blogABELISM

Or, almost no local HD News in DC...this really bugs me. Here we are in the Nation’s Capitol (DMA#9) and only ONE commercial TV station has converted to HDTV for local news. The HD standard was set by the FCC in 1996…so, nearly 12 years have passed and ONLY ONE TV station in Washington, DC has converted to local HDTV production and origination.

The lone exception is WUSA (Channel 9, the Gannett CBS affiliate). I was not a big fan of WUSA’s local news UNTIL they made the switch, now THREE years ago (May 2005) to HDTV local origination. The WUSA newscasts look remarkably good and much more inviting to watch than the local news on the other channels, especially on my HDTV displays.

So much for competition…three years have gone by and NO OTHER commercial station is broadcasting local news in HD!!!

Shocking, disturbing…makes me wonder what kind of commitment the other DC stations have to providing the best that broadcasting has to offer. I don’t get it.

While I’m on this topic, it's also shocking that the CBS Evening News is not produced and distributed in HD. There are lots of reasons why Katie Couric is not doing well, but certainly one of them is that the Evening News is NOT in HD. A major reason that I watch Brian Williams (NBC Nightly News) is that the newscast is in HD.

Again, shocking…given that CBS was such a big promoter of HDTV when the standard was being debated. What happened? HDTV is not important even if your competitor is broadcasting in HDTV? What gives?

An axiom: Broadcasting is content and distribution. I heard this axiom many, many years ago and I liked it so much that I took it as one of my own. Broadcasting is content and distribution.

This axiom has served the broadcasting industry very well, and then along came other industries that modeled themselves after broadcasting. The cable industry, for example. The cable industry built their network of subscribers on the basis of taking content from broadcast stations and distributing it to subscribers…taking something that was free and charging cable subscribers for the content. Over time, this became a love-hate relationship between the broadcasting and cable industries. Later, the cable industry found that they could make more money by creating some of their own content and distributing that content along with broadcast station content. For the cable industry, satellite distribution ironically created an entirely new market for cable MSOs in the 1970’s…HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and then wrestling and other sports made cable what it is today. Cable was (and is) content and distribution. The very technology and architecture of the classic cable system was based on the broadcast model: content and distribution.

Next in line was the Direct-to-Home satellite industry that took cable and broadcast programming and distributed it directly to the home. It is ironic that the technology that gave the cable industry such a great leap forward (satellite distribution) later comes along to erode the cable subscriber marketplace by distributing content directly to the home via satellite. Satellite broadcasting is about content and distribution.

And then along comes the telecom industry (or telecom industries). For the consumer market, the telecom companies are coming at content and distribution from a different history and background than either the cable or satellite industries. Telecom comes from the world of distributing voice and data and is less influenced by the broadcasting model. The world of telecom has been to focus on distribution and less on the content. In fact, under the old view of telecom (the common carrier view), the telecom carriers was to keep their hands off the content and simply provide the distribution pipes. This tension between content and distribution for telecom companies still exists today…the telecom companies do not have a clear way to define themselves…will they become content companies or will they stay in the distribution world?

Initially, telecom companies, as they deployed broadband networks, were reacting to the cable industry. The cable industry slowly awakened over the 1990’s and began to comprehend what they had in those big bandwidth distribution pipes. They could provide Internet access and plain old telephone service as well as video. The cable pipes did not look much different than the pipes controlled/owned by the telecom companies. Telecom companies reacted…if cable could provide Internet access and voice services, then telecom companies could provide video services. We’re sort of back to the essence of broadcasting: content and distribution.

And then the Internet and “new media”…also about content and distribution. We have telecom companies (including cable) to thank for bringing us the Internet at high speeds and we have millions of people to thank for the content. The Internet and new media tend to follow the broadcasting axiom: it’s about content and distribution. At the present time, the Internet is not quite yet built to be a direct substitute for broadcasting, but it is nearly so. And I think all of us that rely on the Internet think that it will ultimately replace broadcasting in terms of content and distribution.

