The future of cable TV: Trends and implications

This report has been produced by International Telecommunication Union (ITU) with the valuable input of speakers and panel moderators of the ITU workshop on the future of cable TV:

Maria Rua Aguete, Executive Director, IHS Markit, United Kingdom

Guy Bisson, Research Director, Ampere Analysis, United Kingdom

Marcin Cichy, President, Office of Electronic Communications (UKE), Poland

Nicolas Fortineau, Director of Product Development, Liberty Global, Netherlands

Sorin Mihai Grindeanu, President, National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications of Romania (ANCOM), Romania

Matthias Kurth, Executive Chairman, Cable Europe

ShiZhu Long, CTO, Shenzhen Skyworth Digital Technology Corp, China

Cristina Lourenço, Deputy Director International Affairs, ANACOM, Portugal

Peter MacAvock, Chairman of the DVB Project

Satoshi Miyaji, ITU-T Study Group 9 Chairman, KDDI, Japan

Marcelo F. Moreno, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Brazil

Jaromír Novák, Chairman of the Council of the Czech Telecommunication Office

Bernd Riefler, Co-Founder & Chief Marketing Officer, Veed Analytics, Germany

Tatsuo Shibata, Director, Japan Cable Laboratories

Simon Trudelle, Senior Director Product Marketing, NAGRA - Kudelski Group, Switzerland

Paulo Valente - Chairman ETSI TC CABLE (EUROPE)

David Wood, Consultant Technology and Innovation, EBU

The report was elaborated by Mr Peter Walop, ITU expert and reviewed by the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) and Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB).

ISBN:

978-92-61-27481-8 (Paper version)
978-92-61-27491-7 (Electronic version)
978-92-61-27501-3 (ePub version)
978-92-61-27511-2 (Mobi version)

Please consider the environment before printing this report.

© ITU 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU.

Foreword

This report was developed by ITU, with support from its membership, and other ICT stakeholders and considers the wider context of ICT convergence of industries and technologies and the impact on cable TV.

The digitally connected world is fast changing, with innovation flourishing in all market segments and along the full length of market value chains. The ICT ecosystem continues to gain new stakeholders as other industry sectors scale-up their use of ICTs as enabling technologies. Consumers are also becoming active players in the ICT ecosystem as entrepreneurs, content producers, and investors.

ICT convergence has introduced new business opportunities for cable TV operators by extending their market reach, improving content delivery and expanding the range of services available to subscribers. New cable TV business models and revenue streams are emerging as a result.

This report provides insight into major trends in cable TV technology and market dynamics, insight that will assist cable TV innovators in capitalizing on advances in fields such as virtual and augmented reality, multi-service and multi-platform TV, and ultra high definition TV.

The ITU membership has recently requested two specific mandates:

1 WTDC-17 adopted a Regional Initiative for the Europe region on broadband, specifically calling for cable TV to be further studied in the context of innovation dynamics, market developments and the enabling environment; and

2 ITU-T Study Group 9, as part of its 2017-2020 mandate, to develop standards for the use of cable and hybrid networks – networks primarily designed for the delivery of television and sound programmes – as integrated broadband networks also able to support voice and other time-critical services, video-on-demand, over-the-top services, and interactive and multi-screen services.

This report is expected to advance the implementation of the ITU-D Regional Initiative for the Europe region, assisting countries in supporting growth and innovation in cable TV markets, and to strengthen the ability of ITU-T Study Group 9 to develop standards meeting cable TV requirements, in addition supporting the work of other relevant ITU study groups, including:

– ITU-D Study Group 1: Enabling environment for the development of telecommunications/ICTs

– ITU-D Study Group 2: ICT Services and applications for the promotion of sustainable development

– ITU-R Study Group 6: Broadcasting service

We would like to thank all contributors to this paper and would like to encourage all stakeholders to support future collaborative actions to stimulate the offer of innovative, interoperable applications and services in the cable TV arena.

Brahima Sanou
Director
Telecommunication Development Bureau

Chaesub Lee
Director
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau

Table of Contents

Foreword

1 Introduction

1.1 Cable TV in a converged market place

1.2 Defining and scoping cable TV

2 Technology and standard trends

2.1 Increasing bandwidth capacity

2.1.1 Enhancing twisted pair

2.1.2 Enhancing coaxial cable

2.1.3 Deploying optical fibre

2.2 Future network concepts

2.3 Connected TV and UHDTV

2.3.1 Connected TV and the IBB concept

2.3.2 UHDTV and encoding

3 Service and business trends

3.1 OTT QoS on-par with HFC/IPTV

3.2 Service anywhere and anytime

3.3 Multi-screen and media meshing

3.4 OTT and traditional viewing

3.4.1 OTT and linear television

3.4.2 OTT and pay-tv

4 Regulatory and policy trends

4.1 Eco-system access and connected TV

4.2 Net neutrality and audiovisual services

4.3 Local audiovisual content requirements

5 Implications for industry and NRAs

5.1 Industry-wide implications

5.2 Technology implications

5.3 Service and business implications

5.4 Regulatory and standard setting implications

Abbreviations

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

Tables

Table 1: Main xDSL technologies

Table 2: Bonding gains and distance

Table 3: DOCSIS 3.x specifications

Table 4: Main specification of optical fibre

Table 6: Different picture formats

Figures

Figure 1: Cable TV in a converged market

Figure 2: Framework for video service delivery

Figure 3: Trend of bandwidth and traffic speeds for PON

Figure 4: Network function virtualisation and slicing

Figure 5: IBB concept

Figure 6: HD and UHD net bit rate requirements

Figure 7: Share of time played on mobiles and tablets

Figure 8: Time watched and video length by device type

Figure 9: Multi-tasker types in the United Kingdom

Figure 10: Media meshing activities

Figure 11: Monthly TV viewing hours per month in the United States

Figure 12: Viewing time percentages per video type

Figure 13: Cord-cutting impact on subscribers in the United States

Figure 14: Global market shares of Smart TV sets and dongles

1 Introduction

Cable TV cannot be defined any longer as a set of linear television services delivered over a dedicated wired broadcasting network. It should rather be viewed as video service delivery that is part of a comprehensive service offering, comprising other truly integrated services. Ranging from video on demand (VOD) services, Internet access services, cloud storage and application services, as well as Internet of Things (IoT) services, such as smart metering at home.

1.1 Cable TV in a converged market place

The future of cable TV cannot be effectively addressed without considering the wider context of ICT convergence. Convergence is the concept that describes the trend of blurring boundaries between the traditionally distinct ICT sectors: telecommunications, media (including broadcasting), and device (or IT) industry. These blurring boundaries relate to industry and service convergence.

Traditionally, industries, especially telecommunications and broadcasting, were segregated in silos as their products and services were complementary and not substitutes, and companies were not integrated across different skill sets and assets. Subsequently mergers (and other forms of collaboration) between telecommunications and media companies were rarely observed or absent. This is different today. Converged services are offered in a market, comprising content, service and network providers, as well as device manufacturers. Labelling market actors in these categories is becoming increasingly more difficult, as industry convergence results in companies merging or collaborating closely.

Service convergence is especially spurred by technological advances, by digitalisation of data, voice and audiovisual content, as well of transmission platforms. The latter referring to the ever-widening availability of broadband Internet. In addition, consumer preferences change due to different work-life patterns and increasing amounts of leisure time and activities. In turn, ICT-based services change to adapt and respond to these changing behavioural patterns.

Governments and national regulatory authorities (NRA) have an important role in protecting the public against undesirable developments, in endorsing a proper market development, and in stimulating an efficient use of spectrum and other scarce resources. A solid regulatory framework, including national legislation and regulatory authorities, is necessary to achieve these objectives.

The concept of ICT convergence is depicted in Figure 1, including the interaction between the converged ICT market and different social and economic factors, including evolving services, technologies, and regulation. It also illustrates that a cable TV offering is part of a wider service offering.

Figure 1: Cable TV in a converged market

Source: ITU

This report addresses key technological, service, and regulatory changes, observed globally, and where relevant, specifically in the Europe region (Chapters 2 to 4), and reflects the implications of these changes for the cable TV industry and NRAs (Chapter 5).[1]

1.2 Defining and scoping cable TV

Cable TV network operators are defined as providers of linear television services, part of an integrated service offering, whereby the provider either owns or fully controls the service delivery network infrastructure. Typically, cable TV network operators would own or control (a form of) a Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (HFC) network.

However, the scope of video services includes many different services, applications and technologies. A general framework is presented to better understand differences in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Framework for video service delivery

Source: ITU

Figure 2 illustrates that video services can be split into two basic forms (see the top halves of circles 1 to 6):

1 Linear services: In this case, the service provider (or broadcaster) schedules and distributes audiovisual content. Linear services are mostly continuous distribution (24/7). This category also includes TV services that enable the end-user can temporarily pause and restart a programme. With this type of ‘delay’ feature, the essence of scheduled programming remains unchanged. This content time shifting functionality is either stored in the cloud (i.e. storage made available via the Internet) or broadcast network (e.g. IPTV network). Linear services can be offered free of charge[2] or be payment based.

2 Non-linear services or VOD[3]: In this case, the end-user determines audiovisual content and when it is to be played, often from a structured content library. This is often a paid service with different payment arrangements (e.g. pay-per-view or periodical subscriptions), and the end-user controls the scheduling. These non-linear services also include pausing and rewinding linear television services (i.e. live television) as well as playback of the content after the initial broadcast (content time shifting).

Linear and VOD services can both be offered in many commercial arrangements. However, they may differ in how service availability and picture quality are managed by the service provider. It is important to note that the focus here is on the service levels of the audiovisual service. Two basic forms can be distinguished (see the left and right column in Figure 2):

1 Video services with managed quality of service (QoS): In this category, the service provider manages and offers end-users (minimum) picture quality and service availability levels. The classic example is a public service broadcaster (PSB) that distributes its television service over its own terrestrial broadcast network. It is also possible that the service/content provider distributes over third-party networks. The service/content provider agrees the (minimum) service levels with the network operator in a distribution agreement or contract. Such a contract may include guaranteed service levels whereby a form of financial compensation is agreed in case of underperformance.

