Kent Displays is not a name which will immediately bring recognition to consumer electronics industry veterans, but it’s one to watch out for. The company, based in Kent, Ohio, makes a unique and patented variant of LCD displays, Reflex™, and after many years of trying different professional applications finally came out with its consumer-oriented Boogie Board towards the end of 2010. According to CEO Albert Green, the company’s initial sales projections of “a few thousand” were vastly exceeded, with several hundred thousand sold in the run up to Christmas. Boogie Boards were available at $39.99 in Brookstone stores if you were lucky enough to find one. Sales will exceed one million this year. What are they? Basically they are small, very light, notepads, and require no power to retain the image since they use reflected light. The image can be erased instantly and this function requires a small 3V watch battery. The writing experience truly is very similar to paper, in fact in many ways it is much better. When the company adds local storage in future iterations, this will become a powerful, simple, low cost and easy-to-use notepad which could synch directly to a PC or smart device for further processing. I can’t wait to get my hands on one before next year’s CES. David Mercer

Cisco today unveiled its long-awaited consumer Telepresence product. A smaller and scaled-down version of the company’s enterprise-grade TelePresence system, “ūmi” (‘you-me’) comes with an HD camera, a console and a remote. The idea of the videophone is far from new. Children of the 60s and 70s may recall George Jetson getting chewed out by his boss, Mr. Spacely, over videochat. In fact, the technology, is older than that, and was conceptualized as early as the late 1800s. The German Bundespost offered (albeit short-lived) commercially-available service the1930’s. AT&T announced its Picturephone product at the 1964 World’s Fair, though the service never quite took off, reportedly maxing out at 500 subscribers nationwide.

This time it’s different…

What makes this time different? According to Cisco’s VP of Consumer Marketing, Ken Wirt, three things are different this time. The quality and ubiquity of HD displays, the increased average household bandwidth, and exponentially increasing processing power have converged to create a ‘perfect storm’ for telepresence.

With apologies to Elvis Costello

Writing about telepresence is like dancing about architecture

Or was that Frank Zappa? In any case, as with HD or 3D, trying to explain telepresence to someone who hasn’t seen it is akin to trying to explain the color blue to a blindfolded person. You kind of have to see it to understand it. I had a chance to test drive the product last week before the official product announcement, and must say that—even as a professional skeptic--I left the demo thoroughly impressed. The so-called “immersive” effect (allowing you to ‘see what others are feeling’ ) is quite noticeable, and is what distinguishes it from a garden-variety Skype video or web-based video chat program. There is near perfect synchronization between audio/video, and people appear life sized on the screen. Ken Wirt cited a study showing that 55% of all conversation is non-verbal. It’s no surprise that it is our body language, the nods and raised eyebrows, shaking heads, smiles and smirks, that distinguish a phone call from a ‘carbon-based’ face-to-face meeting.

The Uncomfortable Topic of Money

The price tag is steep, at $599 for the unit, plus a monthly fee of $24.99 for unlimited ūmi calls, video messaging and video storage. The system will be sold through Best Buy/Magnolia Home Theater stores, bestbuy.com and on the cisco website. The service requires a minimum of 3.5 Mbps to work in 1080p, though it can be optimized for use at lower speeds, as low as 1.5Mbps for 720p. This means that the service will largely be limited to those with cable broadband or FTTx. Cisco believes that 34% of US households have this type of upstream capability—which is in line with Strategy Analytics’ own estimates.

