them to work together to
further devalue the MVPD side of your business by making that content available
OTT.
As usual, Bert missed the most important paragraph in the article:
"The content rights need to be resolved, either by replacing content
embargoed for streaming, or by 'decorating' the channel, such as by adding
in-band streaming restrictions," said Jean Macher, director of market
development with Harmonic. "The broadcast network and the local broadcasters
will have to collaborate to be successful. In the U.S., the trend is to use
SCTE-224 and SCTE-35 in tandem as a way for networks to decorate channels and
send content rules to the MVPDs."
What is Macher saying?
That the station may want to offer alternative content when they do not have
the rights to stream the programs that are being carried via the transmitter.
Unfortunately, this is MOST of the content aired by network affiliates.
"The broadcast network and the local broadcasters will have to collaborate to
be successful."
Ya think?
The reality is that the network content is already delivered to the stations in
digital form, where it is streamed along with local commercials to the
transmitter and the MVPDs (both cable and DBS). It will be trivially easy for
broadcasters to host the edge servers and use broadband links to the ISPs, or
to work together with the ISPs to co-locate servers.
But the networks and the stations need to come to terms on the rights to stream
this content.
Clearly Bert had no clue about the discussion of "fringe content."
Fringe content can negotiate to piggy-back off edge servers owned by bigger
fish. Much as OTA subchannels do now.
The fringe content the article was discussing is all of the OTT services that
cannot afford to work with CDNs or to collocate servers around the country.
These are often little start-ups that can barely afford to pay for hosting of
their server, and rely on the Internet backbone to get connect to "viewers"
everywhere.
Bert correctly identifies the "fringe content" carried in today's broadcast
multiplexes. The stuff people actually watch are actually second tier broadcast
networks like the CW, MeTV and MyNetwork TV. They have the same problem with
rights to these networks as they do for the big four.
The rest are primarily delivered to the stations via satellite, although many
are already streamed, like some of the foreign news services that stations
around D.C. carry.
In reality there is no need to piggyback on the collocates servers of "the big
fish." That is exactly what CDNs offer to the "little fish."
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
