There is something so “DEJA VU”  and sensible in the comment I have posted below.  A comment that was part of the discussion on the Internet delivered England v Ukraine Football Match.  (Article and Discussion can be seen at the following link:   http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/10/the_big_broadband_match_a_poor.html.)

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO “WEB TV” AND THE DEMISE OF THE “WEB TV SERVICE”:  IF IT GOES WRONG WHO IS RESPONSIBLE – THE TV MANUFACTURER WHO HAS THE SOFTWARE IN THE BOX – THE ROUTER PROVIDER – THE TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR THE LINE etc. etc. etc.

The quote was   “I didn’t pay (and therefore didn’t watch) because if it didn’t work, I’d never get my money back. The number of parties involved in delivery of the content is so many that if it went wrong, I’d have no way of getting a refund: could have been the stream at fault, could be my ISP, could be my phone line outside the house, my phone line inside the house, my router, or my PC, some of which are supported by me, some are services I pay for but there is no single source of responsibility. So if I pay £11.99 and it doesn’t work – what do I do?

There’s no peace of mind – I think for paid services to be viable, you need a form of guaranteed delivery, which means a client application that can report “viewed reciepts” back to the supplier and only charge at the end of the item.

HISTORY ABOUT TO REPEAT ITSELF METHINKS…Because we have not thought about that – CE Manufacturers just want to sell MORE TVs.

FRAGMENTATION – THE LEGACY OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

We have heard in the press that there is a French JV that is going to make a “Canvas” like OTT Service for France.   We have heard that the CE manufacturers are establishing deals with OTT providers to supply content for their Internet Portals…So we have Transmission Fragmentation, we also have Interactive Value Added Services Fragmentation and now we have added complete Content Distribution Fragmentation…I forgot to mention Standards Fragmentation with Analogue, Mpeg2 and Mpeg4, MHEG5 and MHP and HbbTV and, and, and!  How disorganized and completely messed up can an industry get.  In and amongst all of this it has become quite apparent – Finally – to my colleagues in the USA that there is a misunderstanding of the word UNION in Europe.

There were early signs of the impending doom for the TV market when the European Union couldn’t organize  themselves a Single Currency and/or Single Tax regime and,  and,  and…not to mention the LISBON TREATY which was negated and then voted for by Ireland, blocked by others, stonewalled and then circumnavigated.  There will be many, many years before my wallet carries only Euros for my EMEA travels and my TV or Laptop can watch any flavour/nationality of TV in no matter what country I reside or travel to.   The European Commission is a powerless beast that has no vision or control of what the TV Landscape is or should be.   I still feel they need to intervene but if they do, like they have before,  the BIG COMPANIES will lobby them into doing what the DVB has been lobbied into doing – and that is providing a “Toolbox” approach…which means NO Standards – Just a lot of choices to do the same job…i.e. Fragmentation

Lobbying is a dirty game of politics, argument and counter argument where opponents try to gain a foothold or mindshare in order to obtain a decision in your favour.  Lobbying is about influencing and is often done is a hard-direct and matter of fact manner.  This takes place in the hallowed halls of Brussels, in Washington and other political centres worldwide where certain people are paid handsome amounts of money to lobby on behalf of one cause or another.   You have to know that lobbying also takes place in the Home, School and in the Business world at Trade Consortium and Trade Bodies worldwide.  I am a lobbyist in Digitla Television for my Company and the DVB Consortium because I have signed an MoU that says I will support and engender the take-up of DVB Specifications…which I do;  but sometimes people, if they have never been exposed to the dark evil art, will not understand the lobbying intent; will misunderstand you and the way you present your arguments.  Lobbying is nothing personal and is not an attack on an individual but it can be felt as such depending on how much your adversary believes in the cause thay are paid to support.  I have recently had such an experience had an adversary call me “unprofessional and rude in my argumentation”…I make no apologies and consider that this was perhaps a success if the adversary was so hurt.   There has never been a middleware business that has been gentle compassionate and understanding of the opposition –  it is cut-throat and I have hardened over the 10 years of getting kicked for supporting something I believe in so I am fighting back: med alle midler.