The Network Effect

Back in the early days, the phone company sold “telephone pairs,” with the understanding that the value of the network lies in the number of nodes. A telephone network with one phone is not terribly valuable. Nor is a telepresence unit if there’s nobody on the other end. Cisco has partially circumvented this problem by providing interoperability with Google video chat, though if you’re spending $600 on a unit, you probably want the “real thing.” The real value of telepresence will be realized when there is a robust network of equipped households. While family video-calling seems the most obvious use-case, its utility seems rather limited. How many times do we really want to videochat with Grandma each month? Unless and until the network reaches critical mass, the appeal and draw of video calling will be very limited. Rather than a consumer mass market play, the real opportunity might very well be in the Business to Consumer (B2C) space. If private industry can help subsidize and drive the technology more mainstream, it could hit the critical mass it needs. Cisco talked about a number of other potential applications, three sound like potential winners in driving telepresence forward. These include

Financial Services: A $600 upfront investment and $25/month is a drop in the bucket for a company trying to prove its value to high net worth clients. For the cost of a few steak dinners, a Financial Services company could equip a client’s living room and increase the frequency of “touch points.”

Health Care: While the chatter around Telemedicine never seems to cease, this is one application where it actually could make sense. An insurance company might find it financially beneficial to subsidize a unit for a patient requiring regular and routine examinations, or for medical compliance monitoring (“Did you take your pills Mrs. Smith?”)

Distance Learning: How about tapping into the multi-billion dollar distance learning market in the US.  Equip every “Phoenix” with a system? That’s what I call scale.

I want one… but not for $599 plus $24.99/month

Many who experience the technology firsthand will want one for their own living room. It’s cool. It works well, and the potential applications are only limited by the imagination. It’s light years ahead of pc-based chat. On the flipside, the price is high. Too high. And when you add on the 24.99/month fee, it starts to feel like another cable bill. Survey research conducted by Strategy Analytics in Q3’10 shows that 30% of Americans showed some interest in a service of this type. Importantly, though, 46% of those interested said they are often concerned about their ability to afford regular household bills, 45% said they worried about signing up to new fixed term contracts when buying new products and services.

Adoption Will be Slow But Steady

Cisco would certainly admit that the $599 price point is untenable for the long run, and as volumes slowly ramp up, we should expect to see price points come down. If Cisco is successful in getting private industry into the game, and a subsidy model takes hold, we could see adoption speed up. The other barrier standing in the way of rapid adoption is broadband. While today only one-third of households have the minimum required bandwidth to support the system, this will certainly increase going forward. We estimate that by 2015, over 60% of all US households will have at least 1.5 Mbps upstream capabilities. Stay tuned…we’ll be putting out a Telepresence report in the upcoming

Some say that OTT is the “most over-hyped and over-anticipated phenomenon in tech history,” others would have you believe the end is nigh for traditional pay television as we know it. The truth?  As usual, it’s somewhere in between. A report we’ve just published, “Over-The-Top vs. TV Everywhere: How Disruptive is OTT to the Pay TV Business?” concludes that while the reaction to OTT has been perhaps overhyped, online distribution does pose a potential threat to the traditional pay television model. The numbers to-date, however, don’t necessarily portend an imminent  collapse of pay television as we know it. . In fact, US pay TV service providers added nearly 2 million additional subscribers in the first quarter of 2010, despite an increasing threat services such as Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube. That’s not to OTT should be ignored, however.  Survey research we published in early 2010 showed that US consumers perceive a relatively low “value for money” for pay television services.   OTT services can potentially capitalize on pay TV’s biggest shortcomings, namely a lack of flexibility in selecting channel packages, and a low perceived value for money. -Ben Piper

Google last week unveiled GoogleTV, heralded by Intel CEO Paul Otellini as "the biggest improvement to television since color."  And hey, what fun is a huge announcement without unrestrained hype, hyperbole, and flashy demos?  Right? Whooops!

Never Work with Children, Animals, or Bluetooth

Demos often seem predestined to fail.  Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a trade show demo can attest to that.  Well, this isn’t working as planned, but you get the idea moments are hardly rare. So it was not a big surprise to see the Google TV demo hampered and delayed by technical glitches.  For a  technology meant to harness the power of Internet, and bring the experience to the television seamlessly, this was not particularly confidence-inspiring.  But we still get the idea…

Introducing WebTV 2.0?