Now, what does all of this have to do with the NAB Show? To me, the NAB show is about content and distribution. All of the industries that have tried over the past 50 years to emulate broadcasting’s focus on content and distribution have cultivated their businesses at the NAB Show…learning at the NAB Show…buying equipment at the NAB Show…doing deals with other content owners and distribution operators at the NAB Show. So, today, the NAB Show is the centerpiece of those who seek to develop and create content and distribute that content to end users.

Distribution tends to be more of a technology issue than is content. And most distribution issues can be solved, perhaps not without pain, but they can be solved. Clever engineers can solve almost any distribution issue in wireless or wired technologies. It’s not so easy to move from standard definition content (as we now call it) to HDTV, but it can be done. It’s not so easy to put content on a mobile phone, but it can be done through hardware and software technology. And today with the Internet and multiple wireless and wireline technologies, distribution issues are rapidly solved. Even the average consumer can distribute their content with relative ease.

BUT, content…that’s a different story. The development of content is a creative process that is not so easily mapped or understood or learned. Picking hit shows for network TV has never been easy or well understood. It’s sort of like picking hot stocks on the stock market. Taking an idea or a concept and making it into video and sound is not so easy. The tools can be understood, but the creative mind to use the tools in a unique way to make content compelling is mostly a mystery.

This is why the NAB Show is the most intellectually interesting trade show that I attend. Several years ago, when I ran the NAB Show, we used to have the radio and television transmitter companies (and all of the infrastructure for distribution…towers, antennas, transmission line, trucks, etc.,) concentrated physically in the North and Central Halls of the Las Vegas Convention Center. A few exhibitors approached me about creating something that eventually became “MultiMedia World” and was located at the Sands Expo (although it first launched in the Las Vegas Hilton). We used to say that more than a few blocks of Las Vegas separated these two worlds…the old world of broadcasting and the new world of broadcasting. MultiMedia World also eventually dominated the NAB Show and the physical aspects of distribution (transmission line, transmitters, antennas, towers, etc.) faded and became secondary. I think this is because the creation of content is more of a mystery. There is no one best way to create new content.

It really IS about the content. At the time of the launch, MultiMedia World was perceived as many different things: “high tech,” “digital,” “computer companies,” “new media,” etc. The one unique aspect that came from MultiMedia World is that it was about content. How to prepare content? How to edit content? How to produce and post-produce content? How to use a computer? How to manipulate and generate graphics? How to make video sizzle! How can we take someone’s creative ideas and make them compelling?

The NAB Show is about the “back office” (to use a telecom term) of content. It is where content is taken from concept to a script to a story board to a production to post-production and eventually is a video and audio presentation that communicates a message, or makes people cry or laugh…it takes content and the content moves emotions and intelligence. Today, distribution can be achieved through many, many different channels and I’d point out that nearly all of these new distribution networks rely on telecom networks. But beyond distribution (which is easy to solve)…it is that the NAB Show also spawns many other aspects of video creation and distribution…the business models.

I know of no other trade show that does exactly what the NAB Show achieves. It’s one thing to see the final product (as you might see at NATPE) or it’s another thing to see devices on which content is displayed (as you might see at CES)…but where else do you see content come to life? Where else do you see content move from concept to a finished product and see it distributed across many different communication channels and supported through a variety of business models?

Back to that telecom industry. Many times over the past year I’ve been in discussions where we discuss the definition of the new telecom industry…or lamenting that the current crop of telecom companies has little definition. “They don’t know how to define themselves.” Telecom is trying to deal with content and distribution…a newer form of broadcasting, one that has more interactivity and the ability to more narrowly target the content to specialized audiences…even an audience of one.

If you are in the telecom field and you are serious about providing video services…you are on the road to being part of what has been called broadcasting…you are entering the content and distribution domain…then you must be at the NAB Show. The NAB Show is about content and distribution.

