Comments for Connected TV http://www.connectedtv.eu Talking about TV's future Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:32:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 Comment on ISDB-T expansion around the World - It takes many to Ginga by David http://www.connectedtv.eu/isdb-t-expansion-around-the-world-it-takes-many-to-ginga-319/#comment-92027 David Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:17:14 +0000 http://www.connectedtv.eu/isdb-t-expansion-around-the-world-it-takes-many-to-ginga-319/#comment-92027 "political will is not enough to convince Brazilians it is worth buying a set-top box to watch DTT" It never was. Image quality is. I have yet to see someone (be layman or not) that won't be amazed with free to air, HD images coming from open broadcasters. The world cup is being an example: all my friends are buying HD sets to view the SA World Cup. Many of them after watching the games on my house. "Brazilians continue to be confused about what ‘DTT’ means." I will give you the benefit of doubt here, but my general opinion is that the majority of the population will always be. Take a look at what happened in United States, where the HD switch process is much older (Brazil started in December 2007). It has nothing to do with the standard itself. "the vast majority of salesmen confused DTT with high definition or with digital pay-TV (pay-TV operators use the European DVB standard)." This has nothing to do with the quality of the system, but rather the quality of training of stores. Personally, that happens everywhere in the globe from my experience. "Technical specifications that are not mandated and officially certified are often ignored by most vendors, and the high degree of fragmentation of the receivers’ base makes it commercially unfeasible to offer advanced TV services." Again, fallacy. Because we are not paying much attention to "advanced TV services" does not mean the system is not advanced enough to do it. It all depends if the country is responsible enough to choose what is best for their scenario. The system is ready, it is available. If "advanced TV services" is what, say, Argentina wants, then they better use it. We are not using because nobody cares much (but that can change if there is market for it). But if a country wants interactive systems, be my guest: we offer what is probably the most advanced system (as in: you can create more advanced applications and systems). Did you ever had a chance to test Ginga-NCL? Other than that, I probably agree. Despite the system that is used, its attractiveness matters the most. That's why we, in Brazil, selected a system that proved, on raw data, to be the best option for our particular scenario. That is: more advanced codec (one adopted later by DVB, by the way), free mobile reception (including the ability, if a given broadcaster wants, to provide different content for mobile sets), and some more technical details that I don't know much. Anyway, the point is: Brazil could be improving more, sure, but that tells more about the broadcasters and the government (in)ability to do something more useful with it than about the quality and capabilities of the system itself. And don't even get me started on the same problems of deploying DVB-T2... ;-) Best regards. “political will is not enough to convince Brazilians it is worth buying a set-top box to watch DTT”

It never was. Image quality is. I have yet to see someone (be layman or not) that won’t be amazed with free to air, HD images coming from open broadcasters. The world cup is being an example: all my friends are buying HD sets to view the SA World Cup. Many of them after watching the games on my house.

“Brazilians continue to be confused about what ‘DTT’ means.”

I will give you the benefit of doubt here, but my general opinion is that the majority of the population will always be. Take a look at what happened in United States, where the HD switch process is much older (Brazil started in December 2007). It has nothing to do with the standard itself.

“the vast majority of salesmen confused DTT with high definition or with digital pay-TV (pay-TV operators use the European DVB standard).”

This has nothing to do with the quality of the system, but rather the quality of training of stores. Personally, that happens everywhere in the globe from my experience.

“Technical specifications that are not mandated and officially certified are often ignored by most vendors, and the high degree of fragmentation of the receivers’ base makes it commercially unfeasible to offer advanced TV services.”

Again, fallacy. Because we are not paying much attention to “advanced TV services” does not mean the system is not advanced enough to do it. It all depends if the country is responsible enough to choose what is best for their scenario. The system is ready, it is available. If “advanced TV services” is what, say, Argentina wants, then they better use it. We are not using because nobody cares much (but that can change if there is market for it). But if a country wants interactive systems, be my guest: we offer what is probably the most advanced system (as in: you can create more advanced applications and systems). Did you ever had a chance to test Ginga-NCL?

Other than that, I probably agree. Despite the system that is used, its attractiveness matters the most. That’s why we, in Brazil, selected a system that proved, on raw data, to be the best option for our particular scenario. That is: more advanced codec (one adopted later by DVB, by the way), free mobile reception (including the ability, if a given broadcaster wants, to provide different content for mobile sets), and some more technical details that I don’t know much.