I am being bombarded with invitations to go to a trillion seminars on OTT Services and Web2.0 or Online TV for sums around £1500  or more for the personal joy of  potentially meeting some of the leading minds in the online TV market to discuss the leading issues affecting telco, cable companies and content providers where they will tell me how to monetise the growing Over the Top TV service offering.   My experience tells me that when there is a new HOT TOPIC it is the “Seminar Organisers” who monetize cleverly.  They are like bluebottles feeding off of the egos of the companies who want to get their 15minutes worth of fame using the seminar platform to subliminally transmit “buy our stuff,  its better then their stuff” messages.  Albeit it is less and less subliminal these days we all painfully go through it thinking it is going to be a revelation and  important and that they have some merit in what they do.  i.e. the industry really, really needs this;  but 99 times out of a 100 it is all just personal opinion and cloudy crystal ball theory.  We all went through it in the beginning of the digital era, the interactive era, the VOD era and now the Social Networking era.   This is a classic Seminar participant:  Company A stands up and spends 10 slides (15 mins) on who they are and what they sell…followed by a weak wafting over of issues that we all ALREADY know of which are affecting today’s market YET giving NO  insight or NO solution because their time-slot is over.  (Then deeper investigation shows they like everyone else in the Seminar does not know how to monetize Digital TV in a free-for-all world and if they did why would they publicly tell all their competitors.    The so-called experts dash in and dash out like some Hollywoodesque superstar leaving many wondering why they bothered paying the  £1500 in the first place…perhaps its better just signing-up to Blooble and get the Powerpoint for free (if they are deposited that is).  Blooble now that’s a concept that is exciting me less and lesse:  A repository for “Public Domain” –  Business Powerpoint Presentations from the world’s leading Companies.   Why I am more and more unexcited is because fundamentally like a Seminar offering me to meet “leading minds  selling their Company wares”, an unaccompanied powerpoint is just “gobbledygook” apart from the 10 slides of sales pitch for the Company of course!  I am believeing more and more that we are in an untidy and scruffy business, that we need a radical shake up and someone to point us all in the right direction.  Someone needs to bring some sense to it all but Who might that be?

Eight out of ten TV screens now digital ready Links: http://www.ofcom.org.uk.

The total number of digitally-enabled TV sets in the UK has reached 80% due to a surge in the conversion of secondary TV sets. Ofcom’s Digital TV Progress Report for the second quarter of 2009 shows that 24.3 million secondary TV sets had been converted to digital by the end of June. In total, nine out of ten main television sets are now connected to a digital decoder as the Granada region prepares to begin switchover in November.

The report also reveals that there were 29.7 million Freeview-enabled sets, of which 9.9 million were primary and almost 19.8 million were secondary sets. Year on year IDTV sales were up by 41% and total IDTV sales have now reached almost 22 million, nearly overtaking those of set-top boxes (24 million) this year, according to Ofcom. DTG Staff | 29.09.2009

“This means that the Internet on your TV as pushed by the CE manufacturers has to account for this large deployment of which only a very  small percentage will be actually Ethernet and Browser enabled.   As we know today’s TVs are more stable, robust and less likely to be swapped out in the near term.   So it may be wise for the CE manufacturers to once again enter the STB business if they want to see their dreams of a seamless Internet and TV Experience come to fruition…no matter what the Standard is or may become.”   Anthony Smith-Chaigneau

When  Digital TV appeared it assumed it would not need to entice people from Analogue but that it would be a natural migration as from Vinyl to Tape to CD.  Unfortunately there was nothing that the consumer saw as sufficiently compelling for them to dash off to the highstreet in order to purchase a new Digital STB.  The mass migration that the TV Industry imagined did not happen and Analogue; which remains a large percentage of the TV transmissions filling the airwaves of Europe, still carries a great deal of regular old fashioned linear programming.    The offer of better picture and sound quality was simply not enough.   Even new channels didn’t offer enough of an enticement; principally because the content didn’t get any more sophisticated!  In fact it saw the commencement of so called “dumbed down” television.   So the geniuses amongst us gave us “Value Added Services” on top of the regular programming , hey presto this would help us along.  Teletext was branded NEW DIGITAL TELETEXT or SUPERTELETEXT with images and sound – woohoo!   BUT this too did nothing to spark the desired migration.    Interactive Services have had a bad rap in the trade press and considered a failure over the years.   The thing is that nobody looked at the real underlying problem and we still fail to look sufficiently long enough or deeply enough into the problems of Digital Terrestrial Television.  Those in the know, who did find out the answer were really surprised!  It was so obvious it made absolute sense:

