[opendtv] Re: This from another (open) thread - IPTV on LinkedIn
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:43:04 -0400
On Apr 23, 2013, at 1:25 PM, dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
Dan has the right idea here.
There are now, and will continue to be a variety of boxes connected to the big
screen in the family room:
1. MVPD appliance - this will continue to be a dedicated device handling
demodulation, decoding, and EPG. This is not likely to change until cable
companies make another MAJOR investment in their physical plants to move from
the hybrid analog digital infrastructure they use today, to a distributed IP
infrastructure with switching/routing at the neighborhood level. DBS STBs are
locked in on the modulation level, but are likely to add newer codecs, local
caching, and some form of IP interface (WiFi, LTE, etc).
2. Game/Entertainment platforms - there are MANY X-Box and PS3s connected to
TVs today, both for gaming and entertainment. In essence these boxes already
support IP and some include BluRay.
3. Smart boxes like Roku and Apple TV - these boxes typically have a WiFi and
or Ethernet (IP) interface, and HDMI output to the TV. They have sophisticated
processors that handle the network stack, media decoding and GUI.
To this I guess we can add Smart TVs that have devices similar to item 3 built
in. But these platforms are still immature, especially with respect to User
Interface and often lock the customer into a manufacturer ecosystem. Thus an
external module (item 3) may be perceived as a better approach - one that can
be upgraded easily without replacing the TV.
> 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.
I think Bert is trying to convince us that the world is ready to move
exclusively to IP based TV distribution. Clearly this is not going to happen
very quickly unless there is a highly disruptive change in the media industry
(the content congloms and the MVPDs).
Much as I would love to see this, I believe it will be well into the next
decade before the oligopolies are forced to change their ways…
And there is the minor issue of having enough switched IP bandwidth to deliver
multiple streams to every home in a neighborhood. This stuff has been scaling
up slowly.
> 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?
The answer is probably ALL OF THE ABOVE.
We are already seeing devices interacting with one another and sharing
resources. As Dan notes there are many ways to skin this cat. As we are still
in the infancy stage of Smart TV product evolution, you can expect to see MANY
attempts to convince consumers company A B or C ha stye best solution; and
we may well see a world where consumers adopt several solutions, as they do
today.
> 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.
I've gotta agree with Dan on this.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