Anyway, the point is: Brazil could be improving more, sure, but that tells more about the broadcasters and the government (in)ability to do something more useful with it than about the quality and capabilities of the system itself. And don’t even get me started on the same problems of deploying DVB-T2… ;-)
Best regards.

]]> Comment on ISDB-T expansion around the World - It takes many to Ginga by Adriana Whiteley http://www.connectedtv.eu/isdb-t-expansion-around-the-world-it-takes-many-to-ginga-319/#comment-92098 Adriana Whiteley Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:00:27 +0000 http://www.connectedtv.eu/isdb-t-expansion-around-the-world-it-takes-many-to-ginga-319/#comment-92098 Dear David -Thanks for your comments -it does seem to me however that you are confusing the transmission standard with the network configuration and implementation policy that was adopted, and this was exactly the point we were trying to raise. ISDB-T as a transmission standard is as good as any, but not responsible in itself for the features you mention. HD content and free mobile reception can be enabled by any system depending on the configuration adopted; Germany for example provides good free-to-air mobile reception, and mobile handsets are widely adopted there; HD is broadcast and mass adopted by several European countries, including the UK and France; DVB-T2 has already been adopted by some countries, and is operating in the UK for example. But the focus of our comments relate to the transition policies adopted by the Brazilian government, and not about the system in itself, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Dear David -Thanks for your comments -it does seem to me however that you are confusing the transmission standard with the network configuration and implementation policy that was adopted, and this was exactly the point we were trying to raise. ISDB-T as a transmission standard is as good as any, but not responsible in itself for the features you mention. HD content and free mobile reception can be enabled by any system depending on the configuration adopted; Germany for example provides good free-to-air mobile reception, and mobile handsets are widely adopted there; HD is broadcast and mass adopted by several European countries, including the UK and France; DVB-T2 has already been adopted by some countries, and is operating in the UK for example. But the focus of our comments relate to the transition policies adopted by the Brazilian government, and not about the system in itself, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

]]> Comment on BSkyB’s Sky Player: subs forced to opt out of targeted advertising and accept cookies by Red-button advertising ends on Sky - but where does Anytime+ fit in? at Connected TV http://www.connectedtv.eu/bskybs-sky-player-subs-forced-to-opt-out-of-targeted-advertising-and-accept-cookies-302/#comment-64742 Red-button advertising ends on Sky - but where does Anytime+ fit in? at Connected TV Wed, 05 May 2010 08:39:15 +0000 http://www.connectedtv.eu/bskybs-sky-player-subs-forced-to-opt-out-of-targeted-advertising-and-accept-cookies-302/#comment-64742 [...] into later models of the Sky+ box to deliver targeted ad substitution, along the lines of the Sky AdSmart technology currently embedded in its online Sky Player product. This ‘push’-based targeting [...] […] into later models of the Sky+ box to deliver targeted ad substitution, along the lines of the Sky AdSmart technology currently embedded in its online Sky Player product. This ‘push’-based targeting […]