DigiTAG (Digital Terrestrial Television Action Group) commissioned a Report from a well know analyst firm in order to understand what it was that would assist in migration from Analogue to Digital.  The answer was very surprising but simple:  It was not better picture quality or surround sound or value added interactive services or new channels.  As long as Consumers received their Emmerdale Farm, or Days of our Lives etc. they would not spend to go Digital…So the report stated finally that the only thing that would aid and drive the masses to move to Digital was simply SOA (Switch Off Analogue) or AFM = A Forced Migration.   Ummmmm.  This was not something any government would accept for fear of alienating the population and then losing power to those that would use it a a political positioning tool.   So we have meandered ever since using the DTT and Spectrum as a political “fussball”.   DTT now believes technology will give them the answer.

So how will we entice people in the new world of retail “Hybrid Broadcast BroadbandTelevision” to connect the TV to the internet in this new broadcasting paradigm recently re-gurgitated by the EBU for their PSB’s.  Germany believes that it is Value Added Services on the Broadband Pipe????   Didn’t we say that the Consumer does not feel that this is compelling enough.   France thinks it will be Catch-Up TV which is the same Broadcast contect but in a different place and at a different time…Looking at it this way it is as clear as day.  Look at the past, listen to the experts.  The only way you will entice people to connect their TVs to the Internet is to do the following:  SOB (Switch off Broadcasting) –  A huge rush to get the RJ45 plugged into the ADSL modem – but then that is called IPTV isn’t it?

The BBC’s iPlayer took the UK TV by storm and made everyone panick into inventing another system for Digital delivery of back-catalogue and archived content called CatchUP TV. Catchup TV is and always has been a VOD system, I have been saying this for some time.  So when the BBC announced it was going to make it available outside of the UK they had to tie a little message to it.   The message stated that the product could not be delivered on a CDROM.    The marketing of digital TV systems is such that people have tried to make things sound consumer friendly with the attempt to avoid Acronyms which is reasonable in todays techie driven world.   It had been marketed so well to consumers they really did think it was just a PC programme totally unaware of the back-office infrastructure and massive cost of deploying such a sysytem.  It was nice  to see that Freemantle in the press today stated that the BBC could help balance its books by charging users of its massively popoular iPlayer VOD site, I feel better in a simple kind of way.

CatchupTV, CATCHupTV, CatchUPTV or CatchUPtv…whichever way you write it is just a Broadcasters VOD Catalogue.  Having myself worked in the music industry and seen how broadband transformed their business models and modus operandi.   I believe that Broadcasters are victims of today’s technology hype and being led towards that same dark place.  We see the division of  customers between traditional TV and PC watching; creating along the way an “a la carte” (non advertising) service in the process with VOD & PVR combined.     Just how much TV can you watch from the PVR and Catchup?  I have 12 episodes of House, 10 episodes of CSI Miami and New York and the entire season of  The History of Artists as well as a plethora of films….Enough TV for months at a couple of hours a night viewing scale and I don’t have to watch the ads.   Linear Broadcasting is shooting itself in the foot by going VOD.   In this market we know that the BBC have no ARPU to take care of or revenue from advertising;  they provide a “Digital TV Tsunami” flooding the Internet with their content.  They continue to try to make the rules with initiatives like canvas and many, even the government think this is wrong and beyond their remit.   Mike Fries of Liberty Global publicly stated at the Berlin Cable Conference this year that the BBC is merely an anomaly and what works in the UK under the BBC will not work elsewhere.   The Beeb do however make it dificult for the rest of the broadcasters who have to provide equal or competitve services.  It is all a little lopsided.  If the iPlayer had been a pay service from the beginning would it have as successful?  I think not!