Team Lightbulb is producing a conference at this year’s NAB Show called Telecom2008. This event is a continuation of a conference that we first started at the NAB Show in 2007 that is designed for telecom professionals. Telecom2008 is almost entirely focused on IPTV and broadband video and we concentrate on video because the NAB Show is absolutely the best trade show in the world to learn about the complexities of video content development, production, editing, management, delivery and distribution.

As we did in 2007 we issued a call for papers and presentations to be offered at Telecom2008. We solicited papers from a wide audience of telecom carriers and vendors. Not surprisingly, we received far more paper proposals from vendors than we did from carriers, nearly 300 proposals in all.

Looking through these paper proposals I noticed a decided shift from last year. First, there were far more submissions focused on differentiating IPTV from linear cable and satellite video services and from traditional broadcasting. Second, there were far more papers that focused on how IPTV will change or is changing the nature of advertising. In fact, we received nearly 30 papers on some aspect of advertising in an all IPTV world. We should have created a separate track for these advertising papers, but we decided against this because we did not have enough time to really create a compelling track. Maybe next year.

The single largest number of paper proposals fell into the category of quality of service or ensuring quality of service or quality of the consumer experience. Probably about 40% of all paper proposals were in this category.

The quantity of papers on IPTV and advertising surprised me and many of these papers will be presented at Telecom2008. Some of the titles are ominous. Perhaps the most ominous title is one from IBM called “The End of Advertising as We Know It” which will be presented by J. D. Zeeman of IBM on Wednesday at 4:35 p.m. But there are others that hint at the opportunity for the delivery architecture of IPTV to permit more tailored, more personalized, more customized, more relevant advertising content for end users. There is an underlying theme here of moving some parts of the web advertising experience over to the IPTV network architecture. How can we more easily target the advertising to end users by marrying search on the web with tailored video presentations in the IPTV system? Overall, I notice a trend in the proposals to merging web-based (web 2.0) and IPTV technologies.

Another interesting session that hits this topic is called “Using Real Time Feedback to Generate IPTV Revenue.” This session is on Monday at 9:40 to 10:15 a.m. and the presenter is David Hunt of Conklin-Intracom. David is going to talk about direct and immediate feedback that can measure the reach and effectiveness of TV advertisements. This is a unique application of IPTV in the sense that it is using the power of IPTV to measure the impact of traditional TV advertising.

Advertising may be the place where IPTV will have the biggest and most immediate impact. When advertising is changed, altered or targeted, it strikes at a very significant and sensitive component of the media support system. Advertisers are hungry to learn about how they can get access to those in their target. If Honda knew that I was interested in a specific model (like the Honda Pilot) and they could tailor Honda Pilot advertising to me, then I’d be worth far more in that target than I would be as a member of a larger, mass audience.

The point is that mass advertising is under threat. We see this in terms of all broadcast media (newspapers, radio, and television and to a lesser extent mass audience magazines). At least advertising is under threat of changing; advertising will always be here but it may be totally different and mass media (like newspapers and broadcasting) do not have a very direct relationship with the end user. The mass media tend to have relationships with advertisers first and end users second. This is not true in more personalized content (like web content).

IPTV will be very powerful if it shakes the economic foundation of traditional media. The foundation is shaking now, but I sense that we are still in the early days of how targeted and customized advertising to users will alter the support system. I can’t wait to hear J.D. Zeeman talk about “The End of Advertising as We Know It."

Television broadcasters (meaning those local station operators) have found a new source of revenue FINALLY. It’s called “retransmission consent” or the consent that is given by a broadcast TV station to carry the signal on other distribution systems, like cable or a telecom provided video service. When the cable/telecom video operator goes to the broadcaster to obtain the “consent” to carry the broadcast TV station, the broadcaster responds that “sure, you can carry our signal, but it will cost you X per month per subscriber.” As you can imagine, it’s slightly more complicated than this because of coverage areas of TV stations and the tussle in the broadcaster’s mind between “must carry” and “consent.”

