Who Cares About IPTV Channel Change Speed?

I've had many conversations recently about the differentiating attributes of various IPTV service platforms. Many things come to mind-- service interactivity, web browsing, quantity and quality of content and applications, targeted advertising, triple/quad integration, etc. One characteristic that often gets bandied about is fast channel change speed. Let’s delve a little deeper into this concept.

First, if you accept the fact that, to be successful and enjoy decent uptake, IPTV service offerings from Telcos and other service providers will need to be differentiated from the traditional broadcast TV services of cable and satellite providers, one needs to challenge whether fast channel change will measure up to what is provided today. Folks like Microsoft promise improvements of about 50% or so for channel change speed, from 1-2 seconds to “under a second.” Several questions can be raised as to what the exact apples to apples comparison is (compared to cable or other IPTV service platforms) and whether a 500-800ms channel change is even good enough for a quality of experience that might motivate a subscriber to switch from cable.

Assuming there is some significant incremental value for fast channel change, the cost to deliver this value has to be analyzed. All of the information I have seen to date tells me that the incremental cost in terms of D-servers and other equipment to deliver this value is not worth it. IPTV service providers may find that the cost and scalability of this solution simply does not add up, and would only make sense for the high-end of the market willing to pay more for their IPTV service. The question remains whether operators will be able to allocate the equipment and cost of fast channel change to support only those subscribers willing to pay for it, rather than burdening the entire network and subscriber base with this cost.

The final, and I would argue most important, consideration with regard to fast channel change is exactly why you would need this in the first place. I don’t doubt the value relative to existing broadcast TV offerings. I only question the value relative to IPTV service offerings (which now exceed 7 million subscribers worldwide according to market research firm Infonetics). The problem is IPTV service offerings, again to be compelling and differentiating, will have huge numbers of assets to be managed. These will include hundreds of IPTV channels including HD, hundreds of DVR recordings, tens of thousands of VOD assets, PPV, music and other media, hundreds of games, many micro-applications, and potentially millions of YouTube-type internet video assets and internet TV channels and blogs. In this environment, it can be argued that “flipping channels” up and down to find the content or apps that you want is a prehistoric approach to the problem. More appropriate is having a very intuitive EPG with very fast universal search capability, with some level of personalization and artificial intelligence and subscriber profiling to help guide the viewer to the content they want to watch. In this world, channel change speed is an archaic metric; “time to find and watch” desired content is the correct metric. The goal here is to help the viewer think about, find, select, and tune the content they want (even sometimes when the viewer does not know in advance what that is). This needs to work independent of any determination of channel number or even asset type (e.g., live TV versus VOD). Increasingly, viewers are forgetting about at what channel their content is found (snap poll: name the channel number and network of your top 5 favorite shows; now do the same for your favorite VODs, DVRs, etc—can’t do it, can you?).

So to conclude, while fast channel change speed is indeed important for improving subscriber quality of experience, differentiating IPTV services with a multitude of content options would benefit most from fast scrolling, fast and intuitive navigation, and fast searching for content across all the different asset types. This can be done with next-generation interactive IPTV middleware systems without the need to burden the network with extra (and perhaps unnecessary) equipment.

-Brian Mahony

The opinions and views expressed in comments, blogs, etc. are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of TMC, TMCnet, or its editors. TMCnet reserves the right to edit, delete, or otherwise make changes to the content that appears on these pages at its own discretion and as it deems necessary.
| 5 Comments

Listed below are links to sites that reference Who Cares About IPTV Channel Change Speed?:

5 Comments

Thank you, Brian, for the thoughts.
To my mind it is mainly the Middleware system that affects channel change speed. Actually while developing our complete IPTV solution we have never experienced problems with that, i.e. the channel change speed is always enough (less than a second), and this doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

Thank you, Brian, for the thoughts.
To my mind it is mainly the Middleware system that affects channel change speed. Actually while developing our complete IPTV solution we have never experienced problems with that, i.e. the channel change speed is always enough (less than a second), and this doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

| Reply

Em:

It is not just the middleware that effects channel change speed but the video delivery infrastructure including D-servers, etc. Middleware does control "fast scrolling and search" which is application layer technology. Espial has among the fastest MW performance in the industry, without sacrificing openness and customizability of the UI. My comments were largely in regard to Microsoft's campaign on "fast zapping" which I just don't see to worth the extra expense and likely not the primary method viewers will be selecting their content in the future.

-Brian

Hi...yes, fast channel changing is important. And once you have it, you dont want to go back to the old way. Its not about speed per se. With AT&T U-verse which I have and blog about, there is a less mechanical feel to the process of channel changing.

So...you just gotta see and experience it.

Alan Weinkrantz
http://www.3screens.net

Alan:

I have heard great things about U-Verse and I don't deny that fast channel change adds alot to the user experience. My point really is it worth the extra cost? And will it be the primary method for navigating and selecting thousands of channels in the future? I think not. I think folks will want more of a Google/Youtube type of search experience to get to their content, and zapping, if cost-effective will be a bonus.

-Brian

Leave a comment

Subscribe to Blog

Recent Comments

  • Brian Mahony: Alan: I have heard great things about U-Verse and I read more
  • Alan Weinkrantz: Hi...yes, fast channel changing is important. And once you have read more
  • Brian Mahonu: Em: It is not just the middleware that effects channel read more
  • Em: Thank you, Brian, for the thoughts. To my mind it read more
  • Em: Thank you, Brian, for the thoughts. To my mind it read more

Categories

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Meredith Dundas published on April 9, 2007 1:52 PM.

What's wrong with the TV watching experience today? was the previous entry in this blog.

DVR Vs. Time-Shifted TV is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Meredith Dundas published on April 9, 2007 1:52 PM.

What's wrong with the TV watching experience today? was the previous entry in this blog.

DVR Vs. Time-Shifted TV is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Around TMCnet Blogs

Latest Whitepapers

TMCnet Videos