2 Video services with unmanaged QoS: the service/content provider does not manage service levels to end-users. For example, when content providers offer audiovisual content over the Internet (i.e. over-the-top (OTT) services). The Internet service provider (ISP) or mobile network operator offering Internet access to the end-user manages service levels (such as service availability), however, picture quality and service availability are not guaranteed.

Lastly, video services can be delivered over different technical platforms. There are two basic forms (see bottom half of the circles in Figure 2):

1 Traditional broadcast networks: These networks are specifically designed and deployed for distributing audiovisual services. They are based on international transmission standards (such as ATSC, DVB, ISDB and DMB) and are essentially one-way networks. They can offer a semi-interactive component by broadcasting content in carousels (for example Teletext). They can be wired and wireless networks, including coax cable, satellite, terrestrial and mobile networks.

2 IP-based networks: This form routes traffic (i.e. data) over the network to IP addressable end-user equipment. These networks are two-way (i.e. duplex) and switched networks whereby traffic is managed by IP protocols. The data can represent audiovisual services. They include networks such as HFC and IPTV networks but also the Internet as offered by ISPs. Again, they can also be wireless such as third and fourth generation (3G/4G) mobile networks (based on international standards such as UMTS and IMT/LTE), and the future IMT-2020 (5G) mobile networks will be included[4].

These platforms come with different end-user (network terminating) equipment. The traditional broadcast networks require transmission standard compliant receivers such as a set-top-box (STB) or handset. For IP-based networks, the range of end-user equipment is much wider, and range from smart phones, tablets, phablets, laptop/desktop computers and game consoles. However, receivers from both platforms can be integrated into one single device, combining broadcast and IP functionality. The two most prominent examples are connected TV sets and mobile phones with broadcast receivers[5].

This report focuses on service and platform combinations 1, 2, and 3 (i.e. video service delivery - see brown labelled numbers in Figure 2):

1 Integrated delivery networks with fully managed QoS (IPTV and HFC).

2 Integrated delivery networks with partly manage QoS (OTT service delivery over Internet).

3 Hybrid delivery networks (Smart TV/HBBtv).

2 Technology and standard trends

This section describes key technological trends and standards for wired networks carrying video services as part of an integrated service offering, including connected TV, ultra high definition television (UHDTV), and specific developments for high quality video delivery.

2.1 Increasing bandwidth capacity

Cable TV network operators deliver video services as part of an integrated service offering, including broadband access and value added services based on this access. All Internet traffic forecasts show that the demand for bandwidth will continue to grow, driven by high quality video delivery, increasing numbers of (mobile and fixed) smart devices and the rise of IoT[6]. This means that, for high quality video delivery, broadband access, and related services, a state-of-the-art delivery network is a must-have.

When upgrading delivery networks, the most challenging business decision is to either replace the existing local loop (either twisted pair of coaxial cable) for fibre or enhance the existing local loop infrastructure. A solid business case should form the basis for such a decision, considering the costs of each option and what bandwidths future services would require. Such a business case can vary considerably between local markets, depending on factors such as the technical state of the current infrastructure, geographical population spread, smart device penetration, as well as ability/willingness-to-pay factors.

2.1.1 Enhancing twisted pair

The most commonly applied technology in copper wired (or twisted pair) access networks is xDSL, where ‘x’ stands for the various forms of digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. The family of xDSL technologies includes a wide range of standards and profiles, enabling higher traffic speeds over local loop copper wire. Table 1 shows an overview of the main xDSL technologies and their specifications.

Table 1: Main xDSL technologies

VDSL2

ADSL2+

SHDSL

HDSL

Transmission mode

Asymmetric and symmetric

Asymmetric

Symmetric

Symmetric

Pairs of copper

1

1

1 and 2

1, 2, or 3

Frequency band

12 MHz to 30 MHz (down & up data)

0.14 MHz - 2.2 MHz (down/data)

196 KHz

Modulation

DTM

QAM

TCPAM

CAP /2B1Q

Bit rate (down/up)

Up to 200 Mbit/s bidirectional

12 Mbit/s up to 24 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s up to 1.4 Mbit/s

Up to 5.7 Mbit/s (single pair)

2 Mbit/s bidirectional

Reach

<2.5 km

<1.5 km

<3 km

<3.6 km

ITU standard

ITU-T G.993.2
(Nov 2015)

ITU-T G.992.5
(Jan 2009)

ITU-TG.991.2
(Dec 2003)

ITU-T G.991.1
(Oct 1998)

From Table 1 it can be observed that only VDSL2 is prepared for high quality video services such as UHDTV (see section 2.3.2), requiring speeds of 40 to 50 Mbit/s. For improving the performance of xDSL, bonding, vectoring and phantom mode techniques are applied[7]. Only bonding and vectoring are briefly outline here to illustrate the possibilities.

Channel bonding may be used to combine multiple wire pairs, increasing available capacity or extending the copper network reach[8]. Channel bonding is applicable to any physical layer transport type (e.g. VDSL2, ADSL2, SHDSL, etc.). The xDSL bonding allows a network operator to aggregate multiple xDSL lines into a single bi-directional logical link, carrying Ethernet traffic. This transport is transparent to the subscriber who sees a single connection. Table 2 shows the performance improvements that bonding over copper lines (two pairs) can achieve.

Table 2: Bonding gains and distance

Distance (in metres)

Gain

0-1 000

40 Mbit/s to 80 Mbit/s

1 500

30 Mbit/s to 60 Mbit/s

2 250

10 Mbit/s to 20 Mbit/s

3 150

5 Mbit/s to 8 Mbit/s

>3 750

Minimal to none

Vectored VDSL2 is a technology that offers a new alternative for further improving copper line performance by reducing the noise or crosstalk, by anti-phase signalling[9]. Vectoring is particularly beneficial with short cable lengths (< 1 km) and is applied on sub-loops and local loops. Crosstalk is the main reason why lines in the field perform significantly lower than their theoretical maximum. Vectoring may re-utilise existing resources at the street cabinet or digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) infrastructure. Consumer equipment needs some adaptations/replacement as stipulated by the ITU-T G.993.5 vectoring standard.

Vectoring is a CPU intensive process and it needs to measure noise constantly in all lines together and is therefore limited to a certain number of lines that can make part of the vectoring process (a few hundreds of lines). The most important aspect of vectoring resides in the fact that all lines should be part of the vectoring system. If not, performance drops considerably. For example, at a loop length of 400 metres and only 60 per cent of the lines controlled, performance could drop by up to 60 per cent. This full control over all lines, may have implications for regulatory provisions addressing the unbundling of the local loop[10].

2.1.2 Enhancing coaxial cable

The main advantage of HFC networks is that they are capable of high asymmetric data traffic rates. The DOCSIS specification is a set of ITU recognized standards (ITU-T Recommendations) allowing asymmetric high-speed data transfer on existing cable TV systems[11]. It uses efficient modulation, coding and multiplexing techniques[12]. The DOCSIS standard is used mostly in the Europe region, Japan, and the United States of America with different specifications and different frequency band use[13]. Broadband and broadcast capacity may be shared on the same cable and operators balance network capacity between the different services. Operators can also choose to convert broadcast service delivery to be facilitated in an all-IP based network structure to provide all broadband services[14]. The evolution of DOCSIS and its future development is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: DOCSIS 3.x specifications

DOCSIS 3.0
standard

DOCSIS 3.0
phase 1

DOCSIS 3.1
phase 2

DOCSIS 3.1
phase 3

Download speed

300 Mbit/s
(54-1002 MHz)

1 Gbit/s
(108-1002 MHz)

5 Gbit/s
(300*-1152 MHz)

10 Gbit/s
(500*-1700 MHz)

Upload speed

100 Mbit/s
(5 – 42 MHz)

300 Mbit/s
(5-85 MHz)

1 Gbit/s
(5-230* MHz)

2 Gbit/s*
(5-400* MHz)

No. of channels (down/up)

8/4

24/12

116*/33*

200*/55*

QAM scheme
(down/up)

256/64

256/64

≥1024/256

≥1024/256

* To be determined

The bandwidth performance, as shown in Table 3, are based on the result of applying more efficient signal modulation, error handling and encoding. In addition, a more efficient spectrum use is applied in the higher frequency ranges. However, full duplex communication is nowadays restricted, and the upload speed is considerably lower in comparison to the download speed[15]. In 2016, several commercial DOCSIS 3.1 deployments were completed in Australia, the Europe region, New Zealand, and the United States.

It should be noted that DOCSIS 3.1 employs many of the technologies as applied in the DVB-C2 standard for downstream broadcasting services[16]. Spurred by the arrival of the HEVC (or ITU-T H.265) encoding technology (see also section 2.3.2) and many network operators following an all-IP strategy, it is debated whether DVB-C2 should still be applied within a DOCSIS deployment or if the DVB-C2 (PHY) should be consolidated in the DOCSIS standard.

2.1.3 Deploying optical fibre

Optical fibre, with its unsurpassed data traffic speed of 100 Gbit/s on a single strand of glass fibre in operational settings, is considered particularly suitable for backbone networks (for trunk and long distance inter-city transmissions). However, as fibre deployment costs are dropping, both in Capex and Opex terms, optical fibre is expanded into access networks. In ICT development index (IDI) developed countries[17], fibre is increasingly applied for residential access. In these fibre deployments both active and passive fibre is used. The main differences between the two are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Main specification of optical fibre

Active optical fibre

Passive optical fibre

Main data traffic management components

Amplifiers, routers, switch aggregators

Splitters

Powered components

Ends and middle

Ends

Subscriber line

Dedicated

Shared

Suitable distances

Up to 100 km

Up to 20 km

Typical application

Business/core network

Residential

Building and maintenance costs

High

Lower

Figure 3 illustrates a forecast and its expected range of the available bandwidth of passive optical network (PON) technology for both upload and download traffic.