Some of us are old enough to remember painful previous attempts at bringing the experience of the Web to the television screen.  Was WebTV simply misunderstood?  Or was it ahead of its time? Perhaps both.   What WebTV fundamentally missed was the singular and individual nature of Internet experience  One could argue that it did little more than render the tv screen a monitor viewable by the whole family.  The result was an experience similar to having someone read over your shoulder.  Creepy and annoying. To be sure, the technology has been there for years—it’s the business case that has been lacking.

Why it just might work this time

GoogleTV has a fighting chance this time, for several reasons…

Cord cutting is fast becoming a reality

Today things are markedly different.  With a growing abundance of online video, “Cord cutting,” the notion of Cable and Satellite customers moving to unmanaged free or almost free Internet-based platforms, is fast becoming a reality. Strategy Analytics sees the number of so-called "cord cutters" exceeding 10% of US television households by the end of the year. Video will continue to dominate, accounting for over half of all of all consumer Internet traffic in the next five years.

Source: Strategy Analytics

Although the GoogleTV talking points bill the platform as “complementary” to cable, satellite and Telco TV, make no mistake—GoogleTV is a competitor to traditional “managed” pay tv.

It satisfies a demonstrated need

While it has been possible to emulate a pay tv environment with a game console, a tv and a PC, the level of sophistication required to knit these together into a seamless and enjoyable viewing experience went far beyond the aptitude or interest of the average consumer. GoogleTV may just bridge that gap. Observational research of Connected Media Users in the US and Europe, performed under the auspices of Strategy Analytics’ Digital Home Observatory, uncovered some common missing elements consumers identified in today’s Over the Top (OTT) ecosystem In addition to the desire for an integrated experience across devices, respondents brought up the wish for a more personalized viewing experience, and the ability to discover new relevant content based upon their existing likes and interests, and more relevant advertising and payment options. These are all places where GoogleTV can deliver.

The Power of the Value Chain

As strange as it may seem to see Sony chief Howard Stringer sharing the stage with Google and talking about “openness,” a critical success factor for GoogleTV is the power of its value chain, and the A-list partners it has teamed up with. Along with Sony, the presence of Intel and Logitech, as well as BestBuy and Dish bring some credibility to the table.

TBD?

Pricing

Rumors are floating around about likely price points, but nothing firm as of yet. This could be critical, as a $399 Logitech “companion box” sounds like it may collect dust on the BestBuy shelves.

Content

Somewhat surprisingly absent from last week’s announcement was any real mention of the content side. Sure, there was lip service paid to “You Tube Lean Back,” but nothing of any great consequence. YouTube, which turns five this year, is starting to offer full-length movies, though it still lacks enough professional content to make it a viable alternative, and UGC (User Generated Content) is, by nature, ephemeral. How many times can you watch “David After Dentist?” And what about Sony’s extensive library of television series and movies?

Net Neutrality

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the goings on with the FCC are doing very little to inject any sort of confidence or certainty into the minds of investors. And even though Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way” strategy appears to be the current path, the fight has not even started with the MSOs and Telcos. Expect this to be tied up in court for the next few years. And that, we get. -Ben Piper