I know that I appear anti HbbTV (Hybrid Broadcast Broadband Television) but it is not quite true – My Company has a partnership in this initiative; however we are naturally more observer than participant and that is because I am sceptical about the way forward due to myexperience in this business…I am, those that know me well and those getting to know me, very pro DVB- MHP because first of all I am the Chairman of the Commercial Module on this Specification and secondly I have been deploying it for the last 7 years.  In fact my Company has built and deployed it in a Hybrid Broadband Broadcast Television environment since a long time whether you like it or not…And it is an ETSI Standard from a DVB specification, well crafted, ahead of its time and we should in all new initiatives re-use DVB specs wherever we can and not “re-invent the wheel” each time a new techie leaves university and enters the fray or a tech group looks for work to do to justify their existence –

The IPTV geeks and the Broadcast geeks are even divided inside the DVB organisation with a general bun-fight between the Java clan and the HTML clan when it comes to applications and middleware….Microsoft and Intel tried hard to have HTML as the foundation for MHP but it didn’t happen for a reason.  Those reasons I believe have not changed and that is that a Presentation Engine is not an Execution Engine and therefore innadequate for a complex multimedia environment (that was why Flash was invented and other technologies to give a richer environment on top of HTML).  So why should Digital TV march backwards.  Browser interoperability is a major hicough in this mix as well.

MHP and GEM (www.mhp.org) with HTML services in Telco, Cable and Satellite markets are being deployed.  MHP is being deployed in DTT markets as well.   However  in any DTT environment it is not a “Hybrid Specification” that will physically make a cable connection in someones home.  “Horizontal markets” always leave it up to Consumer to connect their products to their PC’s or Telephones to Networks and TVs to STBs etc…and they do not all have a PHD in Electronics and a Web System Administrators background.    We all want to solve the Hybrid Application interoperability issues and the Business Model issues in DTT but that will require all equipment to be connected to Broadband 100% of the time to create a HYBRID NETWORK.    I repeat, it is connectivity that matters.   We have been trying to get consumers to connect the return channel cable via PTT, ADSL, we have even had a go at GPRS modules, Bluetooth and other flavours but NOTHING has worked.  For 10 years it has been a miserable failure and continues to be…I know this stuff intimately and invite you to come and look at my home and show me how to connect my ADSL to my Internet STB and TV and Satellite and PVR and Storage device and and and without costing me a fortune in peripheral equipment and or fully re-wiring my home!

I would love to see the DVB (www.dvb.org) concentrate on an Open Standard for an “in house connectivity solution” (the last 2 metres) even if it is Wifi related  incorporates some DVB elements but WORKS … (The Home Networking initiative failed in DVB because there are too many technologies all vying to rule the roost) … (Home Gateway is anotherthorny issue which is in Standards turmoil as it has too many parameters to deal with in a fragmented world).  Once we see that users will connect their TVs and STBs to their Broadband Pipe “without fail” then we can look to bring the Hybrid Broadcast Broadband Television business models into play (If we discover them).  Until that time I will knock any initiative that does not properly investigate and address the issues.  You develop whilst we deploy.

When the world’s TV engineers gather in labs and meeting rooms around the world they come up with some pretty amazing things. Look at these beauties: COFDM – Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing or if you are American why not 8VSB – 8 Vestigial Sideband and of course there is the MPEG – Multimedia Picture Experts Group with all their flavors. H.264 and IPTV – Internet Protocol Television and OICD – Open Internet Connected Devices and now can you have 3DTV and, and, and; I know there is a lot more; much, much, much more than we can seem to keep up with! This is becoming troubling because we are all trying to get our minds around the business side of it all! We presently see a myriad of technologies all vying for the same customers for the same end-game with no respite in growth of new technology, yet without businesses to support all those technological advances. Can you actually define an “End-to-End Digital TV Service” today – NO NOT REALLY! You can design many different and all supposedly better then the previous. Fragmentation is increasing and therefore interoperability is disappearing whilst we are creating a Digital TV landscape that is overly complex and scruffy and full of new and better mousetraps.