Figure 3: Trend of bandwidth and traffic speeds for PON

Source: ITU

Today the deployment of fibre infrastructure is based upon the standards Gigabit passive optical network (GPON), new generation passive optical network (NG PON 2) and 10-Gigabit-capable passive optical network (XG PON). They may coexist on the same physical line as they use different spectrum ranges. Gigabit PONs, such as G-PON (ITU-T G.984.x series) and 1G-EPON (b-IEEE 802.3) have been standardised and are now being deployed worldwide. The performance specifications of the XG and NG PON are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Main specification of XG PON and NG PON

XG PON

NG PON2

ITU standard

ITU-T G.987.1 (03/2016)

ITU-T G.989.2 (12/2014) and (04/2016)

PON Wavelengths

1 down/up

Up to 8 down/up

Bandwidths

10/10 Gbit/s

10/10 Gbit/s per pair or 10/2,5 Gbit/s*

* NG PON 2 is supporting up to 80 Gbit/s symmetrical bandwidths through channel bonding.

2.2 Future network concepts

In future network concepts, wired and wireless communications[18] will use the same integrated network protocols[19]. Future network concepts provide a holistic network management view, on a common resource pool independent form the underlying transport technologies. The following two key network management aspects are included in these new concepts[20]:

1 Network function virtualisation (NFV) and software defined networks (SDN) allows networks functions and components, such as evolved packet core (EPC), PDN gateway (PGW) and the policy control resource function (PCRF), to operate in a virtualised environment independently from proprietary hardware. These functions and components could share commodity type hardware resources in cloud based environments. It will allow operators to deploy new services and technologies in a more rapid, flexible and scalable manner, thus reducing costs.

2 Network slicing allows operators to create parallel networks according to the required service in the same network infrastructure. For example, a network slice could be dedicated to Machine-to-Machine (M2M) traffic while another slice could be dedicated to public safety services or digital radio and television services. Using network slicing, it is possible to run these slices over the same physical infrastructure with adjustable network parameters concerning security, QoS, latency and throughput for each instance/slice. This slicing principle can be applied on network core components, antennas, base stations and consumer equipment. Software upgrade of a network instance/slice becomes easier, as the new software upgrade can be tested in parallel in a virtual server environment, by taking a snapshot of the running configuration and hence not effecting the operational slice.

Figure 4 provides an overview of virtualisation of network functions for different service offerings and consumer domains, sharing common resources.

Figure 4: Network function virtualisation and slicing

Source: Ericsson technology review 2016

For the development of IoT services, such as smart metering, smart cities and connected vehicles, the above described network management aspects are critical. Allowing the deployment of a wide range of IoT services and their use both in stationary and mobile settings. Also, the economic sustainability of new IoT services is dependent on the industry capacity to leverage existing network infrastructure and collaboration between the different industry stakeholders.

NFV and SDN developments clearly facilitate outsourcing of network functionality and management to third parties, and more specifically to third parties with system integration skills. In this way network costs shift from investments to operational costs. It may as well result in cable TV network operators moving away from network ownership and management. A similar trend as was observed in the telecommunication industry several years ago, when incumbent telecommunication operators outsourced their network assets and management.

2.3 Connected TV and UHDTV

This section addresses connected TV and ultra high definition television (UHDTV) as specific developments for high quality video delivery in a converged market place.

2.3.1 Connected TV and the IBB concept

There are two types of connected TV sets:

1 Integrated connected TV sets, whereby the functionality to access the Internet is built into a single device or set (i.e. the smart TV set).

2 TV sets with an external device, often connected to the TV set through the USB port, which provides access to the Internet (i.e. TV sets with dongles, such as Chromecast from Google, the Roku stick, the Amazon Fire TV stick).

The combination of broadcast and broadband technology is considered a natural development because this combination has the potential advantage of providing both efficient mass content delivery and personalised services. At the same time, combined use of broadband may bring complexity of the system and its usage due to its very wide capability and flexibility. Hence integrated broadband broadcasting (IBB) systems are more than an addition of another delivery channel. Figure 5 shows an overview of the principle of IBB systems.

Figure 5: IBB concept

Source: ITU

The establishment of a unified IBB standard means that content owners and application developers can write once, for any smart TV set and deploy their services across countries. Unfortunately, there is no global IBB standard (yet). The broadcast industry, together with the TV set producers, developed standards and TV-apps for implementing the IBB concept on connected TV sets. It is important to note that with these solutions the remote control of the TV set is the main navigating tool. There are three standards defined and they have a growing number of applications and users:

1 HbbTV: The standard(s) is developed by the ‘HbbTV Association’[21] and published by European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute (ETSI). The HbbTV Association was established in 2009. Hence the standard has been available for over eight years and with the migration from analogue to digital broadcasting its application is on the rise. A wide variety of HbbTV services and applications have been deployed, including services such as VOD, catch-up, start-over, information services, electronic programme guides (EPG), and shopping services. Several commercial and public broadcasters have developed HbbTV-based services, including leading broadcasters in the Europe region (e.g. Antenna Hungária, ARTE, M6, NPO, NRJ, RTVE, TF1 and ZDF) but also Freeview in Australia[22].

2 Hybridcast: The Japan public broadcaster (NHK) launched the new integrated broadcast-broadband service “Hybridcast” in September 2013. Hybridcast enhances a broadcasting service with broadband, similar to other systems. NHK started with offering the HTML5-based application for providing detailed and useful content such as latest news, weather, sports, and financial information.

3 ICon: The Republic of Korea public broadcaster (KBS) launched iCon, or Open Hybrid TV (OHTV) in March 2013. ICon is the first terrestrial hybrid TV service in Republic of Korea. The service includes EPG, programme search, video clip search, voting, etc. The standard also aims at integrating digital (terrestrial) television services with broadband interactivity, similar to the two previously discussed standards.

Nowadays, most television broadcasters have extended the IBB concept, to also provide apps for smartphone and tablets to facilitate ‘second screen’ functionality (for example participating in games, surveys, providing feedback and more detail background information), whilst watching the main television screen.

The TV dongles (e.g. Chromecast, Roku, Fire TV) have a different approach to the implementation of the IBB concept. The basic idea is to move interactive content from the small screen to the big screen (i.e. the TV set) and to introduce a second screen on the television screen. The latter, allowing multiple viewers to introduce a second screen with interactive content on the main television screen (for example to display additional information on the football game or documentary). With these TV dongles, the navigation tool is the individual smart phone (of each viewer).

These TV dongles use their own proprietary TV-apps to arrange for navigation and interactivity. In other words, these dongle providers compete with the three industry standards as listed above. Subsequently, the dongle providers must negotiation with FTA broadcasters to have their dongle capabilities embedded in broadcaster TV-apps to allow for a seamless experience between broadcaster content and the interactive content through the dongle.

2.3.2 UHDTV and encoding

The application of the high definition (HD) format is currently the industry standard. For future developments, the uptake of ultra high definition (UHD) should be considered; UHDTV 1 and 2. Table 6 provides an overview of the different picture formats[23].

Table 6: Different picture formats

Format

Alterative name

Picture ratio

Picture resolution (megapixel)

HDTV

2K

1920 x 1080

~ 2

UHDTV1

4K

3840 x 2160

~ 8

UHDTV2

8K

7689 x 4320

~ 32

The technological challenge to deliver UHD services is to increase transmission capacity (section 2.1) and video encoding efficiency. Video encoding is used to reduce the amount of data to be transported over any transmission platform, whilst maintaining the perceived picture quality. Especially for terrestrial platforms encoding efficiency is key because spectrum is scarce (and hence transmission capacity). Also for OTT delivery, encoding efficiency is critical as broadband capacity varies significantly between regions and countries. Figure 6 shows the picture ratio and required capacity (net bit rate) for SD, HD, and UHD services with the application of either the ITU-T H.264 (or MPEG-4 AVC) or ITU-T H.265 (or HEVC) standard[24].

Figure 6: HD and UHD net bit rate requirements

Source: ITU

From Figure 6 it can be observed that the required transport capacity is high for UHDTV services, even with the most efficient encoding technology available today (ITU-T H.265). With the current second generation DVB standards a practical net bit rate can be realized of approximately 40 Mbit/s in the case of DVB-T2[25]. This would entail that one UHDTV 1 service can be carried in one multiplex, which equates to one frequency (of 8 MHz wide) per site. For DVB-C2, depending on the modulation scheme, a maximum net bit rate is available between 51 Mbit/s (256-QAM) and 80 Mbit/s (4096-QAM) in a single 8 MHz channel[26]. For DOCSIS 3.1 the spectral efficiency is assessed to be between 57 and 64 Mbit/s for 8 MHz bandwidth[27]. Consequently, on a cable system with either DVB-C2 or DOCSIS 3.1, a single UHDTV 2 service can be carried in a single 8 MHz channel (with ITU-T H.265 encoding)[28].

OTT providers, such as Netflix, are offering ‘UHD’ services over broadband Internet (mainly in the Europe region and the United States). It should be noted that the growth of these UHD services will be dependent on bandwidth availability. The bandwidth requirements are stated to be 15 Mbit/s, being twice the average bandwidth available to many broadband households in the United States today. In addition, it can be claimed that 15 Mbit/s is not enough to provide a true UHDTV/4K service. A more an acceptable rate for true UHDTV/4K is 40-50 Mbit/s is, under the assumption that at the receiver side ITU-T H.265 is used (Figure 6).

This trend for higher picture resolution is mainly driven by the production of flat TVs for the home. The sales forecasts for UHDTV sets are promising, despite the lack of content and distribution. The absolute UHDTV sales numbers are still relatively low when compared to the current global sales of around 250 million sets (all TV sets). However, for the device manufacturer investments in R&D and production lines are already sunk costs and with dropping price levels consumers seems to be bound to adopt UHDTV.

For smart phones and tablets, the required bit rate for perceived high picture quality is significantly lower due to the smaller screen size. Consequently, in the mobile industry lower picture ratios are applied. Table 7 shows an indication of the required bit rates for the various picture ratios, ITU-T H.265 encoded[29]. As noted, the required bit rate is subjective and dependent on the type of content (‘talking heads’ or ‘football’), colour definition, and framerate.