These deals are always very confidential and I’m not privy to any of them, but the word is that the going rate for carriage is usually about 50 cents per month per subscriber.

In any event, my gut tells me that telecom operators (those telecom companies operating subscription video services) are woefully uninformed about the ins and outs of broadcast TV “retransmission consent” and “must carry.”

We’re working to rectify that situation. We worked with John Hane and Scott Flick of the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman to do two things for us. First, we asked them to conduct a webinar on this topic and that webinar (Effective Retransmission Negotiations) is scheduled for Tuesday, April 1 at Noon EDT. The webinar is one hour and you can watch it right from your desk on your computer. There is no charge for the webinar; it’s free, but there is a limit to the number of seats available. You can register here.

I have known these two lawyers for many years and I can tell you that they know what they’re talking about. If you want the straight talk about the details of retransmission consent you will want to hear from John and Scott; they are experts. Even better, Scott is a graduate of Indiana University.

As a follow up to the webinar, John Hane is also conducting a session at Telecom2008 called Retransmission Agreements: What Every Telecom Company Needs to Know. This session will have at least one broadcaster and one telecom operator on the panel to talk about retransmission consent negotiations and what they mean. This session is on Monday, April 14 at 4:35 to 5:30 p.m. in Room N234/236 in the Las Vegas Convention Center. To gain access, you will need to register for Telecom2008. Telecom2008 is a part of the NAB Show.

Special Note to Telecom Operators: You have no excuse as to why you are not informed on the topic of “retransmission consent.” Check out the webinar and check out Telecom2008 at the NAB Show. See you on the webinar and see you in Las Vegas.

The time is ripe for something dramatic to happen to Sprint Nextel; I don’t think it is if something will happen, but when. Here are some options:

• Nextel is spun off to preserve what’s left of the loyal base of Nextel subscribers

This might be in the works, but who knows from the twisted way in which Sprint and Nextel came together in a merger. These are vestiges of the old days of “wireless cowboys” who were more interested in their egos and the “coolness” of wireless than they were in making the merger work. Mergers of so-called equals rarely work and it definitely does not work with egos that made up the original Nextel group. And Sprint was not without blame…the perfect storm of corporate mindset meets cowboy mindset.

• Sprint alone or Sprint Nextel is sold to Verizon

I thought this made sense even before the Sprint-Nextel merger. Both Verizon and Sprint are CDMA and the merging of these networks would be very, very easy, at least on the technology side. Perhaps the barriers are that Verizon Wireless is 45% owned by Vodafone, so probably a purchase of Sprint would not have been so easy to accomplish. Another barrier might have been the fear of government concerns about market concentration, although that has not been of much concern during this Administration.

• Verizon buys out their share of Verizon Wireless from Vodafone and Vodafone buys Sprint (or Sprint Nextel)

I have to assume that Verizon would love to get Vodafone out of the picture. A variation of this option is that a new partnership is formed between Vodafone and Verizon and the new partnership purchases Sprint Nextel. Verizon could use this as a method to remove Vodafone from the Verizon Wireless ownership fold.

• Sprint or Sprint Nextel is sold to Deutsche Telekom

T-Mobile in the U.S. is one of the best parts of Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile is small, but my impression is that they are extremely well run and have been among the most adventuresome of the U.S. wireless carriers. They have stirred the pot many times through their wireless offerings. T-Mobile and Sprint-Nextel does not make as much sense from a technology standpoint given that T-Mobile is GSM and Sprint-Nextel is CDMA/iDEN. But, DT has the financial clout to pull this off. Perhaps there is some concern about foreign ownership, or whether the government would approve of a foreign buyer for Sprint Nextel.

