3. 3
An oversimplified representation of the triple-play architecture
(early 2000)
Internet
Phone
TV
Internet
Telco
Copper line
Unmanaged network
Managed network
4. 4
An oversimplified representation of the triple-play architecture
(early 2000)
Internet
Phone
TV
Internet
Telco
Copper line
Unmanaged network
Managed network
IPTV Technologies:
• multicast (linear channels)
• RTP / RTSP (on-demand)
• CAS (content protection)
5. 5
An oversimplified representation of the introduction of TV Everywhere
(early 2010)
Internet
Phone
TV
Internet
Telco
Copper line
Unmanaged network
Managed network
IPTV Technologies:
• multicast (linear channels)
• RTP / RTSP (on-demand)
• CAS (content protection)
TV
Everywhere
OTT Technologies:
• HTTP Adaptive Streaming
(DASH, MSS, HLS) for both linear
channels and on-demand
• DRM (content protection)
6. 6
An oversimplified representation of the merging of the TV services
platforms (mid 2010)
Internet
Phone TV
Internet
Telco
Copper line
Unmanaged network
Managed network
IPTV Technologies:
• multicast (linear channels)
• RTP / RTSP (on-demand)
• CAS (content protection)
OTT Technologies:
• HTTP Adaptive Streaming
(DASH, MSS, HLS) for both linear
channels and on-demand
• DRM (content protection)
7. 7
An oversimplified representation of the introduction of OTT
technologies on top of the managed network (mid 2010)
Internet
Phone
Internet
Telco
Copper line
Unmanaged network
Managed network
IPTV & OTT Technologies:
• multicast + CAS (linear channels)
• HTTP Adaptive Streaming + DRM
(on-demand)
OTT Technologies:
• HTTP Adaptive Streaming
(DASH, MSS, HLS) for both linear
channels and on-demand
• DRM (content protection)
TV
8. 8
What are the
impacts of relying
on OTT
technologies for
linear channels on
top of the managed
network?
9. 9
Hey stop! Why?
Innovation is driven by the OTT technologies ecosystem today
DRM are less expensive than CAS by design
OTT chipsets are less expensive than IPTV chipsets
ATSC & DVB are working on the convergence between broadcast &
broadband
One head-end, one service platform
To take advantage of the
OTT ecosystem
To optimize the cost
To rationalize our platforms
And not only from the telco STBTo access to all devices
11. 11
IPTV technologies are natively scalable
While OTT technologies are not
Multicast: 1 stream for n users
Unicast: 1 stream by user
Network
Multicast ABR (but that’s not a perfect
solution at this stage)
Potential performance issue if the
agent is located in the residential
gateway
Potential solution
CAS: control keys are the same for all
the receivers
DRM: the license is individualized for
each device
Content Protection
Some DRM started to replicate CAS
philosophy by decoupling the content
keys, from the access control
Scalable chained license in PlayReady
Viaccess-Orca DRM
Potential solution
12. 12
Over time, the lines between CAS and DRM have faded slowly
Status
CAS are card less for STB with return
path today
DRM solutions may be backed by
hardware means
Not as secured as CAS
But good enough for content
owners
Multicast induces MPEG2-TS which
induces CAS for protecting the streams
Potential Solution
ATSC & DVB are DRM friendly for
multicast
Through Route and/or Flute
protocols
Fragmented MPEG4 containers
13. 13
But Widevine CAS follows the self-certification model & VO DRM follows the certification model
Selecting a security model approach (either a certification model, or a self-certification model), is
really like subscribing to insurance or not. It is a matter of risk management
The main question is not really about DRM or CAS solutions anymore,
but about responsibility
Digital Rights Management (DRM)
The major DRM providers (e.g. Microsoft,
Widevine) are technology providers only
The STB manufacturer acts as the DRM
licensee; and proceeds to a self-certification
based on compliance and robustness rules
edited by the DRM provider
The STB manufacturer holds the liability, and
the DRM provider may revoke devices that
have compromised security
Control Access System (CAS)
CAS vendors are liable for the protection of
the content keys to decrypt the content,
and the entitlements associated to the
content
CAS vendors are accountable when a
content security breach occurs (security
breaches detection and answers are part of
the contract)
To make it work, they put in place several
processes, among them a certification
process with the STB manufacturer
14. 14
Multicast is low latency by design
While OTT technologies are not
Status
Multicast
The receiver joins a group
The content is pushed
HAS
Pull approach
Designed for unmanaged network
Different bitrates
Different segment size (between
2s and 10s)
Different player policy
Buffers at every stages
Potential Solution
CMAF (Common Media Application
Format) includes a low latency mode
by breaking up ABR fragments
into smaller chunks
without waiting for the whole
fragment to be loaded
15. 15
Parental Control must be 100% reliable
Status
Risk: Criminal justice in France
If not compliant for adult contents
for linear channels
Natively supported in IPTV
Relying on MPEG2-TS & CAS
Potential Solution
Less mature in OTT today
But solutions exist (e.g. Canal+ in
France)
Metadata events in MPEG-DASH
But not in real product so far
16. 16
The service platform will receive more requests
Several information usually provided in stream (EPG,
channels list…) must be requested from the service
platform
DRM solutions must work at scale for linear channels
In Stream
DRM
No roadblock, but it must be designed with care
17. 17
The convergence between OTT technologies and IPTV technologies is
on track, but not yet there
Multicast ABR is a promising solution
(but not the holy grail at this stage)
Scalability
CMAF includes a low latency mode
Solutions are coming soon (2019~2020)
Low Latency
DRM gets the upper hand for devices with a return path
(but with which security model approach?)
Content Protection
DVB & ATSC are working on the convergence
(but the market adoption will take time)
Standardization
No roadblock, but must be redesigned with careService Platform
No roadblock, but must be 100% reliableParental Control