Table 7: Typical bitrates for ITU-T H.265 encoding and delivery at mobile devices

Picture ratio

Typical bitrate (kbit/s)

640 x 480

250

960 x 540

600

1280 x 720 (SD)

700

1920 x 1080 (HD)

1 000

Also for the mobile environment, next to technologies such as eMBMS[30] on LTE networks, ITU-T H.265 encoding is critical for OTT delivery of high picture quality services. Consequently, mobile handsets should be available supporting either ITU-T H.265 and/or eMBMS. As eMBMS requires a LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) network, the handset requirement is really LTE-A[31].

3 Service and business trends

This Chapter provides an overview of the key service and business trends for HFC, IPTV and OTT-based video delivery, as part of an integrated services offering.

3.1 OTT QoS on-par with HFC/IPTV

HFC and IPTV networks are in terms of system architecture and transmission protocols practically the same. The key difference between the two network types is the physical layer. HFC networks are developed on coaxial network, whereas IPTV networks have twisted pair (or copper) networks as their basis. Coaxial cable or twisted pair is used to terminate the traffic at the consumer premises (i.e. the last mile), whilst in the core network fibre is commonly used in both network types.

IPTV primarily uses the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) based multicasting Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) for live television broadcasts. For on-demand content, such as VOD, the unicasting Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) is applied. HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) is also used to communicate with the network servers for data transfer. Compatible video compression standards include MPEG-2, MPEG-4/ ITU-T H.264 and HVEC/ ITU-T H.265.

With IPTV network deployments, network security and QoS are tightly managed by the service provider, who also controls the network. Management of QoS is accomplished by actively managing the traffic volumes allocated to each service category (i.e. television, VOD, voice and data). As the network operator and service provider are commonly one entity (e.g. the cable network operator or the incumbent telecommunication operator), the service provider can guarantee the QoS to its end-users/clients. In technical terms, these QoS levels are geared around video picture quality and service availability.

As with HFC/IPTV networks, broadband Internet networks are also IP based. However, OTT delivery differs from HFC/IPTV as it transmits streams using HTTP, the protocol which has been used for decades to transport web pages over the Internet. In turn HTTP is based on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), a connected transport protocol. A TCP connection can be easily managed through firewalls, Network Address Translation (NAT) systems, home and office networks. It also enables anyone with sufficient web hosting capacity to broadcast audio and video content to a worldwide audience over the open Internet.

HTTP has traditionally been used as a transport solution for VOD media embedded into web pages, especially on Adobe Flash-based sites, such as YouTube. However, this solution does not stream in real-time, but instead relies on progressive downloading media files. The browser downloads the file from the HTTP web server and when it has a sufficient amount of data, starts to play the content while it continues to download the rest of the file. The main drawback of this approach is the length of time it takes to fill the initial buffer. Another issue associated with HTTP is streaming quality, which depends on the IP connection. Content streaming may be subject to stalling if there are fluctuations in bandwidth, leading to frame freezing. Consequently, it was nearly impossible to use this solution to broadcast live television services.

However, with the arrival of new streaming solutions it is now possible to stream high quality live broadcasts over HTTP. The two main technical components, when it comes to effective OTT delivery, are Adaptive Bitrate (ABR) and Content Delivery Networks (CDN). ABR technology is used to stream videos securely and smoothly across multiple networks[32], whereas CDNs are used to deliver content to various browsers, set-top boxes, mobile devices, etc., quickly and in a cost-effective manner.

For OTT service delivery, service provisioning and network operations are commonly separated and the QoS management is more challenging. In the case of OTT service delivery, the network operation is carried out by third parties (Tier-1 network operators and ISPs) and these entities only guarantee the QoS of the data delivery (i.e. the availability and bandwidth of the ‘data pipe’) and not per service (i.e. video service).

Recent developments show however that OTT service (or content) providers (such as Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime Video) agree with ISPs that their services have priority over other traffic, as to ensure that a minimum broadband speed is made available to their subscribers[33]. Under these agreements a financial compensation for the ISP is agreed. In this way, the OTT content providers can offer their subscribers packages with different picture quality levels (e.g. ‘Silver’ for HDTV/2k and ‘Gold’ packages for UHDTV/4k).

It could be easily argued that these content providers move towards audiovisual services with managed QoS and that these services are no different from television services over HFC/IPTV networks. This trend is also depicted in Figure 2, HFC/IPTV and OTT-based video delivery are in the same segment.

3.2 Service anywhere and anytime

With the widespread availability of broadband Internet (see Section 2.1) and powerful connected devices, users can consume their VOD and linear TV services anywhere and anytime. These developments gave also rise to OTT delivery (see Section 3.1) and redistribution concept such as the Slingbox[34].

The trend of consuming video services anywhere and anytime, is reflected in video downloading or streaming by consumers on connected devices. Figure 7 shows, of all videos played on connected devices (i.e. desktops, smartphones, tablets and connected TV sets) the share of time played on mobiles and tablets. The share of time played on mobile phones has steadily increased over the past four years (July 2013 to June 2017). In June 2017, smart phones made up most of all video plays on connected devices, about 48 per cent, whilst tablet plays made up about 11 per cent. The rest of the videos played are on other connected devices, such as connected TV sets and desktops.

Figure 7: Share of time played on mobiles and tablets

Source: OOYALA Global Video Index Q2 2017, adapted

In addition, it is important to recognize the different types of video services played on the various connected devices. Video services can be broken down into the following sub-categories:

1 Short form (0-5 minutes): video clips, streamed or downloaded (e.g. YouTube);

2 Medium form (5-20 minutes): video clips, streamed or downloaded;

3 Long form (20 minutes or more): live television (e.g. sports, news, etc.), catch-up TV, including full episodes of television shows and films (e.g. offered on Netflix or Hulu).

Figure 8 shows the share of time watched (or streamed) by device type and the video length (or streaming session duration).

Figure 8: Time watched and video length by device type

Source: OOYALA Global Video Index Q2 2017, adapted

Figure 8 shows that for (linear) television and film services (e.g. Netflix and Hulu), having streaming sessions of over 20 minutes, the connected TV set is the key delivery platform. In contrast, mobile smartphones are mostly used for short form video (49 per cent of all videos watched on mobiles are short form video).

The anywhere-and-anytime trends shows that cable TV network operators cannot offer their services without having a clear mobile strategy, whereby service delivery on mobile devices is truly integrated.

3.3 Multi-screen and media meshing

As described in Section 2.3.1, Integrated Broadband Broadcast (IBB) concepts are used to introduce a second screen in the home. Offering second-screen mobile phones and tablet apps are part of contemporary service offerings of broadcasters and OTT service providers. Nowadays, second screen should be read as ‘multi-screen’ as the number of connected screens per households are steadily on the increase. In IDI developed countries, the number of Internet connected devices (with screens) stands currently on an average of between 6 to 7 devices per household[35].

For understanding this trends of having more screens per household and the impact it has on the industry, it is important to differentiate between media-stacking and media meshing[36].

Over the years, consumers have become more and more multi-taskers, spending (near) simultaneously time between various services or devices. This phenomenon of multi-tasking is not new. Early research has already shown this multi-tasking trend between different media such as television, computer and music, especially under young people.

With the availability of more screens the multi-tasking has increased. However, with concepts such as IBB one new aspect has been introduced; media meshing. Media meshing is conducting activities or communicating via other devices while watching television. But these activities are then related to the television program being watched. The simplest form could be discussing with friends a television program being watched, using a chatting application on a smartphone. More elaborate forms are television program embedded applications (i.e. IBB), allowing the viewer to comment, interact or vote on program events, using the ‘second screen’ on a tablet or smartphone.

The definition of multi-tasking should therefore be redefined to include media meshing and media-stacking. The business significance is that media-stacking can more quickly result in cannibalising revenues between services or products. Whereas media-meshing would increase customer retention or revenues.

In this light, Ofcom’s 2013 research on media staking and meshing shows some useful insights. Six in ten United Kingdom adults are multi-taskers when watching television services. However, most of these multi-taskers are media-stackers, as illustrated in Figure 9. Only six percent of all adults are media-meshers (only).

Figure 9: Multi-tasker types in the United Kingdom

Source: Ofcom

From the perspective of a cable TV network operator or broadcaster the media meshing activities are of special interest as they can potentially result in new revenues stream or extra customer loyalty by having users directly participate with the program or service. Of the reported media meshing activities, the majority constitute chatting, talking or searching information about the television program being watched.

Although related to the television program these activities are only loosely related. Only a small percentage of media meshing involves activities that are directly related to the program. Figure 10 shows an overview.

Figure 10: Media meshing activities

Source: Ofcom

The activities directly related to programmes, as included in Figure 10, are activities such as participating with a programme (e.g. voting or entering a competition) or participating, using a programme specific application (e.g. on a tablet).

Although true media meshing activities constitute still a small percentage it can be expected that these interactive service offerings will continue to rise. Driven by the increasing number of sold connected TV sets (and dongles) and the further adoption of IBB standards. From a business perspective, the key challenge for cable TV network operator will be to push media meshing beyond merely improving customer retention, but also as a mean to generate new profitable revenue streams.

3.4 OTT and traditional viewing

In this paper ‘traditional’ viewing is considered to include linear TV viewing (see Section 1.2) and pay-tv subscription packages, the latter to also include additionally priced linear TV services (such as sports channels). The impact of OTT on pay-tv subscription packages is often referred to as ‘cord-cutting’ (i.e. additionally priced services are discontinued). This Section discusses the impact of OTT on both, linear TV viewing and pay-tv.

3.4.1 OTT and linear television

The impact of OTT on linear television viewing is widely analysed and debated. Undoubtedly, the impact is significant. However, data also shows that the impact is often slower than was anticipated.

For example, in ‘OTT homeland’ the United States, with high uptake levels of services e.g. Netflix and Hulu, any significant impact only showed after more than five years[37]. In 2014 the percentage of OTT subscribers stood at 40 per cent in the United States and the monthly TV viewing time started to significantly decline only then[38]. This slow impact is illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Monthly TV viewing hours per month in the United States

Source: Nielsen, United States

Figure 11 shows that all VOD services consumed on all connected devices (i.e. connected TV, mobile, tablet and desktop) together, is still relative small compared to the TV viewing hours per month.