• Sprint or Sprint Nextel is purchased by Google

Perhaps more will be revealed after the 700-Mhz auction results are made public, but whether Google does or does not acquire spectrum through auction, they still could be a buyer.

• Sprint of S-N is purchased by a major cable MSO (like Comcast or Comcast plus others)

This would be the best opportunity for a major cable MSO to truly get into wireless and take the next step to being a telecom carrier competitor to AT&T, Verizon and others.

This is a blatant, unabashed and unsolicited testimonial for Packet8’s Virtual Office for small business. Neither I nor my company is receiving any compensation in any form for this unsolicited endorsement. How dumb are we? My company, Team Lightbulb(TM), has been a user of Packet8’s Virtual Office service for about 16 months now and it has been remarkably good for the price that we are paying. I hope I don’t jinx us or the service by saying that we’d even say the Packet8 service has been outstanding.

We have four extensions (three are unlimited calling in the U.S. and Canada and one is a metered extension) and we also have the conference bridge feature. The conference bridge has a limit of 20 participants, but it is fantastic for the unbelievably low price of about $6.00 - $7.00 per month. We have used the conference bridge for conference calls with individuals all over the world and the voice quality and ease of establishing the conference is outstanding. It is far better than conferencing services that I have used in other business operations and is much easier to learn and maintain. Of course we have the Virtual Attendant. We are sort of the bare bones of Packet8’s Virtual Office. We don’t have the FAX service and we don’t have most of the other bells and whistles like the Softalk Office. Actually, there are a very, very large number of services and features that are available through Packet8. In addition, the online provisioning of most of these services is outstanding.

The phones were extremely easy to set up and the handsets are quite easy to learn and have worked flawlessly.

We have unified messaging so our voicemails end up in our Outlook inbox for listening or we can dial in to retrieve the voicemail messages. We do NOT have the full integration with Outlook Contacts where we would have screen pops and direct dialing out of Contacts and we haven’t done this because we are fearful that our machines will be overwhelmed and slowed by this feature.

Within the first couple of months that we signed up for service we did experience a few voice quality issues, but since those early days, we have experienced nearly flawless service.

I’m sure that the voice quality is heavily dependent upon the broadband service and the routers used but voice quality has really not been an issue.

You are probably wondering about the Packet8 customer service. It’s been good but we have not used customer service very much. We did use it to set up our Conference Bridge and that experience was good. Difficult to say that the customer service is outstanding since we just have not used it that much.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t hear the current candidates for President saying much about broadband. I’m not expecting broadband to be a higher priority issue than the war in Iraq, healthcare, immigration, the economy and maybe some other issues, but I have just not heard even one of the candidates talk about broadband. Even worse, I have not heard any candidate talk about broadband as even part of the “solution” for these other higher priority issues. For example, I’ve heard no candidate talk about how broadband could help provide better healthcare through monitoring of vital signs like blood pressure or sugar levels or any other vitals. Or how broadband can help doctors from far away places who are experts in a field use telemedicine to assist with specialized care and treatment.

And I’ve heard nothing from the candidates about how broadband might help with our national economy. I thought broadband was at least part of the solution for an expanding economy. Is this a failure of the candidates or is the failure of the ISPs and telecom companies, providing the necessary information to candidates? Perhaps the telecom companies would prefer that broadband not be mentioned as an “issue” because of their fear of Internet regulation. Sort of the “let sleeping dogs lie” approach to policy. Or perhaps broadband is just not an issue.

Nonetheless, I think it is strange….wouldn’t the country’s communication infrastructure be a subject that should be fleshed out in policy statements? Wouldn’t broadband be worth a mention in terms of helping to address other issues?

I went to the official web sites of Obama, Clinton and McCain and I’d have to say that in terms of the “words” on broadband, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at least have “issue” sections that give a glancing blow to broadband policies. Their policy statements are quite general and not very prominent. On the McCain site I saw even less about broadband, although I did see broadband and wireless mentioned in a not-very-recent speech.