In this troubled economic climate the real dichotomy of the TV industry is that product vendors that are furnishing their flavor of end-to-end Digital TV systems or some parts of them are posting financial losses or merely making thin gains, whilst the PayTV operators are announcing huge VOD uptake and a rise in ARPU. That is confusing! It appears that the market is too complex and no economies of scale are achievable and that they are being squeezed in this overly competitive marketplace? The technology situation is a particularly disruptive phenomenon in today’s Digital TV market and a probable cause of many of the business issues in today’s totally out of synch global march for the Digitization of Television.

What I am highlighting is that like a lot of other sales oriented businessman I am seeing the awkwardness and headache of delivering mixed, overly complex strategies that are fighting with a tidal wave of technology and the multiplicity of offerings that make up something to deliver just one thing: TV Programming. The very moment we have a system that looks “saleable” something comes along to distract the customer and that is predominantly, first and foremost technology, secondly salesmanship, lobbying and competition, and thirdly either the EU or some other national body like a Competition Counsel interfering or not interfering enough (not mandating and then mandating other bits) themselves duped by lobbyists on what the real way forward should be.

Satellite, Cable, Terrestrial and IPTV have devilishly fragmented the Middleware market; Java versus HTML, Presentation Engines versus Execution Engines; MPEG, AVC, VC1 added to by SDV is now fragmenting the Transmission market; SDTV, HDTV, HDDVD, Blu-ray fragmenting the Picture quality market (formats a go-go), and the underlying chipsets, tuners, Operating Systems and another gazillion technologies all have to follow. Additionally we have to have interesting content on top of that with VOD, PPV, PushVOD, Catch-Up TV not forgetting HD-GUI, Widgets, Subtitling, Close Captioning over HDMI, SPDIF, 1394, USB2 and it goes on and on and on. Then there is DRM, CA, DCAS and lets not forget we saw CableCard and CI Modules and then you realize that this is a lot of technology just to watch television programmes. I pointed out earlier we now even have 3DTV available, and for what purpose not because we need it, just because we can?

The situation is quite clear and it is this; in a market downturn we should benefit from the uptake in TV viewing due to the “stay-at-home” phenomena. However I will say it again; we have to battle ever discovered technology and the distraction that this brings in any market. We have a very difficult market that is failing to deliver huge growth due to the abundance of companies and fragmented technologies all fighting it out in the same sector to become the next big thing. There is nothing wrong with that unless it gets unhealthy, too complex and causes stagnation instead of energizing a market which is supposed to be in transition from analogue to digital. Fragmentation, no economies of scale with sales cycles are getting longer and longer and in some cases we have seen 2+ years before a decision is made. Then the Operator wobbles at the last minute as the latest and greatest (in some cases the oldest and boldest as in MHEG5) technology is promised. Eh! Voila, back to the drawing board. Does CES or IBC showcasing distract decision making processes or any another of our famous technical showcase venues (IFA for example) as everyone offers up ever more trick demos and vaporware.

I certainly do not want to have you all crying into your morning coffee or saying poor old you, as you read this, however when you wandered around the IBC2008 halls and you marveled at the wonderful systems, where you were seduced by the amazing amount of “WORLD LEADERS”, “INDUSTRY LEADERS” and “LEADING SUPPLIERS” (and there seems to be an awful lot of leaders for such a badly fragmented market). Then as you were charmed by the hosts and mesmerized by the promises of the slick salesmen did you ever wonder what the impact of all that information is. If you are not the savvy CEO, Chief Project Manager or CTO probably not! But remember that there will be a day that someone in your organization will have to stick a stake in the ground and commit to a technology even if the next best thing is just around the corner.