This relative slow impact on traditional live TV viewing was also measured in the Europe region, for example by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) in 2015. The viewing time between live and time-shifted viewing stood at 95.5 per cent for live viewing as compared to 4.5 per cent for time shifted viewing (same-day and time-shifted viewing after 7 days or more)[39]. The 2017 data from Digital UK and RTL Germany also shows that still around 80 per cent of viewing is either live or time shifted of recorded TV (i.e. catch-up TV) via traditional delivery. Figure 12 shows the viewing percentages for the various forms of video consumption, as reported by Digital UK in 2017.

Figure 12: Viewing time percentages per video type

Source: Digital UK, 2017

Figure 12 also shows that of all VOD viewing (as opposed to live TV viewing), by far the most popular form is catch-up or recorded TV. Hence, linear TV can still form a nucleus based on which other VOD-like and interactive services can be developed. The continued popularity of live TV may be the very reason why OTT providers, e.g. Netflix, are agreeing distribution deals with cable TV network operators[40]. Finally, it should be noted that although linear TV will continue to play an important role, it strength seems to be for event-based TV content, such as live sports and news, and to a lesser extent for drama series and soaps.

3.4.2 OTT and pay-tv

Cord-cutting due to the rise of OTT services is also much debated in the industry. However, measuring the impact is dependent on the definition used (e.g. is cord cutting the cancelling of the whole service package or only parts of it) and the aggregation of different type of companies (e.g. only cable companies or cable, telecommunications and DTH companies all together). Nevertheless, most reports show a clear negative impact on subscribers and revenues of mainly telecommunication and cable companies. Figure 13 shows the cord-cutting impact on the year-on-year net subscriber additions for the telecom, cable and satellite providers in the United States.

Figure 13: Cord-cutting impact on subscribers in the United States

Source: Company reporting, Jackdaw Research Analysis, adapted

Service bundling and multi-play offerings are commonly applied by telecommunication and cable operators to combat cord-cutting. However, not only cable and telecommunication operators are bundling services but also relatively new players such as ISPs and OTT providers are following this multi-play strategy. Although still in its infancy, VOD services are bundled by ‘traditional’ ISPs. They are providing TV services bundled with home broadband and fixed-line telephone services.

4 Regulatory and policy trends

In this Chapter, key regulatory and policy trends are addressed, directly relevant for cable TV network operators and other providers of video services.

4.1 Eco-system access and connected TV

In the market of VOD and television services, display devices are critical for enjoying the services and they range from smartphones to connected TV sets. These devices are ‘smart’ as they are more than just a piece of hardware. Device producers are basically platform or eco-system providers. A platform for consumers to access the services through an integrated single user interface. The eco-system also enables content providers to make their content available in a unified manner. Both consumer and supplier are also serviced and billed in this single eco-system.

With the significant increase of connected TV sets, new elements in the eco-systems are added by the TV set manufacturers. Clearly with these eco-systems the device manufacturers would like to move up the value chain and add recurring revenues (for example by having revenue sharing with content providers or providing subscription based services) to their more cyclic revenues stream of ‘selling boxes’.

The first step in their strategy is to gain market share quickly and hopefully set or dominate the industry standard. Dominance in a market obviously gives rise to competition concerns that may require regulatory intervention. Content or service providers may possibly be blocked from an (dominant) eco-system, for device manufacturers to gain (unfair) market advantage. The device manufacturer may favour its own (subscription based) service over third party service providers.

However, there are some other factors for National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) to consider when assessing these risks. With VOD and multi-channel television offerings becoming common place, practically anywhere in the world content diversity will increase significantly[41]. Standardisation and an open platform for TV-apps also reduce the risk of market power abuse, as compared to a situation of having proprietary TV-apps. Competition at the device market itself or intermodal competition will also help reducing the risks of market power abuse. Figure 14 shows the number of competitors and their market shares in the connected television market, showing fragmented market shares.

Figure 14: Global market shares of Smart TV sets and dongles

Source: Statista, Strategy Analytics, 2016

Similar to the mobile device market, market shares can change quickly. In such volatile markets, regulatory measures can be quickly misdirected (at the wrong party).

4.2 Net neutrality and audiovisual services

Net-neutrality is a topic that is currently attracting considerable regulatory attention. Network operators should manage all data-streams according to the same rules, i.e. not introducing any form of preferred or discriminatory treatment of content by technical or financial measures. Capacity management as such is often necessary and justifiable, if it is based on technical grounds and applied on a non-discriminatory basis. Deliberate blocking or throttling audiovisual streams of third parties is not acceptable.

A recent example is the discussion on zero-rating content services on mobile devices: the transmission of selected audiovisual services which are not counted towards customers’ data plans. In the United States T-Mobile charges reduced or no additional costs for its ‘Music Free’ audio-content service and ‘Binge On’ video-content service at a standard resolution (640 x 480 pixels). Customers pay an additional $ 25 per month to receive videos in high definition. The lawfulness of these services was questioned as it was felt that throttling video streams and charge customers extra to not throttle video runs, is a violation of the principle of net neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was accepting T-Mobile’s free music and video services because all service providers are treated equally, T-Mobile provides little streaming video of its own and users do not encounter serious barriers for opting-in or opting-out.

Conversely, the FCC held a different opinion on zero-rating schemes offered by AT&T and Verizon. In December 2016, the FCC accused these operators of a potential violation of net neutrality rules and hindering competition because these operators were not able to prove that they offer the same conditions (and rates) to affiliated service providers and unaffiliated third parties. Under those conditions, unaffiliated service providers are seriously disadvantaged in reaching AT&T-customers, Verizon customers respectively[42].

In the Europe region, T-Mobile is also offering zero-rating music services: ‘Music Freedom’. Europe region regulators have different views on the possible violation of net neutrality regulation, but in the Netherlands, the competition authority ACM forced T-Mobile to stop the Music Freedom service in December 2016. As it was supposed to violate Dutch regulations on net neutrality. However, T-Mobile (and Vodafone-Ziggo) successfully appealed to this decision. In April 2017, the Court decided that the Dutch regulations are not in line with the European Open Internet Access Directive[43] and, hence, are not valid.

The above discussed regulatory disputes illustrate that apart from anti-competitive behaviour and reducing user choice, the allocation of the limited capacity available for different services is a key issue in the net-neutrality discussion. By loading the available capacity with own audiovisual services, network operators could hinder the introduction of other services because of capacity constraints.

Perhaps a less discussed case of net neutrality is broadband access providers (ISPs) blocking Internet traffic generated by smart or connected TV sets. It is important to point out that the example as discussed in Section 4.1 (i.e. access to eco-systems of connected TV sets), is really the reverse side of net neutrality. In Section 4.1 content providers are possibly blocked from an eco-system for device manufacturers to gain (unfair) market advantage. But in the often-cited case of Samsung’s connected TV sets in Republic of Korea, the device producer was asked by KT (the largest ISP in the Republic of Korea) to block OTT-apps (i.e. services that require high network capacity) from smart TV sets[44].

Samsung, and other TV set manufacturers, introduced smart TV sets supporting Internet connections and web browsing. KT argued that a mass-uptake of connected TV sets would result in a large increase of Internet traffic volumes. This would severely impair KT services and result in large network upgrade investments. Samsung, on the other hand, argued it was only producing devices and that the matter raised by KT was merely related to content providers, who provide the content. Because the KT requests were not being met, the company blocked the Internet connections for smart televisions for five days in February 2012.

The KCC (the Republic of Korea ICT regulator at that time) had to intervene and ruled that the blocking of Internet access was a violation of the Telecommunications Business Act and constituted a violation of consumer interest and unreasonable discrimination.

This case illustrates that other net-neutrality disputes can emerge with the mass introduction of connected TV devices, especially considering the future uptake of connected UHDTV sets, which will push up bandwidth requirements for ISPs (see also Section 2.3.2).

4.3 Local audiovisual content requirements

Local audiovisual content requirements typically originate from television or radio stations to broadcast a minimum percentage of local (or otherwise prescribed) content over their networks. Similarly, must-carry obligations require cable TV network operators to carry local television services on their platforms. These obligations are based on the rationale that, if no such requirements were applied, the level of local content delivered over media networks would be below what is regarded as being in the public interest (e.g. to preserve national identity or languages, or to support local production industries). Also from a business perspective local content requirement is important. As audiovisual content production is often the single largest cost category for service providers, the impact of any regulatory content requirements can be significant on the business case for these providers.

In a converged regulatory environment, it makes sense to apply local content requirements to linear content providers in a technology-neutral manner. This means that linear TV services (regardless whether they are delivered over IPTV, HFC, the Internet, or mobile platforms) are subject to the same obligations as ‘traditional’ broadcasting platforms (e.g. DTTB or satellite).

However, in relation to non-linear platforms, the relevance of local content requirements is less clear. Non-linear platforms raise two key challenges for the effectiveness of local content requirements. First, due to a lack of natural capacity constraints (as non-linear platforms are not limited by the number of hours in a day), there is a potentially indefinite and constantly expandable amount of overall content that can be made available on non-linear platforms. Accordingly, while it would be theoretically possible to require a proportion of all content made available on non-linear platforms to be local content, content providers would have to constantly adjust their local content offerings every time they expand their content libraries to ensure that they fall within the requirements.

In addition, due to the greater degree of control that consumers have over the content they consume in a non-linear environment, local content requirements are less effective at ensuring that consumers are exposed to local content. For example, it is much easier for consumers to bypass local content in an on-demand content library than it is when that content is the only option available to them on a given channel at primetime hours.

At the same time, the technical features of non-linear platforms create greater commercial incentives for carrying local content, thereby reducing the need for regulatory intervention. In contrast to linear platforms, which have a finite capacity per channel (limited by the number of hours in a day), content service providers are encouraged to only carry the most profitable content and leave out less-profitable content.