I’m not sure what this means. Perhaps broadband is just not an issue.

I’m speaking of the announcement by three major wireless carriers, within hours of each other, that they would offer “all you can eat,” unlimited wireless plans for a flat monthly fee.

How is it that if I call a telecom company to come repair something in my home or office it takes three weeks for them to get here with multiple calls in between? BUT, when one of the big guys acts, then within hours they can all announce their own plans. It’s enough to make an anti-trust lawyer sit up and take notice. One could be very suspicious, right?

I’m not going there. I have another theory (and it’s only a theory; I have no inside information) about how these announcements came about within hours of each other.

BTW, these unlimited calling plans have been rumored for months, but I think most of the rumors were a reaction to one man.

They all wanted to be prepared for what they thought would be the plans of one man, Dan Hesse of Sprint. Dan Hesse (when he was with AT&T) was the first wireless executive to come up with the concept of a bucket of minutes for one price and then extra per-minute charges if the subscriber went over that bucket amount. (Dan Hesse is the CEO of Sprint.)

When Dan Hesse went to Sprint, the expectation among the other carriers is that he would shake up the industry by announcing exactly what Verizon, then AT&T and then T-Mobile announced within hours of each other. Dan’s plan, they all thought, would be a flat fee for unlimited wireless calling.

But, Verizon made the first move. Quickly, AT&T and T-Mobile pulled out their plans and bingo, it was done within hours of each other.

The irony is that Sprint has not yet announced such a plan. I wonder if Dan has something else up his sleeves.

Another BTW about Dan Hesse. Dan had just about the best line that I’ve heard ever delivered by an executive in a public speech (he did this when he was CEO of Embarq). Dan said (and I’m paraphrasing here) when talking about AT&T’s proclamation in one of their advertising campaigns that AT&T/Cingular had the fewest dropped calls. Dan said: this is like someone saying that they are the tallest of the dwarfs.

VoIP booming???? John, do you need your meds? What are you thinking that VoIP could be about to boom?

Here’s my take.

Standalone VoIP providers have not done well, at least in terms of failure to acquire subscribers. SunRocket went out of business along with a few others. Vonage is usually pointed to as the biggest success, but they only have a couple of million subscribers…a drop in the ocean of wireline subs. I have the impression that most of the VoIP services provided by major telecom carriers also are not signing up many subs. The only moderate success among VoIP providers might be cable companies that have been successful since the turn of the century, but most of their success is tied to putting together the bundle of Internet-phone-cable TV services. Who can make money in wireline voice services, VoIP or POTS?

So, if standalone providers and the major carriers are not doing well with VoIP services, why would I say that VoIP is going to boom?

The biggest hurdle to VoIP adoption is inertia. Most wireline voice subs simply do not want to make a change from their existing carrier. They will add wireless to the mix or they will add Internet access, but they don’t want to make a major change to their voice service if it is working well. The savings are just not that great and consumers don’t want to run the risk of a major voice meltdown, or they are fearful of potential number changes, or whatever. It’s just easier to keep doing what you’re doing now…and maybe add that wireless phone.

I believe that this is about to change and I think the coming VoIP boom is directly linked to wireless. Here’s why.

Ask any “wireless-only user” what they dislike most about their wireless service and they will say something like: “it does not work well in my home or apartment,” or “it does not work well in my office or place of business.” One of the biggest problems with wireless is indoor reception. Admittedly, there are other issues such as the carrier contracts, dropped calls, etc. I seem to recall reading a research study where it was estimated that 70% of wireless calls originate or terminate inside of buildings.