]]> Comment on MHP was no GEM: the jewel in interactive TV’s crown is likely to be the Internet by Anthony Smith-Chaigneau http://www.connectedtv.eu/mhp-was-no-gem-the-jewel-in-interactive-tvs-crown-is-likely-to-be-the-internet-313/#comment-64194 Anthony Smith-Chaigneau Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:00:37 +0000 http://www.connectedtv.eu/mhp-was-no-gem-the-jewel-in-interactive-tvs-crown-is-likely-to-be-the-internet-313/#comment-64194 Well it is interesting to see that the "methodology argument" in interactive TV has taken a new turn - sorry a U-TURN. When HTML was offered up to the DVB in the late 90s and early 2000s it ran on inferior networks and ISPs that could not deliver more than 96 or 128KBits/second. It was never designed for TV markets and was considered "not fit for purpose" in TV land. ATVEF tried, DASE tried etc. So the TV Industry built a solution in the DVB and selected a certain path (Java+Browser) and the DVB has stuck to it which can be applauded. there are over 77million deployments of GEM and those can be seen at www.mhp.org. Even the DVB's Technical Committee - TM-MIS review on Next Generation Middleware acknowledged that there was nothing technically that could change opinions on the way forward but that "Methodologies" still reign as the differences between opposing camps in interactiveTV. funnily enough during the 10 years of "MHP bashing" no Broadcaster or Operator has selected any smaller, less expensive, presentation based alternative in Europe...because they had no Business model. MHEG5 was touted as the answer... its deployment in ALL European CE and STB equipment still did not encourage Broadcasters to take up iTV services. Not the technology but the Business Model. Today the business model in "Connected TV" is Free VIDEO over the Internet...accessed by Widgets or Browsers...how long before that is not sustainable? There are no Applications Sets for HbbTV such as exist in Broadcast today there is a lot of Slideware. EPGs, Bound Applications, et al, even MHEG5 has a large portfolio but HbbTV has shown almost nothing. The UK obsession with the iPlayer which is a VOD service on the Internet - Specific to a single content provider has found favour in Europe...French TV etc has an equivalent. The whole fragmentation of Channels has arrived on the Internet...great now what? Make another "Standard" for interactive that does not need the internet? A complex business model is before all of us and so lets see if we can make it happen all over again or just repeat the past with another technology solution to the same problem. So what happened to Broadcasters that got caught out by not deploying anything over 10 years? The CE manufacturers came along with an RJ45 connector on board - Now they are stealing their Broadcast lunch (so we are led to believe)...shame on them (the broadcasters) they had the chance-could have selected any number of technologues and passed the pain barrier like the UK and Italy. They could have kept control of their market and not seen the hyped market meltdown that is predicted by Connected TV...But then we factor in the ubiquity of Broadband (its not 10% coverage anywhere in Europe) ...ISP connection of proper European wide coverage capable of delivering Qos video speeds - tie that to different legislation in each country and EU regulations and we will see that there is a long way to go. It is not Server Side Applications that are the issue, GEM and apparently HbbTV both do that...It is is the fact that an "Execution Engine" (A sort of virtual computer) resides in the GEM specification as its core. The Browser element which in 3 European deployments is a forerunner of CE-HTML called DVB-HTML...any other Browser can also reside in a GEM stack... and as a consequence you get the best of Java - Multi-Threading, Multi-Instance Applications AND WEB Browsing and all the server-side that HTML now seems to offer over HTTP...ironically the Japanese Broadcaster NHK have just dropped their HTML solution after 10 years in Japan and declared in a White Paper at IBC2009 that it was not as good as an Execution+Browser combination for STBs and iDTVs. Finally the DVB cannot just drop or walk away or ruin deployed Specifications without seriously impacting on businesses and Companies that have supported them... and as such it is careful how it evolves or devolves its portfolio. Had the CE-HTML been offered up to the DVB correctly it may have seen it as a replacement for DVB-HTML and we would all be seeing a different landscape. But the CE Manufacturers have a different business agenda and in that more differences are opened in this complex fragmented Digital TV market. The more we knock each other over methodologies the more the fragmentation increases. At the end of it all it is all about revenue for unique solutions and the IPR a vendor can squeeze into a spec - this is all about - History nicely repeating itself. Well it is interesting to see that the “methodology argument” in interactive TV has taken a new turn - sorry a U-TURN. When HTML was offered up to the DVB in the late 90s and early 2000s it ran on inferior networks and ISPs that could not deliver more than 96 or 128KBits/second. It was never designed for TV markets and was considered “not fit for purpose” in TV land. ATVEF tried, DASE tried etc. So the TV Industry built a solution in the DVB and selected a certain path (Java+Browser) and the DVB has stuck to it which can be applauded. there are over 77million deployments of GEM and those can be seen at www.mhp.org. Even the DVB’s Technical Committee - TM-MIS review on Next Generation Middleware acknowledged that there was nothing technically that could change opinions on the way forward but that “Methodologies” still reign as the differences between opposing camps in interactiveTV. funnily enough during the 10 years of “MHP bashing” no Broadcaster or Operator has selected any smaller, less expensive, presentation based alternative in Europe…because they had no Business model. MHEG5 was touted as the answer… its deployment in ALL European CE and STB equipment still did not encourage Broadcasters to take up iTV services. Not the technology but the Business Model. Today the business model in “Connected TV” is Free VIDEO over the Internet…accessed by Widgets or Browsers…how long before that is not sustainable? There are no Applications Sets for HbbTV such as exist in Broadcast today there is a lot of Slideware. EPGs, Bound Applications, et al, even MHEG5 has a large portfolio but HbbTV has shown almost nothing. The UK obsession with the iPlayer which is a VOD service on the Internet - Specific to a single content provider has found favour in Europe…French TV etc has an equivalent. The whole fragmentation of Channels has arrived on the Internet…great now what? Make another “Standard” for interactive that does not need the internet? A complex business model is before all of us and so lets see if we can make it happen all over again or just repeat the past with another technology solution to the same problem. So what happened to Broadcasters that got caught out by not deploying anything over 10 years? The CE manufacturers came along with an RJ45 connector on board - Now they are stealing their Broadcast lunch (so we are led to believe)…shame on them (the broadcasters) they had the chance-could have selected any number of technologues and passed the pain barrier like the UK and Italy. They could have kept control of their market and not seen the hyped market meltdown that is predicted by Connected TV…But then we factor in the ubiquity of Broadband (its not 10% coverage anywhere in Europe) …ISP connection of proper European wide coverage capable of delivering Qos video speeds - tie that to different legislation in each country and EU regulations and we will see that there is a long way to go.