There is an increasingly blurry divide between content service providers such as Netflix, Amazon or the Apple iTunes Store and content generated by individual users and delivered over Internet-based platforms such as social media networks (i.e. user-generated content). While it may be difficult to conceive of a user irregularly uploading family videos on Facebook or YouTube as providing an audiovisual service (and therefore being subject to regulatory obligations), certain user-generated content may reach large audiences and may even generate revenues to the point where it becomes difficult to distinguish it from a commercial content service provider. For example, many individually-run channels on YouTube achieve millions of views and are earning advertising revenues through the YouTube Partner Program.

In the European Union, the regulatory cornerstone for regulating audiovisual services is the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)[45]. The AVMSD is currently under review to better cater for the convergence trends in the audiovisual market domain. In May 2016, a proposal for the update of the AVMSD was presented by the EU Commission[46]. In April 2017, the EU Council agreed a general approach for amending the Commission proposal in order to progress with the revision of the Directive towards adoption. The EU Council agreement included the following key aspects:

1 The scope of the Directive to include ‘social media’ services, including services based on user generated content.

2 The ‘country of origin principle’ to be maintained and facilitated[47].

3 Advertising (Commercial Communication) rules more relaxed by applying the 20 per cent hourly advertising limit from 07:00 to 23:00.

4 Relaxing the rules for product placement and sponsoring, under the encouragement of self- and co-regulations.

5 On-demand service providers, including providers of OTT services such Netflix and Amazon, to provide at least 30 per cent local content (European Works) and give ‘prominence’ in their content catalogue to this local content[48].

With the above listed amendments, the AVMSD revision aims to close the regulatory gap between non-linear and linear services. Although the revision includes social media and video sharing platforms in its scope now, a distinct regime remains for VOD and linear TV. The new article 13 (Chapter IV) for VOD services now includes a minimum 30 per cent local content requirement (as opposed to no percentage in the current AVMSD). However, for linear TV services it remains at 50 per cent (Article 16 remained unchanged). Moreover, TV services have an additional requirement for a 10 per cent share for “European independent works” (Article 17 also remained unchanged). Also, although advertising, programme sponsoring and product placement rules are more relaxed for the audiovisual services in the scope of the new AVMSD (Chapter III), separate additional provisions remain in place for linear TV services for advertising and teleshopping (Chapter VII).

Considering the trend of media meshing between linear TV and on-demand services (see Section 3.3) and the penetration of connected TVs (see Section 2.3), this distinction between linear and non-linear may become untenable. Also, if NRAs consider non-linear and linear services to operate in the same relevant market any imbalance in the regulatory burden between these service categories may inflict market distortions[49].

5 Implications for industry and NRAs

This section sets out a number of questions to further consider and provide insights and implications to the background of trends described in this report.

First some industry-wide questions are raised (section 5.1), followed by more specific questions that are grouped together according to the trends as addressed in Chapter 2 to 4 (sections 5.2 to 5.4). The questions can also be related to the sessions as included in the programme of the future of cable TV workshop.

5.1 Industry-wide implications

Session 1: Enabling environment for sustainable growth and deployment of cable TV.

Background

1 Cable TV services as part of a wider converged market place and competing with other video and integrated services (see Introduction).

2 The identified trends as described in this discussion paper (see Chapters 2 to 4).

Question 1: What would be the key technological and service developments that cable TV network operators should embrace as to improve their competitive stance in the converged market place? Especially considering the rise of OTT and mobile service offerings from market players outside the traditional industries of telecommunications and broadcasting.

A widely acknowledged industry need is for consolidation in the cable market, which is traditionally characterised by fragmentation in most countries in the Europe region. This industry consolidation is needed to create scale for carrying out the large investments, needed for increasing broadband capacity. One of the main factors driving demand for broadband capacity is the deployment of UHDTV (4k/8k) services. The workshop identified that the implementation of DOCSIS 3.1 would be needed, although its implementation is currently not price-competitive enough.

In terms of service development, cable operators could improve their competitive stance by incorporating the services of OTT providers. This would leverage their position as content aggregator, a role widely acknowledged in the workshop. In other words, cable operators should move away from their traditional ‘network centric’ model to a more ‘customer and content centric’ model. In addition to their content aggregation role, cable operators could excel in providing local content. In the workshop, providing local content was clearly identified as an important differentiator for the cable industry. Especially in countries where national and cultural content is highly valued.

Considering the rise of OTT services (see Section 3.1 and 3.4), one of the key questions is whether there is a sustainable and profitable future for the cable industry. In the workshop it was argued that the cable industry is still growing in most markets (perhaps excepting the United States). Market data seems to support this argument[50]. It was argued that in terms of subscribers this growth is evident, but that in terms of ARPU the business model is changing from video-based to broadband-based services. The latter would lead to the conclusion that investments in cable companies is more and more becoming an investment in broadband capacity. In turn this would require new wholesale models for earning back the relatively large broadband investments. This would match the trend that OTT providers are more and more purchasing transmission capacity with guaranteed QoS from network operators (including cable operators), such as in traditional telecommunication markets.

Question 2: In what way can NRAs, international bodies such as ITU and other stakeholders (e.g. EBU, CEPT, ETSI) help in addressing the challenges of the cable TV industry? For example, in terms of regulations, licensing or standard setting.

The workshop clearly identified a need for NRAs giving more room for industry consolidation and co-investment, as well as more promotion of infrastructure sharing. As such there is a need to reverse previous policies whereby competition was encouraged by promoting new market entrants. All these measures are needed as the required infrastructure investments are often too large to be carried by a single (smaller) company.

In terms of standardisation, the workshop identified a range of standardization gaps, including the following[51]:

1 Open platform for TV programme delivery.

2 A common set-top-box (STB) for the three different platforms (i.e. cable, terrestrial and satellite).

3 Guidelines for (service and network) implementation.

4 IBB compatibility (see also Section 2.3.1).

5 Access services.

6 IP multicast (see also Section 3.1)[52].

It was also argued that for better service integration on the STB/PVR, the technology was not the real bottle neck, and consequently technical standards. But rather the management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)[53]. IPR management is a complex matter and its practical application is not keeping up with the rapid technological developments and the many different services on offer (by cable operators and others). For example, redistribution concepts, such as the Slingbox, can proof challenging in terms of IPR management.

5.2 Technology implications

Session 3: Evolving technology: Innovation driving growth of cable TV.

Background

1 Existing infrastructure (twisted pair and coaxial cable) can be significantly enhanced but reaching its limits. Optical fibre deployment is relatively expensive but offers unparalleled speeds.

2 Transmission standards DOCSIS 3.1 and DVB-C2, in combination with ITU-T H.265 encoding, provide efficient solutions for carrying UHDTV services.

3 Continuing growth in the demand for broadband capacity, driven by high quality video delivery (UHDTV), smart device (including smart TVs) penetration and the rise of IoT (see Section 2.1). Partnering with OTT service providers may also require more broadband capacity.

4 Future network concepts, enabling integrated and uniform service delivery across multiple platforms (wired and wireless networks) and consequently facilitating multi-play strategies.

5 Consumers are increasingly media meshers and consume their (video-based) services anywhere and anytime, predominantly on IP-based networks,

Question 3: Do cable TV network operators need to replace their existing coaxial-based local loop with fibre given the forecasted demand for more broadband capacity, and especially considering the uptake of UHDTV?

Several technologies are available for increasing broadband capacity, foremost in the local loop. In the workshop it was argued that the demand for broadband capacity is virtually endless and even a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consequently, in the long-run fibre would be needed in the local loop. On the other hand, others would argue that the need for bandwidth is demand driven and the deployment of distributed access architectures should be considered. In such networks coax and fibre coexist. Consequently, there seems to be no industry consensus on what a minimum required (download) speed should be. Some argue a minimum of at least 1 Gbit/s, whereas others would argue higher speeds. The latter was exemplified by the long-term goal of introducing DOCSIS 3.1, which is designed to deliver 10 Gbit/s down and 2 Gbit/s upload speed[54].

In addition, it was argued that broadband needs are dependent on the local situation and that small cable operators may not need these high broadband speeds. Also, the business model would drive the need for broadband. For example, in some countries the business model is still very much geared around offering standard linear TV services (with a limited number of UHDTV services). This mixed global picture results in the deployment of various technologies, some deploy fibre (x PON), others DOCSIS and some only DVB-C (see Section 2.1).

Question 4: Is the deployment of future network concepts necessary for provisioning of competitive multi-screen/play offerings and may this entail outsourcing of network assets to third parties (with system integration skills)?

In the workshop it was argued that system integration is key for the deployment of truly converged services, delivered over multiple platform (including the mobile platform). Consequently, system integration work would be outsourced and cable companies should focus on their content aggregation role (see also Section 5.1). In addition, it was noted that some cable companies already outsource their network operations to third parties (such as in Switzerland)[55]. However, for doing so, further standardisation work would be needed.

Question 5: DOCSIS 3.1 and DVB-C2 provide both efficient solutions for the transmission of high quality video. Is there a need for both or should they be integrated in all-IP based networks?

In the workshop, Cable Europe was promoting the deployment of DOCSIS 3.1, whereas the DVB project was recommending the deployment of DVB-C2. Furthermore, it was noted that there are no commercial DVB-C2 deployments to date. Also, DOCSIS 3.1-based deployments are still expensive and consequently it is difficult to build a profitable business case on this technology. In this light, the recent DOCSIS 3.1 deployment in Denmark would be an interesting test case to follow[56].

5.3 Service and business implications

Session 2: Market Trends and Business Models.

Background:

1 OTT service providers agreeing distribution contracts with ISPs (including cable TV network operators), ensuring QoS for their (UHDTV) services. Hence, OTT delivery of audiovisual services is developing to be on-par with HFC/IPTV-based delivery.

2 Consumers are increasingly media meshers and consume their (video-based) services anywhere and anytime, whereby service integration across mobile platforms seem to be critical. Especially, considering the continuous growth in mobile video watching.

3 The impact of OTT on linear TV services is significant but is slower than previously anticipated. In addition, the largest portion of non-linear video watching is catch-up or recorded live TV content. However, the strength of linear TV seems to be for event-based TV content, such as live sports and news, and to a lesser extent for drama series and soaps.