Earlier I wrote about my own experience with the T-Mobile HotSpot@Home service where my wireless T-Mobile phone service can be used over wi-fi networks. This phone and service have been great. I’ve had no problems using this phone or the service on any wi-fi network, including wi-fi networks in other countries. I’ve made many “free” calls or calls that have not counted against my bucket of minutes. Of course, all of these wi-fi-based calls have been VoIP. At my home, the T-Mobile HotSpot@Home calls are completed by going through Verizon’s FiOS broadband. The wi-fi signal strength throughout my home is outstanding across three levels and immediately around the outside of the house.

Wireless carriers want to ultimately solve the indoor reception problem and wi-fi is one solution, but the next big solution to be announced will be femtocells. The goal is to “perfect” the indoor reception of wireless phones and wireless data services.

I’m headed to the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in a few days and I’m expecting to see femtocells on display. Ultimately, I think we are likely to see two forms of femtocells. One form will be a femtocell box that connects to the home network router or gateway and then a second form that will be all bundled together (femtocell, modem, router). But both forms will make it possible to originate and terminate calls inside the home over the home’s broadband connection.

There is considerable work being done now with femtocells. One of the major goals here is to have femtocells work with existing handsets as opposed to being required to have a new handset for FMC applications (such as my T-Mobile handset that is capable of working on wi-fi and T-Mobile’s cellular network). My guess is that 3G phones are likely to work with femtocells but that older phones will not work with femtocells.

The end result of perfecting indoor wireless coverage is that most wireless calls made and received inside of buildings/homes will be delivered over broadband and thus are VoIP calls. As more wireless devices are in the marketplace, more and more of them will be communicating over broadband networks when they are inside of buildings/homes. Broadband will rule, VoIP will rule and the end result will be more growth in wireless and broadband and true FMC will be realized.

Who will get hurt or helped by the deployment of femtocells?

On the hurt side it’s probably easy. The biggest losers from femtocell deployments will be wireline voice carriers. It would seem that femtocell deployment will provide another reason for wireline voice users to drop their dedicated voice lines and move to broadband and wireless. I also think that standalone VoIP providers (like Vonage) will be hurt by the arrival of femtocells.

On the help side, femtocells will provide a big boom to several segments, including broadband providers, wireless providers, phone manufacturers and probably data providers because wireless phones will be better data terminals if they have better connections than most users enjoy now inside of buildings. Just think about it, wireless providers will significantly increase their capacity through the use of femtocells since wireless calls placed over femtocells will be traveling over broadband connections rather than the cellular network.

I’ll let you know after CES what I saw there, but my guess is that femtocells will be available by mid to late 2008.

My company produced a webinar for the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) last week. The webinar was titled: “IPTV: The Time is Now” and was sponsored by Minerva Networks. Presenting on the webinar were three individuals:

Bob Larribeau, Principal Analyst with TelecomView
Walt Davis, Director of Product Management for IP PRIME with SES AMERICOM
Matt Cuson, VP of Marketing for Minerva Networks

This webinar was a great update on the current status of IPTV worldwide, on headend developments and new ways to use an all-IP network.

Bob Larribeau had some statistics on the “growth in TelcoTV.” According to Bob’s numbers, in 2003 there were 600,000 telco TV subscribers worldwide, with 42% in North America, 35% in Asia and 23% in Europe.

For 2007, Bob puts those numbers at 8.0 million subscribers with 15.6% in North America, 27.4% in Asia, 54.1% in Europe and 2.9% in the remainder of the world.

Two companies have more than 1.0 million subs (Free and France Telecom both in France), four companies with between 500,000 and 1.0 million subs (PCCW in Hong Kong, Verizon, Neuf Cegetel in France and Telefonica in Spain). Twenty additional companies have between 100,000 and 500,000 subs.

Bob had some other interesting statistics on telco TV.

Walt Davis talked about the continuing challenges to acquire content and made many, many points about the value of the headend planning.

Matt talked about how costs are dropping and how the power of the fully IP network is being exploited with new applications.

There is no charge for this webinar and it is available online.

The webinar is well worth the time to watch and listen…it’s just under an hour in length. There were over 500 individuals registered for this event.