I never thought or believed my following observation, however having seen it at first hand I now realize that the IPTV market maybe stealing a march on the TV Market even if only mentally. Our company has been instrumental in laying a foundation in a vibrant Digital TV market in Asia (GEM-IPTV) much to the chagrin of the cable operators in that particular market. We are helping them too but they have to look at WEBTV as a thing that WILL happen and whatever they do it seems the Telcos will continue to offer this service despite the lack of ROI. IPTV or WEBTV is trying to happen again and whilst the Broadcasters and PayTV Operators wallow in the sea of technology those same customers (eyeballs) we are all fighting for (TV Households) are being seduced by the IPTV offers…I would like to think we can all benefit but to do that we must move forward and commit to a set of technologies that will give economies of scale and benefit to businesses and consumers for the sustainability of the industry. What those might be is anyone’s guess! The DVB an organization founded for the benefit of Digital TV has a strategy but even they have a hard time being heard due to the fragmentation of standardization activities worldwide. Someone needs to take control of this mad world and bring some sense and order to the chaos.  BUT WHO?

Recently the Netflix CEO stated that the “Web browser is television’s future”! I personally have a feeling that it was perhaps the journalist that simplified the title of the piece based on the opinions of Mr. Hastings, due to the fact that it is a mighty broad statement for anyone to make? Mr. H also gave the prediction a spread-bet of 5 to 20 years on this wonderful insight into the very obvious coming together of Internet and the TV. Ultimately this does hint of a timely lobbying piece most likely intended to strengthen Netflix’s position with respect to Microsoft who is named as a potential suitor. What Mr. H may not be aware of is that since 1995 the “Internauts” amongst us have been claiming the same TV and Internet marriage via a “browser” and have been trying very, very unsuccessfully to “make it so captain”. This particular “paradigm” and I hate that nonsensical word, has been a long and difficult road with several very fundamental problems; one of which is that most of the technology is just not fit for purpose and most of all the business model still needs crafting:

History Repeating Itself

• 1995 WebTV Founded based on HTML (failed)

• 1998 (ATSC) HTML is a poor environment for television (clear)

• 2000 Major goals of “ATVEF” was to create a specification that relies on existing and prevalent standards (HTML/JS) (failed)

• 2002 Broadcast HTML was created from ATSC-related work to develop the DTV Application Software Environment (DASE) (failed)

• 2006 The DVB-PCF embodies a high-level declarative model that is based on industry standard formats, including XML syntax, MIME types and UML (failed)

• 2009 TV manufacturers bet on WEB TV with CE-HTML (?)

So what is the opinion of the Netflix CEO worth? Will we all run out to purchase new TV sets with Ethernet connectors and browsers on them? Will we start running yards of Cat5 cabling around the house in order to reach the modem 3 rooms away, not to mention on the other floor level, in order to access the internet via the ADSL modem, or perhaps sacrifice the only electrical sockets near to the TV to Ethernet over Powerline? In fact talking of that browser element, which browser, whose browser? This is a very pertinent point, especially as Microsoft has to now ship with alternative browsers to its own Internet Explorer. There seems to be no holding back the flood of predictions in the TV Internet debate and naturally in this very complex technological world CEOs are considered the experts in their fields of endeavour.

What I would like to point out for the purposes of a historical review is that many companies have wanted to ride this horse. In on example Sony have been at it for years, 14 years in effect and then we see via more written interviews found on the WWW that the goal is still to be achieved.

• In 1996 Sony launched the INT W250 – Web TV receiver – WebTV Plus – 56 Kbps – RAM 16 MB

• On January the 7th , 2007 at CES this announcement was made: SONY BRINGS INTERNET VIDEO TV TO THE LIVING ROOM – Broadband Internet Video Access Available Via Modules Attached to New Televisions – Broadband Internet video was the hit of 2006 and now it’s coming to Sony televisions with the touch of a remote control button.

• Then in 2008 the SONY DMX-NV1 BRAVIA INTERNET VIDEO LINK WEB TV DMXNV1 hit the streets

However Sony at a conference/seminar this year was asked by a journalist when we the consumer will see products from Sony that simply offer an EPG (program guide) mixing cable and Internet video. The response was not surprising; Sony responded that they may not be available until 2010 or later as this takes time! Sony added that they would love it to occur tomorrow and that they are very frustrated.”