4 OTT service providers partnering with cable TV network operators as to integrate their services.

Question 6: OTT delivered services are perceived by consumers to be on-par with HFC/IPTV delivered services or is there still a unique selling point to be derived from HFC/IPTV-based service delivery?

In the workshop, it was argued that for most services there is no unique selling point any longer in having a HFC/IPTV network. Because OTT providers are sourcing-in capacity whereby they agree with the network operator (or cable operator) a competitive and guaranteed set of service levels. The fact that cable companies should focus on their content aggregation role also supports this argument.

Perhaps for the delivery of UHDTV (4k/8k) there may still be a competitive edge for cable companies to own and run their HFC/IPTV network as they can directly manage traffic. In turn, the possibilities of managing network traffic may be limited by net neutrality regulations. It is also noted that net neutrality regulations vary per country and that recently the United States decided to relax its net neutrality regulations[57].

In addition, in the workshop it was also remarked that for countries with a relatively poor fixed infrastructure, there might be still a competitive edge for cable companies owning and running their HFC/IPTV network. Furthermore, in countries for example Qatar, where the government is investing in dark fibre in conjunction with private partners (i.e. Public Private Partnerships – PPP), ICT infrastructure is considered a shared public good and that competition should be on services and content.

Question 7: Are integrated service offerings across multiple platforms critical in surviving in the long-run? Will linear TV remain a key element of this service offering, based on which also VOD services can be developed?

In the workshop, it was widely acknowledged that linear TV services should be part of a converged offering with truly integrated services (i.e. seamless switching between services and meshing activities) and whereby the mobile delivery platform is key. Some even argued that the mobile platform is even the primary delivery platform.

The market position of linear TV services varies between countries. For example, in El Salvador the provisioning of linear TV services is still the mainstream service. The interactive media services are not as advanced as for example in the Europe region. Further it was argued that when customers do not have a clear understanding of these more advanced media services, demand for these services is absent.

In the workshop it was generally argued that the role of linear TV would change over time, although slowly. Linear TV would be more for event-based content and services. It was highlighted that the provisioning of this event-based content is not automatically a domain for cable companies to control. Also (the larger) OTT providers are starting to purchase content rights for sport events and produce their own programming around event-based content.

Question 8: Non-linear watching is dominant under young people. Can it be expected that they will carry their video consumption pattern into adulthood, or at that time, they would like to be entertained by professionally produced linear TV content? Or in other words, is linear TV dead or will it continue to exist? And if so, for what share of all video watching?

The view that current viewing patterns (i.e. VOD and binge watching), predominantly present and measured under younger audiences, would change over time was supported by the workshop participants and presenters. Mainly because these younger audiences will grow older and older people prefer to be entertained, rather than searching for content. The strength of linear TV is its simplicity and the viewer not having to spend time on selecting video content.

Hence, it was widely acknowledged that linear TV is here to stay. However, it was expected that viewers would more and more view these services on mobile devices rather than on the stationary TV set in the living room (see Section 3.2).

Question 9: OTT service providers seeking partnerships with cable TV network operators illustrates the strength of linear TV or OTT providers merely seeking market access, by accessing the eco-system/STB of the cable TV network operator?

In the workshop, it was argued that OTT providers (e.g. Netflix and Amazon) are going to be dominant in the market as content is expensive and requires (global) scale[58]. However, the argument of an inherent need for local content would contradict such an outcome. Local content forms an advantage for cable companies, especially when they would leverage their role as content aggregator.

A common threat was identified for cable operators becoming merely a ‘dumb pipe’. Again, it was argued that this could be prevented if cable companies would focus on their role of content aggregator (see Section 5.1). It is noted that the role of content aggregator would require superior client interfaces across all client contact points, whereby content and service selection is easy and intuitive[59] .

5.4 Regulatory and standard setting implications

Session 4: Setting international standards for sustainable growth of cable TV

Background

1 Device producers, including TV set manufacturers, are eco-system providers and these systems can potentially block or hamper market access for third party content providers. However, the market for connected TVs (including dongles) is fragmented and market shares can change quickly. Resulting that regulatory intervention may be misdirected.

2 Regulators rule differently in net neutrality disputes, including cases about zero-rating of audiovisual content in data bundles. Mass deployment of UHDTV connected TV sets may give rise to new disputes. UHDTV deployment may significantly increase the network cost for ISPs, who may in response try to limit this impact by pricing, throttling or even blocking this UHDTV traffic.

3 Local content requirements for non-linear services are more difficult to enforce than for linear TV services. Considering the trend of media meshing and the uptake of connected TVs, the distinction between non-linear and linear is blurring for the consumer. The revision of the AVMSD is aimed at changing the European rules to better facilitate for these convergence trends.

4 A global standard for IBB (or TV apps) is absent, fragmenting the market for audiovisual services and potentially locking consumer into proprietary solutions.

5 Transmission standards DOCSIS 3.1 and DVB-C2, in combination with ITU-T H.265 encoding, provide efficient solutions for carrying UHDTV services.

6 Future network concepts, enabling integrated and uniform service delivery across multiple platforms (wired and wireless networks) and consequently facilitating multi-play strategies.

Question 10: Should NRAs be closely monitoring (potentially) unfair practices of locking-in customers in TV ecosystems, and if so, should they be proactive in protecting consumers against these practices? Or alternatively, is the promotion of global standards sufficient?

Competition at the device market or intermodal competition will help reducing the risks of market power abuse (i.e. unfairly looking-in customers) and this regulatory stance was confirmed in the workshop. It was observed that locking-in of customers in TV ecosystems is not an eminent regulatory issue rather than a standardisation issue.

In addition, it was remarked that the cable industry needs more regulatory room for co-investment, consolidation and network sharing. This to facilitate the required network investments for broadband capacity.

Question 11: Are the different net-neutrality regimes and dispute resolutions hampering service innovation and network investments? Can it be expected that the forecasted future growth in IP-based video delivery, result in new net neutrality disputes?

Although net neutrality issues were not specifically addressed in the workshop presentations, it was acknowledged that the regulatory stance in these issues could affect the investment climate. With more relaxed net neutrality regulations, the willingness for investors to invest in broadband capacity could increase. In addition, the ability to offer zero-rating services by cable companies (or mobile companies), was considered an effect weapon in competing with OTT providers.

Question 12: Are the current proposals for the AVMSD revision sufficient in helping the audiovisual industry to compete better in the converged market? Are key elements missing or should rules be changed or removed in the AVMSD revision?

In the workshop it was argued that the revision of the AVMSD is still not resulting in a level-playing field between providers offering linear TV services and providers of VOD-based services. Although the revision includes social media and video sharing platforms in its scope now, a distinct regime remains for VOD and linear TV. The new article 13 for VOD services includes now a minimum 30 per cent local content requirement (as opposed to no percentage in the current AVMSD). However, for linear TV services it remains to be 50 per cent (Article 16 remained unchanged).

In addition, in the workshop it was argued that these European revisions take too long so that these Directives are lacking behind the current market developments. The European Commission and Parliament were encouraged to carry-out these revisions quicker.

Question 13: Is a different direction or approach needed of standardisation bodies in setting standards in the areas of IBB and network operations (including DOCSIS and DVB-C2)? Are critical standards missing or being developed too slowly?

Rather arguing for more or missing standards, it was argued in the workshop that the industry has too many standards and standardisation bodies. Consolidation or a closer collaboration between standardisation bodies was identified as an industry need.

Notwithstanding the need for a closer collaboration between industry bodies, a list of standardisation gaps was identified in the Workshop.

Abbreviations

A/V

Audiovisual (service)

ABR

Adaptive Bitrate

ATSC

Advanced Television Systems Committee

AVMSD

Audiovisual Media Services Directive

CDN

Content Delivery Network

DMB

Digital Multimedia Broadcasting

DOCSIS

Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification

DSLAM

Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer

DTH

Direct-To-Home (broadcasting)

DTTB

Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting

DVB

Digital Video Broadcasting

DVB-C

Digital Video Broadcasting-Cable

DVB-T2

Digital Video Broadcasting-Terrestrial (second generation)

eMBMS

Evolved Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service

EPC

Evolved Packet Core

ETSI

European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute

FTA

Free-To-Air

GPON

Gigabit Passive Optical Network

HBBtv

Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV

HEVC

High Efficiency Video Coding

HFC

Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (network)

HTTP

Hyper Text Transfer Protocol

IBB

Integrated Broadband Broadcasting

IPTV

Internet Protocol Television

ISDB

Integrated Services Digital Broadcasting

ISP

Internet Service Provider

IMT

International Mobile Telecommunications

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

KBS

South Korea public broadcaster

LDPC

Low-Density Parity-Check

LTE

Long Term Evolution

LTE - A

Long Term Evolution - Advanced

MPEG-4

Moving Picture Expert Group Advanced Video Coding

NAT

Network Address Translation

NFV

Network Function Virtualisation

NG PON

Next Generation Passive Optical Network

NRA

National Regulatory Authorities

OFDM

Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing

OHTV

Open Hybrid TV

OTT

Over-The-Top (services)

PCRF

Policy Control Resource Function

PGW

PDN gateway

PON

Passive Optical Network

PPV

Pay Per View

PSB

Public Service Broadcaster/Broadcasting

QAM

Quadrature Amplitude Modulation

QoS

Quality of Service

SDN

Software Defined Networks

SMP

Significant Market Power

STB

Set Top Boxes

TCP

Transmission Control Protocol

UHDTV

Ultra High Definition Television

UMTS

Universal Mobile Telecommunications System

VOD

Video-On-Demand

xDSL

(x) Digital Subscriber Line

XG PON

10-Gigabit-Passive Optical Network

[1] For this report benefitted from research and input to the ITU Future of cable TV workshop, 25 to 26 January 2018, Geneva, Switzerland. The workshop targeted all stakeholders involved in the development of the cable industry, in the Europe region and outside. These stakeholders included ICT policy makers, NRAs, broadcasting and cable industry representatives, cable companies, standardisation agencies and academia. Speakers and participants came from the Americas region, the Arab States region, and the Asia-Pacific region, and the Europe region, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/Europe/Pages/Events/2018/FCTV/The-Future-of-Cable-TV.aspx

[2] A well-known form is free-to-air (FTA) television service, similar to Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting (DTTB). It should be noted that FTA refers to the content provider or broadcaster not charging the end-user directly. They finance their business based on advertising income and/or licence fees. However, the (cable TV) network operator may charge the end-users for receiving a bouquet of FTA services.

