IP video

Network Infrastructure

Mux 3.0 and the Post-Canoe Future of EBIF

May 1, 2012 : BY Motorola

Author: Steve Musallam, Product Manager, Network Infrastructure

The first version of a new specification called Mux 3.0 is due out soon, and with it comes an interesting debate about the future of Enhanced TV Binary Interchange Format (EBIF) and interactive advertising and applications for television. Since Canoe shut down its interactive ad initiative, the reaction cycle has progressed from mourning to resilience and optimism. However, while many have pointed out cable operators’ continued interest in regional interactive advertising efforts (Todd Spangler first among them), few have highlighted the collaborative industry efforts taking place to make these interactive capabilities possible, both under the umbrella of advertising and outside it.

To take a step back, the interactive applications delivered by operators today rely on EBIF. In a world that is increasingly shifting toward IP delivery, millions upon millions of homes still rely on traditional set-tops (without IP connectivity) for television service. While second-screen apps are growing in popularity, both programmers and cable companies want an avenue for addressing and engaging viewers directly through the TV as well. The widely deployed EBIF spec allows this, and operators are focusing heavily on applications that take advantage of the technology.

EBIF alone, however, doesn’t address certain delivery issues that come with attaching enhanced and interactive applications to TV content. For that, we need Mux 3.0.

Mux 3.0 is a specification being developed to deal with many of the management and reporting functions that come up around EBIF applications. Specifically, Mux 3.0 addresses application source management, application authorization, bandwidth management, and reporting on application delivery. These are all of the nitty gritty details that make interactive applications possible, but until now there’s been no uniform approach for managing the end-to-end process. The engineers behind Mux 3.0, including many of us at Motorola, are working to change that and to take interactive television mainstream.

Mux 3.0 is a collaborative effort, and one that will help to extend the capabilities of existing cable infrastructure. On the long road to IP, that competitive advantage is critical, and cable operators should do everything possible to leverage it. Canoe may have gone a different way, but EBIF and interactive applications for TV – from telescoping ads to polling and other synchronized content – are still very much alive. Stay tuned for more information in the coming weeks.


Other Resources:

Product Information: Motorola CherryPicker CAP-1000

{ 1 comment }

Network Infrastructure

Author: John Holobinko, Vice President of Strategy and Business Development

Five years ago, before video streams began to make up a large percentage of the overall packets on data connections, it was relatively easy to predict and manage IP capacity.  While data streams can benefit from high data speeds, they are very bursty in nature and are quite tolerant of slow downs, delays and packet losses.  With the rise of YouTube and other over-the-top (OTT) services, video viewership leads the pack with the greatest percentage of traffic during peak periods on IP access networks. 

We’re in for another change—soon.

As YouTube and other similar sites have matured, videos are becoming increasingly longer in duration,   meaning that the persistence of these streams is growing.  Netflix, Hulu, TV Everywhere and similar services have much longer persistency than YouTube.  At the same time, the number of smart TVs and other IP-enabled consumer devices capable of accessing this content is mushrooming.  As a result, the overall persistency of IP video streams is growing, thereby reducing any benefits derived from oversubscription of the access network.

Another complication is that the types of video traffic are expanding, and IP device behaviors are not conducive to efficient utilization of access network bandwidth.  A case in point is IP video devices that support adaptive streaming.  Basically, these devices tell the network what IP video transmission speed they desire and the network responds.  However, this mechanism is ripe for misbehavior. Why? Many manufacturers have designed their IP consumer devices to request far more bandwidth than is necessary to support their screen resolutions.  The result is that network congestion can occur with far fewer devices than would be the theoretical ideal.

To make things even more complicated, the need for new video formats will drive further variations in traffic types and speeds.  Currently, Motorola and others are working to establish the next generation compression standard, HEVC, which is intended to reduce further the bandwidth required for high definition video and to support “4HD” TV.  The first TVs capable of displaying 4000-line television were shown at the Consumer Electronics show this year.  Therefore, there will be both negative and positive effects from HEVC on network bandwidth consumption.

One thing is perfectly clear: the old data oversubscription models that were used to estimate network capacity are no longer relevant. 

Motorola is continuing to model IP access network behaviors in light of these evolutionary changes. While we can correlate the results to historical data from actual networks, we will need to conduct advanced simulations to confirm predictions of how networks will behave with the added complexities of new device behaviors and new video formats.

Related Articles:

5 Reasons Why Multicast Video Won’t Save Bandwidth in an IP World—Part 1 and Part 2

From CPU to Silicon—Video Transcoding Reaches a Tipping Point

 

{ 1 comment }

Network Infrastructure

Author: Gerry White, Chief Architect, Network Infrastructure

There is a lot of industry attention focused on multicast video delivery over IP, but as I noted in an earlier post, there are several reasons why IP multicasting in the access network isn’t likely to offer a strong return on investment. First, there’s the issue of low IP video penetration numbers, and second, there’s the content growth factor across both on-demand and linear viewing.

Continuing the discussion, we see three other trends impacting potential gains from IP multicasting.

3. The advent and evolution of multi-screen viewing further dilutes bandwidth savings. Consumers are now viewing video on new mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones. Any given program must therefore be delivered in a multitude of different formats, each as its own multicast stream. This reduces each multicast pool and has the same effect as reducing service group size.

4. In addition to place-shifting, there’s also TV time-shifting. Consumers now expect to be able to watch TV programming at a time that’s most convenient for them. As we migrate to IP video services, every IP device will be able to time-shift using cloud-based DVR services. This has a double impact as it simultaneously reduces the audience (and hence any possible multicast gain) for the live stream, and it requires a unicast stream per viewer for the deferred delivery.

5. Finally, there’s targeted advertising. MSOs expect to be able to monetize IP video with targeted advertising. However, in order to customize advertising, operators need to be able to generate streams for different advertising groups, or even individual viewers. Once again, this reduces the size of the multicast pools and pushes the needle toward unicast video delivery.

In the early days of IP video, the number of devices leveraging unicast-based adaptive bitrate protocols and IP penetrations are low, so there is no need for or benefit from multicast delivery. With the trends discussed above—even after the shift to IP is complete—there may still be very limited bandwidth savings from multicast available in the access network.

Additional Resources:

Video: Introduction to Multicast and Unicast Video Delivery  

Infographic: Motorola Mobility Media Engagement Barometer

{ 0 comments }

Network Infrastructure

Author: Gerry White, Chief Architect, Network Infrastructure

Broadcast video has been the mainstay of the cable industry for decades. The advent of switched digital video introduced multicast switching as an alternative delivery to broadcast for linear TV content. At the same time, we’ve seen the growing popularity of video on demand and over the top IP-video based on adaptive bit rate protocols which have added unicast video delivery to the mix.

As the industry starts the migration to IP, the question of which delivery model to use in the future is up for debate. There are inherent bandwidth advantages to broadcast and multicast models, but only if some basic conditions are met. First, there have to be enough IP viewers in a subscriber service group to make multicast streaming worthwhile, and second, there have to be few enough popular content choices so that a core group of viewers will want to watch the same shows at the same time.

  1. To the first point, initial IP video penetration will be small. An IP video  bandwidth model developed at Motorola Applied Research Labs showed that there is no substantial benefit from multicast until we exceed more than 100 active IP video viewers per service group [see graph] even when program types are limited to only two formats: SD and HD, they need to support various DRMs, smart devices and streaming types that will exist. When penetration of IP video services is low we are operating in the lower left region of the graph, the area where any multicast gain can be expected. As IP video penetration grows over time, this could be expected to improve as the number of active viewers increase, but this will be counteracted by the trend of shrinking node sizes which will limit the overall size of IP video service groups and, hence, the potential benefits from multicast.
  2. To the second point, there is more and more content being made available to consumers. Operators continue to offer more video selections for both on-demand and live linear viewing, along with better guides and user interfaces to access them. More live linear programs dilute the multicast gains by spreading viewers over more programs.

There are additional reasons to believe that multicast IP video won’t result in bandwidth savings as well. In an upcoming post, we’ll examine three more trends pushing the needle toward unicast delivery as the cable industry starts the shift to IPTV.

Check out a video of Gerry White discussing Multicast and Unicast Video Delivery

 

{ 2 comments }