"The FCC is not having a one-night stand with Net neutrality,” said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps back in 2008, “ but an affair of the heart and commitment for life.”   Today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may amount to a trial separation for the lovely couple.  The court delivered a painful kick in the shins to the FCC today, ruling that the agency  overstepped its boundaries in 2008 by imposing an enforcement action against Comcast, alleging the cable company’s  broadband network management practices to be in violation of the FCC's policy principles. Today’s ruling vacates the enforcement, which had called on Comcast to be more transparent in its network management practices.   While today’s decision may raise more questions than it delivers answers, it may be useful to consider some of the short and medium term implications.   The court’s decision is more about the FCC’s authority than on “Net Neutrality” per se  My number one prediction?  The mainstream media will get it wrong.   They will suggest that this is a ruling against Net Neutrality.  To be clear, today’s ruling is about the role and the regulatory boundaries of the FCC—not necessarily a ruling against Net Neutrality or the concept of an Open Internet.  The FCC in a statement said the agency remains "committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans."   This decision will be challenged, but that could take years.  In the meantime, look for the service providers to begin “testing the waters.”   I’m no lawyer, but as a more than casual industry observer, I can predict with some certainty that this is not a definitive ruling.  It will more than likely end up in the Supreme Court—but don’t make any plans yet.  Broadband is now classified by the FCC as a “lightly regulated information service,” and as such it skirts many the regulations imposed on traditional Telecom services with regards to open networks. Some suggest that the FCC, as a rulemaking body, can simply reclassify broadband, and impose tougher regulation.   Whatever the final disposition is, time is on the side of the service providers.  The glacial speed of change in DC means that in the upcoming months (and even years), Comcast and other service providers—granted a temporary reprieve—will likely begin testing the waters, and recommence traffic prioritization and other various and sundry network management antics.   What about OTT?   An affirmative decision on Net neutrality has always been a cornerstone of the future of unmanaged over-the-top (OTT) video.  Today’s ruling throws a monkey wrench in those works.  Until the next challenge, Comcast (and any service provider for that matter), reserves the right to prioritize and manage traffic streams as they see fit.   “Sure we’ll get your YouTube video—just not all at once.” And oh yeah, what about the future of the US National Broadband Policy?   Here’s hoping the FCC is reunited with its soul-mate.   -Ben Piper

In a report to be published in the few days, my colleague Martin Olausson and I talk about the new challenges facing France Telecom (Orange), in light of a recent ruling by the French Competition Authority. According to a commission appointed by France's Competition Council, Orange’s exclusive carriage of channels on its “Orange TV” IPTV platform “has drawbacks in the short, medium, and long-term,” rendering it “undesirable to maintain.” This decision could potentially have repercussions on the entire industry, and Orange will need to fundamentally alter its marketing strategy to stay in the game. A few thoughts…

If not content, then what?

Strategy Analytics has long held that content—particularly exclusive content—would be a key differentiator and driver of IPTV uptake. Recent developments in the hyper-competitive French market threaten to change that model.  Orange, which was unable to differentiate itself on the basic services level, has pursued an aggressive content strategy in recent years, spending over €200 million to acquire exclusive rights to sports and other content, packaged under its Orange Sport and Orange Cinéma Séries brands. The strategy has worked quite well for the operator, and utilizing exclusive content to market its pay TV services has led to rapid growth of its pay TV segments. Now all of that is in limbo, and the operator will need to find other ways to stand out.

Pricing matters…but differs by region

One of the takeaways of a report we published back in September was that platforms don’t matter to customers—features do.   Well, features and price. Further customer survey work we have just completed confirms that price as a churn motivator depends largely on the individual market. Our research shows French consumers to be the least motivated by price, and those in the UK most influenced. Much of this has to do with consumer perception. In France, all the major triple play service providers offer very similar packages at essentially the same price. Our interpretation is that the typical French consumer might not feel it worth the time to make a switch—even for a 20% discount. The perceived disparity is much greater in markets such as the UK, where pricing and bundling disparities are much more pronounced.

Challenge is in finding ‘non-content differentiators’

The recent ruling by France's Competition Council suggests that the “traditional” differentiation through content may not be viable for much longer. As such, operators will be forced to find other ways to differentiate and “own” the customer. The easiest way to do this, in our opinion, is to control the gateway into the home and offer a better QoE, and more value for money (i.e. better bundles) for the consumers than the competition.