[3] It is noted that video on demand (VOD) services whereby the content is played out in a carrousel (e.g. the film starts every 15 minutes) can be considered as a linear service. Such services are possible on traditional one-way broadcast networks.

[4] IMT-2020 (5G) aims to facilitate future developments such as Internet of Things (IoT), and more specifically in the media industry, the mass delivery of video content with ultra high definition (8K). For more details on the IMT-2020 (5G) design criteria and implementation issues, see ITU-T Focus Group IMT 2020 Deliverables, 2017. For an overview of what IMT-2020 (5G) aims to deliver over IMT-Advanced (4G), see ARCEP report “5G: issues and challenges”, March 2017, p12-13.

[5] ISDB-T and DMB-T enabled mobile phones are widely available in Japan and Republic of Korea respectively. The ISDB-T based (NOTTV) service was however discontinued in September 2016. DVB-H enabled mobile phones were available in the Europe region but services have been discontinued. DVB-T2 Lite is a newly developed standard for delivering mobile television services to mobile phones and tablets. Also, Digital Audio Broadcasting receivers are integrated in mobile handsets, such as the LG Stylus smartphone.

[6] See for example ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission report “The state of Broadband”, September 2017, or Cisco’s annual Visual Networking Index (VNI) Forecasts from www.cisco.com VNI online tool, December 2017 or for Mobile Internet, Ericsson annual mobility reports, June 2017.

[7] Transmission technologies are to move closer to the theoretical channel capacity given by the Shannon theorem, either by reducing noise and/or applying modulation schemes.

[8] Defined in ITU-T G.998.x

[9] Defined in ITU-T G.993.5.

[10] Unbundling requirements aim to provide access for third parties to local loop infrastructure.

[11] ITU-T J.83 (12/2007 and annexes A, B, C, and D) distinguishes between the Europe region and United States implementations. See also the Recommendation ITU-T J.222 (2007) DOCSIS 3.0.

[12] Quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes.

[13] Cable TV network operators in the Europe region use a modified version of DOCSIS 3.0 (i.e. EuroDOCSIS) that reflects the standard 8 MHz channel raster applied in the Europe region. EuroDOCSIS provides higher downstream rates than in the Asia-Pacific region or the United States, where 6 MHz channels are typical. Also, EuroDOCSIS commonly uses DVB-C for downstream broadcasting.

[14] From DOCSIS 3.0 and onwards, IPv6 is also supported.

[15] In laboratory settings, full duplex on HFC has been demonstrated using DOCSIS 3.1, for example by AT&T and Nokia.

[16] Such as orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and low density parity check (LDPC) coding for forward error correction (FEC).

[17] As defined in ITU Measuring the Information Society annual reports, see IDI June 2017.

[18] Including new satellite networks such as high throughput satellite (HTS) systems using multiple spot beams for providing higher network speeds.

[19] The concept of Future Network is defined by ITU-T Y.3001.

[20] It is noted that these network management aspects are also part of the design criteria for IMT-2020 (5G). See for example, ITU-T Focus Group IMT 2020 Deliverables, dated 2017.

[21] A Switzerland based not-for-profit organisation, for more details see https://www.hbbtv.org/

[22] Freeview is an industry association of all FTA broadcasters on the digital terrestrial television platform in Australia intended to compete, with a unified marketing and programming effort, against subscription television.

[23] See ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020: Parameter values for ultra high definition television systems for production and international programme exchange, October 2015.

[24] Is noted that not only picture ratio or resolution determines the required bit rate but also colour definition and framerate.

[25] The net available bit rate is dependent on the system variant selected and in its turn, depends on the required reception mode/robustness. The given value is a practical value, as for example applied in the United Kingdom.

[26] See DVB document A147, DVB-C2 implementation guidelines, August 2015.

[27] See Arris document, the spectral efficiency of DOCSIS 3.1 system, 2014.

[28] In comparing the DVB-T2 and DVB-C2/DOCSIS 3.1 figures, the spectrum availability should be considered which tends to be far more restricted for terrestrial systems. Especially in the Europe region, where the 700 MHz band is vacated for IMT/LTE mobile systems.

[29] KBS, the public broadcaster in the Republic of Korea.

[30] eMBMS is a broadcast function within an LTE network whereby dynamically a part of the available bandwidth can be switched from unicast to broadcast mode, in selected cells of the network.

[31] LTE-A allows for bandwidth aggregation, necessary for having enough capacity for eMBMS-based services. Furthermore, the introduction of eMBMS entails for the handset that software must be downloaded to a LTE-A enabled device.

[32] ABR streaming ensures that video streaming continues, provided a minimal bandwidth is available and that at any given time video is delivered at the best possible quality. ABR streaming ensures that video streaming continues, provided a minimal bandwidth is available and that at any given time video is delivered at the best possible quality.

[33] It is important to note that for ISPs guaranteeing QoS per service, net neutrality regulations should be considered (see Section 4.2).

[34] The Slingbox or the Sling-enabled Digital Video Recorder (DVR) from DISH Network, streams a (paid) television service, received at home, over the Internet to anywhere in the world where the end-user logs in with any IP connected device.

[35] In the United Kingdom, 7.4 devices (YouGov survey 2015), in Australia 6.4 devices (Nielsen Regional TV audience measurements 2016) and in the United States 7 devices (Sandvine Global Internet Phenomena report, 2016).

[36] Media stacking entails the consumption of different forms of media at the same time. In theory, media stacking can result in more media consumption, but could also cannibalise revenues. Media meshing is using two or more media forms ‘simultaneous’ as to complete the service experience. For example, playing along on your tablet with a TV game show.

[37] Netflix started as a DVD-by-mail service in 1998, and began streaming in 2007. With broadband penetration increasing in the United States, also the number of subscribers and the VOD viewing hours started to increase.

[38] It is noted that this number includes all providers of OTT video services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu. It also noted that growth has continued. For example, in July 2017 Netflix reported 104 million subscribers worldwide, of which 52 million are outside the United States and across 130 countries. Compared to 50 million global subscribers in July 2014.

[39] For all audiences. Young audiences showed similar results; 94.5 per cent over 5.5 per cent. Source: EBU Media Intelligence Service, Audience trends television 2015.

[40] In the United States, over twelve pay-tv operators incorporate the Netflix service in their Set-Top-Box (STB), such as Comcast integrates Netflix into its Xfinity X1 STB. In the Europe region, UPC offers the Netflix app on its Horizon STB (for example in the Netherlands and Switzerland). In September 2017, Netflix and the Orange Group have renewed their service distribution agreement and to extend this agreement to all 29 countries Orange is present.

[41] Content diversity will increase after the worldwide migration process from analogue to digital broadcasting and the increasing number of OTT service providers.

[42] However, in April 2017 the FCC announced plans to roll back net neutrality rules put in place in 2015.

[43] Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 25 November 2015.

[44] See OECD paper ‘Connected televisions, convergence and emerging business models’, 22 January 2014.

[45] Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010. It is noted that this Directive distinguishes between (a) general provisions for all services in scope (Chapter III), (b) provisions for on-demand services only (Chapter IV) and (c) provisions for television broadcasting (Chapters V to IX).

[46] COM (2016) 287 final, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council, amending Directive 2010/13/EU, 25 May 2016.

[47] The country of origin principle means that a service provider needs to respect only the rules of for example host country A, but can deploy its service in all EU countries. However, a receiving country B with stricter rules than those set by the Directive cannot restrict the service from the service provider in country A by applying these stricter rules, except in specific circumstances as defined in the Directive.

[48] In the Commission proposal, see footnote 44, 20 per cent of European Works was proposed, which was raised to 30 per cent by the EU Council.

[49] NRAs generally define relevant markets in resolving (ex-post) regulatory disputes, for example between OTT and cable TV network operators, or for identifying market parties with significant market power (SMP), resulting (ex-ante) in specific licence conditions for parties with SMP.

[50] See for example the presentation of IHS Markit, “Cable in Europe: Innovation-driven growth in a hyper-competitive market”, January 2018, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/Europe/Pages/Events/2018/FCTV/Programme-and-Presentations.aspx.

[51] See the presentations of ITU, “ITU-T SG9 and the future of cable television” and “Standardization and ICT accessibility in ITU”, as well as the presentation of Cable Europe, “Cable industry – a frontrunner of innovative content delivery”, all dated January 2018, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/Europe/Pages/Events/2018/FCTV/Programme-and-Presentations.aspx.

[52] This was in particularly argued in the presentation of the DVB Project, titled “DVB Cable”, dated January 2018, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/Europe/Pages/Events/2018/FCTV/Programme-and-Presentations.aspx.

[53] In terms of video delivery and noting that IPR management is very wide, the IPR management is geared around the management of copy rights.

[54] See Cable Europe presentation, “Cable industry – a frontrunner of innovative content delivery”, 25 January 2018.

[55] For example, in the presentation of the Nagra Kudelski Group, titled “Cable TV transformation: why innovation in user experience matters”, the importance of sophisticated service and content management was argued, whereby many systems and data sources must be integrated.

[56] Danish TV and Internet service provider Stofa is deploying a nationwide DOCSIS 3.1 network. For more information see for example www.csimagazine.com/csi/Stofa-deploying-DOCSIS31-nationwide.php.

[57] See footnote 43 in Section 4.2.

[58] See for example the presentation of IHS Markit, titled “Cable in Europe: Innovation-driven growth in a hyper-competitive market”, January 2018, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/Europe/Pages/Events/2018/FCTV/Programme-and-Presentations.aspx.

[59] See for example the presentation of the Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, titled “innovative, multi-platform TV viewing experiences”, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/Europe/Pages/Events/2018/FCTV/Programme-and-Presentations.aspx.