{"id":188,"date":"2004-07-08T08:53:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-08T08:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/2004\/07\/08\/article1-22\/"},"modified":"2023-08-13T18:27:19","modified_gmt":"2023-08-13T18:27:19","slug":"article1-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/2004\/07\/08\/article1-22\/","title":{"rendered":"I Hate to IP on Your Parade"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
Indie Telco Local Content Workshop Information<\/a><\/p>\n

Quick Jump Menu to this Issue’s Articles June 8th, 2004 Overview I Hate to IP on Your Parade <\/p>\n

I Hate to IP on Your Parade<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

by Ken Pyle (ken.pyle@viodi.com), Viodi, LLC<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0 <\/p>\n

<\/a>
About Viodi, LLC<\/a> <\/p>\n

July 8th, 2004 Issue<\/strong><\/p>\n

Subscribe to Viodi View<\/a><\/p>\n

Previous Issue<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0 <\/p>\n

In today\u2019s world, Internet Protocol<\/strong> is supposed to be the cure-all <\/strong>for all things that ail a telecom carrier\u2019s network. And it is probably true, as IP allows the decoupling of applications from the transport network. As I have heard over and over the past few weeks, with IP a network does not need to be optimized for a particular application, such as the case with, say, POTS. <\/p>\n

So, what is my problem with IP? As long as IP can meet the customer demands for things like fast channel changes, multiple televisions per household, etc., I don\u2019t have any problem. From everything I can see, the industry seems to be making great progress in these areas. My concern is the lack of standardization<\/strong> to allow for a true \u201cplug and play\u201d implementation of IPTV. <\/p>\n

Where<\/strong> is the Cable Labs-like organization<\/strong> in the IP world which will set standards for product interoperability, work with consumer electronic manufacturers to drive product integration (e.g. IPTV directly to the television set) and drive open interfaces at the middleware layer, so that content owners can \u201cwrite applications once\u201d knowing that they are portable over multiple platforms? <\/p>\n

Standardization is a driver for Verizon<\/strong> as they lean towards RF<\/strong> as the video solution for their FTTX deployments. The video solution they choose may end up relying on standard CATV-style set-top boxes<\/strong>. This is very ironic, as it was not too long ago that the cable industry was lambasted as being \u201ca bunch of cowboys<\/strong>\u201d that had no product and network standards. This changed as CableLabs became to the cable industry what Bellcore used to be to the telephone industry. <\/p>\n

On the twisted pair side of things, the DSL Forum<\/strong><\/a> seems to be stepping up to the plate regarding DSL compatibility and home networking side of things. At Supercomm, the DSL Forum booth had an impressive display of interoperable products from Thomson<\/strong>\u2019s latest set-top box to various residential gateways. From a video perspective, however, the DSL Forum does not appear to be addressing the many issues surrounding video that probably require some sort of industry coalescence. <\/p>\n

For instance, televisions<\/strong> are now available that allow a cable operator to eliminate the set-top<\/strong>. A smart card, which has entitlement and decryption information, plugs into the television set eliminating the need for a set-top. It is not the end-all, however,as this standard does not currently support two-way interactivity for things like Interactive Program Guides and VOD. The cable and consumer electronic industries, however, are actively negotiating a bi-directional plug and play agreement.<\/p>\n

Similarly, CableLabs<\/strong><\/a> is pushing open standards on the middleware side of things. This has to be the case, if different Interactive Program Guides are going to be ported to multitudes of Consumer Electronic goodies. The fact that SCTE (Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers) just received ANSI approval <\/a><\/strong>for the OCAP<\/a><\/strong> standard is indicative of how far along CableLabs is in this process. These efforts will allow the cable industry to use retail to help sell their video service, much like they have already successfully done with cable modem service.<\/p>\n

So, where is IPTV<\/strong> in all of these standardization efforts? Are any IPTV service providers being represented in the negotiations between the cable and the consumer electronic industries? Even if the IPTV industry develops standards, will the standards be relevant<\/strong>? That is, will content producers and consumer electronic manufacturers develop content and products for a technology that has a base of less than a million versus one that has a base of 70+ million subscribers? <\/p>\n

I wish I had answers to these questions. It is clear that these are areas that need to be addressed<\/strong> by an industry-wide body <\/strong>in some shape or form. One approach would be to use existing telco-oriented organizations to create the standards necessary that would help spark the industry. <\/p>\n

Another approach, which may seem far-fetched, is to work with CableLabs<\/strong>. CableLabs does accept membership from, \u201cany person or persons who provide video programming using closed transmission paths and uses public-rights-of-way.\u201d CableLabs does exclude MMDS, Open Video System and Direct Broadcast Satellite operators, but telcos are not explicitly banned from membership. The idea that I put forward is to work with or within CableLabs to influence standards, so that IPTV is part of a continuum of standards<\/strong> that could benefit both the cable and telco industries. <\/p>\n

Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n

Back to Main Page <\/a><\/p>\n

All displayed trademarks, logos and service marks are the property of their respective owners. \u00a9 2004, Viodi, LLC<\/a>. All Rights Reserved<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Indie Telco Local Content Workshop Information Quick Jump Menu to this Issue’s Articles June 8th, 2004 Overview I Hate to IP on Your Parade I Hate to IP on Your Parade by Ken Pyle (ken.pyle@viodi.com), Viodi, LLC \u00a0 About Viodi, LLC July 8th, 2004 Issue Subscribe to Viodi View Previous Issue \u00a0 \u00a0 In today\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-newsletter"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":606,"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188\/revisions\/606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/viodi.com\/classic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}