Sony has introduced what it calls a new device category at CES 2010: the “Personal Internet Viewer”. This takes the form of Dash, a small, 7” touch screen internet access device with WiFi access to the home network. It will launch in April 2010 and retail at $199. Dash is based on Flash technology, so, “for Flash, get Dash”. Dash is based on Chumby’s internet service. It currently features more than 1000 internet services and applications across social networking, news, music and video, and can access video from Sony’s Bravia internet video platform. It can run multiple applications simultaneously. One drawback is that it is only mains-powered, so in-home portability is out of the question. Nevertheless we felt this was a very nice implementation of a simple to use, and relatively inexpensive internet access device. At $199 it could well become a favourite for kitchens and bedrooms. We were also impressed with the progress made by Plastic Logic, a company originating from the well-known hub for advanced display technologies – Cambridge in the UK. PL was showing off its QUE ProReader e-reader. At $649 the product is aimed very much at the professional needing to access multiple documents on the move, such as newspapers, books, newsletters and reports. Barnes and Noble is behind the QUE bookstore, and connectivity is via WiFi and AT&T’s 3G network. The device is extremely thin, light and easy to read, and battery life is supposedly several days in normal use. If volume sales lead to cost efficiencies and price declines this technology could find its way into the mass market. In the meantime the company is looking towards adding colour and eventually video capabilities. Client Reading: Consumer Imperatives for Digital TV Media Browsers

When I switched my home television service  from DirecTV to Comcast last summer, the slick sales guy on the other end of the line promised me that I would be receiving an identical channel lineup to the one I was currently receiving.  “Apples to apples,” he promised. “Only cheaper.”   What’s not to like? You’d think that I, someone who gets paid to research and write about digital television, would have done more due diligence on his own account.  I didn’t. So, when it became apparent that two “must have” channels for me (NatGeo and BBC America) were not in my Comcast tier, I called again to inquire.  Seems that to get those, I would have pay an additional $15 a month to buy up to the next highest tier, one filled with numerous channels of no use or interest to me.   Suddenly the calculus changed.  This was no longer a good deal.  

This time, it’s not coming from the FCC

Recent movements suggest that change may be afoot.  No sooner had Comcast announced the launch of its OTT-mitigating Fancast Xfinity TV service than rumors started circulating about Apple’s talks with CBS and ABC.  Seems the folks in Cupertino are mulling a subscription-based video service, obviating the need for iPhone/iPod users to depend solely on the Apple iTunes service for downloads. If the Apple service is successful at elegantly bridging  the '’screen gap,” and delivering compelling online content to the tv screen, it could fundamentally alter the way MSOs sell content.  The much maligned “bundled” system currently in place, whereby consumers are required to purchase content in blocks of channels--rather than individually--could finally be on the chopping block.  And that’s good news. What is interesting, though, is that the catalyst for this change will be the market—not a government mandate as previously feared. A la carte used to be somewhat of a cause célèbre in the television world, and one that the FCC has been wrestling for years. It was only the more recent emergence of “net neutrality” that has stolen the spotlight from the issue. Former FCC Commissioner Powell’s administration commissioned a 2004 report finding that, under an mandated a la carte scheme, customers would end up paying more.  That report has since been largely discredited and found to be riddled with misinformation and half-baked analysis.  Successor Kevin Martin embraced “cable choice,” though apparently more for the way it allows parents to monitor and block channels, than for household consumer budgetary reasons. One analyst firm  rather dramatically predicted ‘economic ruin’ if the FCC went ahead with its plan.

Who moved my talking points?

Government-mandated a la carte is bad for cable consumers, who would wind up paying higher prices to receive the same level of service and fewer channels than they receive today.”-NCTA Issue Brief, January 2009

