Sunday, December 30, 2012

The telephone takes on satellite TV

July 03, 2011
For an informed view on connected entertainment in the UK & Ireland, visit Cue Entertainment 


Freeview has brought digital television into almost every home in Britain but the worry is that the digital switchover is too little, too late.

Judged as a replacement for analogue TV, the operation has proved a success, with more channels and more features than ever before. After six years of meticulous planning by the not-for-profit organisation Digital UK, the project is on time and on target for completion next year. Despite the budgeted cost of around £1.5 billion, there has been a creditable under-spend by Digital UK and public service broadcasters. So, well done everybody, now we can sit back and watch TV.

With the end of analogue transmission, however, TV broadcasting on the UHF band becomes an expensive and wasteful way to cover the UK. Daily Mail readers are among many people who have been told they have less than they bargained for. “Viewers with the latest TVs will need to pay £170 for high definition channels,” the newspaper trumpeted last year.

Nagging doubts are whispered for the moment in the background but their insistence increases. They question if terrestrial broadcasting is the best use of resources when large quantities of energy must be pumped into the ether to service a tiny audience. They ponder whether, if we had kept analogue TV on the air and invested in high-speed broadband, we might now be the world leader in connected TV. They suggest that if everyone watches TV via the internet these days anyway, perhaps it should all be transferred onto satellite so the spectrum can be sold to pay off the national debt.

The progress of digital switchover should make such fears irrelevant. Scotland achieved digital nation status in June this year, a full 12 months ahead of England and Northern Ireland, although a year behind Wales. The job is almost done, the argument goes, and when complete will bring dozens of digital channels to every home in the land. It also enables the introduction of new services albeit at a cost that has seen many minority channels fall by the wayside.

So it is not an ideal moment for BT to announce an idea that could make over-the-air delivery of live TV an uneconomic luxury for all but national broadcasters. Instead of programmes received from content providers and distributed to transmitters, as it works now, BT proposes to take live TV all the way to the neighbourhood exchange from where the local ISP can deliver TV to the home over a broadband connection.

The news came unexpectedly in an interview with BT Director of Content Services Simon Orme published in IPTV News at the end of June. He said that TV Connect is a huge project that BT has worked on for some time and described it as “a dedicated television network for online TV”. He added that it is likely to appeal to the Pay TV market as a revenue-generating service for ISPs rather than to free-to-air broadcasters.

Orme said, “The whole local TV marketplace has been in the doldrums for the last few years and the economics have started to look very horrible. The primary broadcasters have started to cut down or withdraw completely from this area, so we think that TV Connect will stimulate new growth within the broadcast industry.”

Not only is the proposal a viable alternative to the scattergun approach of traditional TV broadcasting, but also it should ensure better picture quality for BT Vision subscribers and video services provided by other ISPs. It might even breathe new life into the YouView set-top box. It also pitches the BT network into head-on competition with Virgin Media as a provider of live television programmes.

BT will deliver TV Connect services in time for the London 2012 Olympics and it is a perfect match for the BBC’s requirement to transmit a wide range of sporting events simultaneously. Orme said that the additional traffic generated by the Olympics would not disappear after the event but would stabilise at a significantly higher level.

“Consumers who were not viewing online before will have been educated. You bring into the community a whole load of new consumers, you broaden the base of consumption, so the traffic never goes all the way back down again,” he said.

Think of TV Connect as a service that links broadcasters to each telephone exchange instead of to a transmitter or a cable head-end. From the exchange, each ISP uses conventional broadband lines for the “last mile” to the home. Instead of TV programmes broadcast at full power with no regard for the number of viewers, TV Connect links content providers directly to everyone in their audience and bypasses the internet congestion that affects over-the-top (OTT) delivery or the infrastructure costs associated with IPTV.

Orme said that each “retailer entity” would manage the “look and feel” of its own EPG and the overall user experience. BT manages the enabling delivery technology and effectively provides the resources of a television network operator to the ISPs.

“It is up to each ISP to secure the carriage deals that they want with the broadcaster. If they can secure the appropriate carriage deal then they can come to us and we can enable that service for them,” he said.

In a significant aside, Orme noted that part of the TV Connect thinking anticipates the launch of the YouView box: “Because YouView is a joint venture between the ISP industry and the broadcast industry it is a perfect fit for the TV Connect model.”

BT apparently came up with the idea in 2009 and the company has quietly prepared for the introduction of TV Connect since then. Professional broadcasters, however, have been accustomed to the use of local telephone exchanges to provide landline connections for much longer.

Cable distribution of television content began in 1937 when the Post Office, BT’s forerunner, laid a cable from Hyde Park Corner to the transmitter at Alexandra Palace in North London. In May that year, the link carried pictures of the coronation from three cameras on the route and established the principle of TV distribution over the telephone network. Soon afterwards, the Post Office installed a permanent “balanced television cable” to link Broadcasting House with important sites in central London.

These days, the control room at the BT Tower switches content to and from British TV companies and networks around the world, including the TV transmitters owned and operated in the UK by Arqiva, the BBC and SDN. For BT, it is a short step from there to the distribution of live TV signals to every broadband-enabled exchange in the country.

It is unlikely, however, that the eclipse of terrestrial broadcasting as we know it today will happen any time soon. For many years, the landmark transmission tower at Crystal Palace was the tallest structure in London. Erected in 1956 to replace the original TV mast at Alexandra Palace, it will continue to play an important role in the lives of Londoners when it transmits the full range of digital TV programmes in 2012, as the digital switchover completes its UK tour. It could also become an invaluable element in improving the lives of smartphone users in the city.

Once switchover is completed, the shut down of analogue TV will free some of the spectrum for other services. Ofcom plans to licence the unused radio waves or “white space” that prevented interference between adjacent analogue TV channels.

The UHF TV signals penetrate walls much more easily that the higher frequencies employed by wifi and Bluetooth devices. One part of the “digital dividend” to accrue from the switchover could be the introduction of high-speed wireless broadband networks that use these frequencies. Among other advantages, this could enable enhanced broadband access in rural areas and better mobile access for smartphone users.

With the benefit of hindsight, we should have approached digital switchover from a completely different direction. Now we are almost there, things might not be so bad after all, so long as the benefits of the digital dividend accrue to the shareholders of UK plc.

After all, we (the Brits) paid for it.

No comments: