Content delivery schemes on IPTV

In our blog, we focus on publications on the Internet, the work of telecom operators and everything related to it. However, in this heap of diverse information, we have committed a form of stupidity by completely forgetting about Digital Television, which has become an integral part of the activities of telecom operators without which the provider will not be complete. In this article we will talk about the basics of organizing IPTV, and in particular we will touch on the main methods of delivering content to the consumer.

Providers are well aware that the organization of their own IPTV is expensive, and besides it affects a lot of other people's interests. At the same time, many providers do not want to use the services of OTT-providers, but everyone wants to get a service of acceptable level on their networks that would provide a decent competition for small providers with large ones.

The reasons for not wanting to link up with OTT operators are obvious:

• The business does not belong to the Internet provider, which means that it is not controlled by it: you can remain without television services at any time.
• The user is not tied to the service provider in any way: the OTT provider set-top box (if the contract implies using only branded STBs) can be connected to any Internet source.
• If necessary, it will be extremely difficult to change an OTT provider if its branded set-top box is no longer suitable for anything (there is no such problem if the software is installed on arbitrary equipment). In most cases, even branding software is not available.

Often, operators have an idea where they will take content, many of them even have contracts with TV channels (for example, KTV operators), which means that they need only a platform capable of providing the necessary functionality. And the first thing is to talk about subscriber devices: in modern realities, a departure from capital costs is the main cost item in the platform budget.

There are a huge number of various platforms that provide a very different level of service for customers. The most developed platforms providing the highest possible functionality and “extra features” allow you to raise ARPU, as far as it is possible in the current environment.

Consider the situation on the example of a specific platform with maximum functionality, from IPTVPORTAL, which allows the operator of the Middleware and CAS system to be received both locally and from the cloud, and as a subscriber device - a family of digital prefixes Vermax UHD, fully compatible with the IPTVPORTAL platform, including a certified conditional system access IPTVPORTAL CAS.

According to the requirements of the Russian legislation, conditional access systems used in digital television must undergo a certification procedure. Judging by the well-established trend of “tightening the bolts”, this will become a pressing issue in the near future.

Consider a few typical usage patterns, including the use of cloud technologies. And the most important thing is interaction with content owners.

Scheme 1: Working with a content aggregator through a network

Essence: There is no headquarters, no MW server, consoles - their own.

This is a typical option for beginners. It does not require the operator to obtain a license for cable television and enter into contracts with channels, does not require investments in the infrastructure of the head station. All these functions are assumed by the content aggregator. The operator acts as an agent.

Unlike working with OTT companies, the operator positions the service as its own (and fully controls and controls the signal transmission on its territory), that is, promotes its product. If the subscriber base grows and you want to change the service provider or deploy your own project, you will be able to do it without any problems.

Minuses:

• Part of the way of delivering traffic outside the provider’s control zone, respectively, is dependent on other companies.
• There are all the disadvantages and risks of outsourcing.
• The channel bundling proposal is determined by the content aggregator (and this is the main drawback).

Pros:

• The service for the maintenance of the head station lies on the content aggregator.
• Minimal gestures, because the aggregator has already done all the contract work with the channels.
• The minimum payment towards the content aggregator is much lower than the minimum payment towards the right holders, who often propose to purchase some more channels without fail and impose a minimum number of subscribers for which you will still have to pay (usually the threshold of minimum requirements fluctuates around 500 and 1000).
• There is no need to create your own fault-tolerant infrastructure for managing consoles,
• If there is a need to use CAS, its service is provided by another company, and at the same time it costs such a service — inexpensively.

Scheme 2: Work directly with TV channels or satellite content aggregators, deploying the head station

This scheme almost always involves the construction of its headquarters. And Middleware and CAS are provided from the cloud.

Essence: the head station has its own, there is no server MW.

This scheme is optimal for the quick launch of IPTV on networks of operators that already have a head station and have concluded contracts with TV channels (for example, KTV operators).
Often, modern head stations already have the ability to generate IPTV traffic even without purchasing additional equipment. Or, for example, it is quite simple to form IPTV from DVB-C.

Minuses:

• Head station maintenance falls on the operator.
• Quite high (for novice operators) minimum payment levels for subscribers, for channels and satellite aggregators.

Pros:

• All traffic path in the provider’s control zone.
• There is no need to create your own fault-tolerant infrastructure for managing consoles.
• If there is a need to use CAS, its service is provided by another company, and at the same time it costs such a service — inexpensively.

Scheme 3: Own head station, local installation of Middleware and CAS

Important: this scheme differs from scheme 2 only in that local Middleware servers and CAS encryption keys are installed.

The bottom line: all your own.

Pros:

• completely your business;
• no dependence on communication channels;
• can sell.

Cons:

Need a staff for system maintenance.

Scheme 4: Receipt of a technical signal from partners (without building your head station)

Important: Scheme 4 differs from Scheme 2 in that it does not need to build and maintain its head station. Rather, it is even a variation of scheme 1. The technical signal comes from a partner, an aggregator of technical signals.

Pros and cons see above.

It should, however, be understood that the installation and configuration of the head station is quite an expensive and complicated process. First of all, due to problems with the availability of qualified personnel. And the launch of the head station is a rather complicated process, full of critical nuances.

In general, the operator has something to choose from, you just need to start. The article does not claim to be an exhaustive one, but, nevertheless, shows that it is possible to work without OTT operators, even if there is no desire to invest in CAPEX when building its network. However, you are developing your television.

At the same time, it should not be denied that the OTT solutions also have their advantages and an optimal zone of applicability. At the spring event CROS-2.0-17, we devoted more than 2 hours to communication on these issues (we recommend watching the video).

A separate issue is the choice of client equipment in any of these schemes. The bottom line is that for the economic security of the operator, you should choose the equipment that does not become useless in case of any problems. A worthless investment, to be more precise.

For example, in the case of an OTT provider, the closure of a given company (or licensing problems) only makes it possible to exit — replacing the OTT content provider or switching to the above schemes. In this case, the device must be able to be configured / have firmware to support another system.

A vivid example recently showed the inaccessibility of the Infomir consoles for those who sat tightly like a needle on the STALKER system, and now Ministra, which supported, in fact, only one type of prefixes (native).

In this case, we can conclude that it makes sense not only to use consoles that support different, economically viable middleware, but vice versa MW, which support different consoles.

All the above schemes are provided by Nikolai Mikhailov from IPTVportal. Just the system that can support far more than one device, one of the types of which are prefixes of its own design - the Vermax UHD family of digital prefixes (and in the near future UHDX), which, in turn, support not only IPTVportal.
A separate moment is the support of the CAS system, and it is CAS-systems certified in Russia, but, in fact, this is the topic of a separate article about “tightening the screws” and our prospects.