It is not Server Side Applications that are the issue, GEM and apparently HbbTV both do that…It is is the fact that an “Execution Engine” (A sort of virtual computer) resides in the GEM specification as its core. The Browser element which in 3 European deployments is a forerunner of CE-HTML called DVB-HTML…any other Browser can also reside in a GEM stack… and as a consequence you get the best of Java - Multi-Threading, Multi-Instance Applications AND WEB Browsing and all the server-side that HTML now seems to offer over HTTP…ironically the Japanese Broadcaster NHK have just dropped their HTML solution after 10 years in Japan and declared in a White Paper at IBC2009 that it was not as good as an Execution+Browser combination for STBs and iDTVs. Finally the DVB cannot just drop or walk away or ruin deployed Specifications without seriously impacting on businesses and Companies that have supported them… and as such it is careful how it evolves or devolves its portfolio.

Had the CE-HTML been offered up to the DVB correctly it may have seen it as a replacement for DVB-HTML and we would all be seeing a different landscape. But the CE Manufacturers have a different business agenda and in that more differences are opened in this complex fragmented Digital TV market. The more we knock each other over methodologies the more the fragmentation increases. At the end of it all it is all about revenue for unique solutions and the IPR a vendor can squeeze into a spec - this is all about - History nicely repeating itself.

]]> Comment on MHP was no GEM: the jewel in interactive TV’s crown is likely to be the Internet by Marnix Vlot http://www.connectedtv.eu/mhp-was-no-gem-the-jewel-in-interactive-tvs-crown-is-likely-to-be-the-internet-313/#comment-58686 Marnix Vlot Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:23:34 +0000 http://www.connectedtv.eu/mhp-was-no-gem-the-jewel-in-interactive-tvs-crown-is-likely-to-be-the-internet-313/#comment-58686 GEM has found a place in this world, mostly in systems which are at least in part one-way systems. In such systems the hig local interactivity that can be created with Java is important. However, in the broadcast world there have been very few interesting applications that can be built with one-way interactivity. True depth and richness of content is essential and can only be offered by a IP connection and a server (with typically regularly refreshed content). I.e. fundamental for the success for interactive applications are IP / server technology; the strenghts of one-way interactive functions are substantially less important. So IP / server based applications will be key and light clients are more flexible and more easy to target than heavy ones. The technology details are subtle: GEM, MHP, OCAP, HTML (+ javascript), even MHEG "can do many of the killer" app's as client engine to a server based application. The opening discussions around HbbTV (CE-HTML being critisized by MHP and MHEG technology companies) and the recent DVB statements are surreal in not acknowledging the server based application reality as being the crucial difference with the past. What is the most appropriate client presentation engine to target from a IP based interactve application server? GEM has found a place in this world, mostly in systems which are at least in part one-way systems. In such systems the hig local interactivity that can be created with Java is important.

However, in the broadcast world there have been very few interesting applications that can be built with one-way interactivity. True depth and richness of content is essential and can only be offered by a IP connection and a server (with typically regularly refreshed content). I.e. fundamental for the success for interactive applications are IP / server technology; the strenghts of one-way interactive functions are substantially less important. So IP / server based applications will be key and light clients are more flexible and more easy to target than heavy ones.

The technology details are subtle: GEM, MHP, OCAP, HTML (+ javascript), even MHEG “can do many of the killer” app’s as client engine to a server based application. The opening discussions around HbbTV (CE-HTML being critisized by MHP and MHEG technology companies) and the recent DVB statements are surreal in not acknowledging the server based application reality as being the crucial difference with the past. What is the most appropriate client presentation engine to target from a IP based interactve application server?

]]>