The National Cable Television Association (NCTA ) talking points were crafted to respond to a possible “government takeover” of television.  In the context of a market driven change, the memo reads somewhat differently.  Most of the arguments fly out the window, and the market will call the cable industry’s bluff on the supposed technological barriers to offering personalized programming. As usual, the problem does not lie in the technology, but rather in the business model The very nature of cable advertising is in flux, brought upon largely by digital television.  The 30-year old model in place today, whereby flagship channels lead certain tiers and support fledgling new ones, could be facing some changes.  While the NCTA estimates that half of cable companies’ revenues come from national ad sales, this is certainly shifting.  Intelligent two-way networks will herald in addressable advertising—the next step in demographic targeting. Indeed, vendors I spoke with only months ago alluded to some “user identification” scenarios that could pinpoint actual viewers within a household, based on their “jitter signature.”  Seems that we all shake and tremble in our own unique ways, and it is possible to use these signatures like fingerprints, and serve up completely targeted advertising.  To be sure, , vendors will need to overcome the “creep out” factor first, but the general idea is the same.  Linear advertising as we know it is going the way of the dodo, and the MSO’s ‘old math’ will need to change.

It’s not about choice…it’s about the illusion of choice

Our research shows time and time again that consumers are tired are feeling that they are being screwed by their pay television providers.  The nickel and diming in all aspects of consumers’ lives has grown out of control.  Our latest survey work (to be published in Q1) found that only about 20% of pay tv customers felt that the ““value for money” they were getting from their pay television operator exceeded expectations. Part of the issue is consumers’ feeling that they have no control, that they are somehow being  taken advantage of.. Choice—or more importantly, the illusion of choice—is an extremely powerful tool.   Think of the immensely popular Build a Bear Workshop franchise, whose stores dot shopping malls across the world.  BABW allows customers to design and personalize their very own stuffed creatures by visiting eight “stuffed animal-making stations,” where they can choose (and buy) everything from stuffing to clothing.  The concept has been a huge hit, and the company is now a $300 million/year concern, with over 400 stores worldwide.  What is the secret to the company’s success?  Certainly not selling adorable plush animals; anyone can do that.  Rather, BABW has perfected the illusion of choice and flexibility.  All customer start at the same default position: buying a bear.  The trick is, they end up paying more for the additional  features relevant to them.

How about “Build a Bundle?”

What prevents MSOs from employing a similar strategy—allowing customers to design their own bundled offerings?  All would start at the same default position, the $XX/month basic tier.  The real money comes in the add-ons.  Critics say this is not how advertising works in the cable industry.  Guess what?  It’s about to change. My (still untested) hypothesis is that, if customers were given the choice to “personalize” a  television bundle, ARPUs would actually increase--or at least stay the same.  Allowing them to configure a package conveys the illusion of choice and control, and makes customers think they are in the driver’s seat. Sounds like a great project-opportunity…phone lines are open if someone out there wants us to test the concept.

How much is a cable-free TV worth? That’s the key question for TV manufacturers and technology vendors as they seek to stir interest once again in the concept of wire-free TVs and peripheral devices. While few consumers will have noticed, it’s been possible for a few years to connect high definition devices like set-top boxes and Blu-ray Disc players to HDTVs without using a cable. The technology has been built in to a few very high-end TVs from Sony and others, but at enormous cost. In fact, with 40” LCD TVs retailing at $600 or less, it can cost considerably more than that just to retrofit a wireless HD set-up. Clearly only those most passionate about clutter-free homes are likely to see the value in spending $1000 or more to remove one cable from their AV system. Until the costs come down dramatically it seems that wireless HD is likely to remain entrenched in its niche market. Those obstacles won’t stop two key wireless HD technology proponents from getting their messages across as CES 2010 approaches. We’ve published several times about this particular tech standards battle over the past few years. The conclusions in our 2007 review look pretty accurate with the benefit of two and a half years’ hindsight. At that time we didn’t expect much standards clarity or indeed volume in the market much before 2010, and that’s more or less how things have panned out. There are two major technology developers: Amimon, which supports the WHDI standard, and SiBeam, which backs WirelessHD. Behind each vendor is a selection of familiar names from the consumer electronics industry, with several appearing on both sides. For this reason alone it’s been difficult to predict the eventual outcome of this battle, if indeed one solution eventually comes to dominate the market. Sony in particular has flirted with both camps, and although it has recently indicated increased support for WirelessHD, executives have suggested they are still uncertain about the longer term potential for wireless HD technologies in general. According to Sony, the price increment is the main barrier to wider adoption. Amimon has also announced progress in the past few days, with the introduction of WHDI PC modules aimed at netbooks and notebooks. WHDI-HDMI adapters will also be launched so that HDMI devices can be enabled for wireless HD. Consumer products are expected to reach the market next year. Apart from the main technical differences between the two standards – one being that WHDI uses 5GHz, WirelessHD 60GHz – a key debating point is whether whole-home signal distribution has significant value. The WHDI camp pushes this as one its main advantages. Personally this strikes me as a strange argument: most peripheral devices will support one display at any one time, wherever they are placed in the home. There may be some demand for devices which support multiple displays (whole-home DVRs, for example), but these are likely to be an expensive alternative to buying multiple devices. The main user advantage of wireless HD technologies seems to me to be removing the wires within a single AV system, and both technologies do this job. The other arguments inevitably have focused on quality and performance, and these are always tough to judge from an independent perspective. I’m sure we’ll hear more from both camps over the coming weeks and during CES itself. But until they can guarantee more realistic consumer price points wireless HD solutions are likely to remain a distant prospect for mass market success. Twitter: twitter.com/DavidMercer_SA Client Reading: HDTV: Standards Muddle Clouds Outlook For Wireless Displays Technorati code: XRKDPAZFT879

