email signup

Syndication

TDG Opinions

Decoupling the Network from the Service

Decoupling the Network from the Service
Colin Dixon, Senior Partner, Advisory

April 29, 2011

I spent two days this week at a couple of conferences in New York City. The first was Light Reading’s “Cable’s Next-Gen Video Strategies,” the second was Seachange International’s “Monetizing Multi-Screen Video” that took place the day after just a few blocks away. Both conferences focused on PayTV operators and had an impressive line-up of speakers. Attendees were treated to discussions on topics such as a la carte channel sales, content licensing, and cord-cutting, and in both conferences the discussions were informative and interesting.

However, as the discussions proceeded I realized that the topics covered, though important, didn’t reflect the emerging reality of what’s happening to the industry: the decoupling of services (which we increasingly call “apps”) from the fabric that delivers them. This trend has huge ramifications for operators, content providers, and consumers yet it received no mention on any panel, presentation, or keynote.

The purchase of broadband (and mobile data plans) is quite unique in the pantheon of services available to consumers. Let’s review how it differs from other telecom services.

Historically, when a consumer purchased PayTV service the operator provided the service over a purpose-built network that was only used for that service. It was the same with phone service, mobile or wireline. The network and service were inseparable. If a consumer changed service providers she had to also change the physical network. This meant that the entire cost of the network had to borne by the single service that it delivered.

But that is not the case with broadband service. Outside of access to the Internet at “broadband” speeds, there is no specific “service” attached to the physical network, just a promise of throughput (upstream and downstream) for other Internet-based services and applications. Subscribers are renting access to the large, diverse marketplace of services available through the Internet. The core “service” (i.e., broadband access) is decoupled from the individual Internet-based services that can be enabled through a broadband connection, delivered “over-the-top,” meaning one can change broadband providers without changing the Internet services used, thus fueling the “dumb pipe” prognostications of the last decade.

So why is this important? Simply put, high-speed IP connections can transport a wide variety of services that replace older dedicated network services, and often at much lower cost. For example, voice communications are now a commodity service over broadband. A consumer can choose from many different vendors with many different flavors of service. Skype provides free and fee-based calling, while Vonage wants to replace your wireline phone, as does Ooma and Magic Jack. Even Facebook is getting into the act. And if I, as a consumer, want to change voice service at any time, I can do so without having to change my broadband service.

Although in its infancy, the signs are that OTT video will experience a similar future. Companies like Netflix and Hulu Plus are today offering subscription OTT video services, and others like VEVO and Revision3 are providing free ad-supported services. Many ethnic and niche channels are also available like Dish International Online and Wealth Channel (on Roku).

This is why decoupling the physical network from the service is so significant. A single broadband connection can deliver phone service, electronic books, my daily newspaper and, yes, my TV entertainment, as well. And because these over-the-top service providers don’t have to pay for the delivery network, the services are often much less expensive than facility-based incumbents.

For cable companies that have long relied on proprietary networks to mark out exclusive territories with legislated monopolies to sell consumers PayTV services, this is a difficult thing with which to grapple. But as Netflix is proving every day, in the world of quantum media, such physical advantages are meaningless. An OTT service with interesting content can, with the proper funding and a good idea, instantly compete on national basis.



ShareThis

Comments

 

Richard Reisman said:

This is right on.  What is amazing (to anyone who comes from the Web, not the MSO world) is that it still needs to be said!

I made a similar post, "The Distribution War to Come -- A Tale of Two Pipes" in 2006 at ucm.teleshuttle.com/.../distribution-war-to-come-tale-of-two.html.

My post ends with:

"The real value-add of a mediator between content provider and consumer is not in distribution, but in media concierge services. That is not what the incumbent distributors offer, and because of that, the game is changing. They will still bring us the content on their pipes, but it will increasingly shift to the open pipe, not the closed one. There may be walled gardens in the future, but they will be opt-in (like AOL's Web service), not the only game in your town (like Comcast or Time Warner Cable). We will spend some time in a transitional world of two pipes, as the old school players hold on as long as they can. But over time, the open pipe will dominate, and the owners of the pipes will largely revert to their natural role as common carriers."

"The content producers and the consumers have common cause to agree: we don't need your stinking walled gardens. They are an artifact of an age of a limited number of channels and limited connectivity, and that age has passed."

April 29, 2011 3:45 PM
 

Mark Goldstein said:

I completely agree that we will increasingly have the option and uptake for video over IP subscription plus a la carte services to the cable industry's chagrin. However, without big breakthroughs in the licensing of prime movie channels (HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.) and top line sports, the transition will remain spotty and slow. I would switch in a minute if prime movie channels were equally available. What is your vision and timeline for that transition?

April 29, 2011 3:57 PM
 

Peter Litman said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are some services typically delivered with a broadband access subscription - email, a portal (e.g., rr.com), personal website hosting, sometimes some bundled video content (ESPN3) and sometimes antivirus protection.

Also, while it is less of an issue for OTT phone applications like Vonage, quality of service is a big issue for OTT video versus the video services from the facilities-based incumbents.  Bandwidth caps make quantity of service an issue as well.

April 30, 2011 9:01 PM
 

Sam Vasisht said:

Colin, While you are correct that one does not need to ‘own’ a network now to deliver video services, that should not imply that the services are completely decoupled from the network ‘fabric’.   In fact, the opposite is the emerging reality – the Google-Verizon announcement in the context of NetNeutrality, Netflix throttling back resolution in Canada, ATT caps to Netflix traffic are all proof points that ultimately successful ubiquitous online video will have a lot to do with the network the underlies it.

In fact, the number of touch points between content services and the (layered) network are increasing, a fact easily overlooked when one ‘collapses’ the network and treats it like a monolithic ‘fat pipe’.  We have done a lot of work in this area (of networks adapting to video traffic), and one only needs to read the commentary on Cisco’s recent financial woes to get a glimpse of where they missed a turn on how networks are evolving in the context of video.

That said, the advantages you describe of not owning the network in order to deliver services accrues to the incumbents as well BTW.  Ergo, the ‘off network’ delivery of TV Everywhere. Look for more, not less interplay between services and the fabric despite the openness of the IP network versus the purpose built traditional broadcast networks.

May 3, 2011 1:10 AM

About Colin Dixon

 

Colin Dixon
Senior Partner, Advisory
Formerly: Senior Executive at Microsoft/Web TV, Liberate and Oracle

Colin Dixon is the senior partner for TDG’s advisory services. He is a Senior Technology Consultant with a background building and managing all aspects of a technical business. His extensive experience includes new media, communications, networking and network management - industries where he has a proven record of developing and delivering top quality products and services on time to meet market needs.

Colin has held senior executive positions at Microsoft/WebTV, Liberate and Oracle where he was responsible for technology and business teams delivering to the Cable, Satellite and IPTV industries. Over the last 15 years, he has led various corporate departments including engineering, business development, product and program management and marketing.

Colin is a published author and accomplished speaker including presentations at major industry shows such as NAB and IBC. He graduated from the University of Reading in England with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering. He holds a Masters in Engineering from the University of Florida and has post-graduate business education experience from Stanford.