I’m on my way back to Boston,after spending 2 days at the Telco TV event in Orlando, a somewhat small--but nonetheless impressive--show focused on the IPTV space.  I’m posting this online at 35,000 feet, which is one of the few places I don’t particularly mind (or at least won’t audibly complain about) paying for connectivity.

My overall takeaway from the show is that IPTV still has a long way to go--and I feel like I say that every year at this time. A few notes and observations from the keynote sessions, workshops, and meetings:

What have you done for me lately?

For years, we’ve been hearing about the promise of IPTV, and the jaw-dropping array of services and applications it will ultimately deliver. The potential and promise of IPTV has been widely hyped. Jeff Weber, VP of Video Products at AT&T, suggested that IPTV’s upside is “beyond our understanding.” The question remains, though, what has the technology delivered?

Research we recently published confirms the strong growth opportunities for IPTV in the US—that growth, however, is dependent on a few basic conditions, including sustainable customer take up, and achievable and meaningful differentiation. The “me too” services won’t cut it anymore.

Um…the datestamp on that slide is “2005”

Sadly, the slideware on display at this year’s keynotes and sessions might as well have been from five years ago. The same tired slides and examples keep showing up again and again, presented as “innovative” and “new.” These include on-screen Caller ID (a curious notion in the first place, given the rapid decline of residential landlines, and the inherently personal nature of telephone communication), customizable EPG skins (really??), multiview, and remote DVR programming.

Not exactly earth shattering stuff.

Is there an app for that?

While IPTV may not fully realize its full potential for several years, the general consensus seems to be that the likely path to innovation in the space may come through the open “widgetization.” Drawing parallels to iPhone apps, proponents of this theory foresee a flood of new applications migrating to the television screen. Whether or not these can be (or should be) monetized remains another question. It does loop back to the fundamental question: how to compel a consumer to move to IPTV.

No first mover advantage

IPTV represents the first time in the Telcos’ history that they have been second to market…indeed, they enjoyed near or complete platform monopolies for decades. Television has a long and storied past, and consumers have developed a set of expectations and quality thresholds. Having to build to a set high-water mark is no easy task. And they have to do more than replicate what the cable companies are offering—to be successful, they have to surpass it.

What the Telcos have in their favor, however, is a long legacy of delivering “five nines” quality to consumers; an established brand and existing customer base.

The challenge is in meshing the two pieces together: harnessing the experience and success of the past, while simultaneously changing the fundamental Telco mindset from one of a monopolistic utility provider to that of a competitive provider of services.