May 7, 2012
Volume XXXIX, Issue 5
Ignite Technologies Launches IgniteLIVE
Ignite Technologies, the leader in providing enterprise content delivery solutions to publish, deliver, and manage digital assets, this week announced the launch of IgniteLIVE. The new addition to the Ignite product suite enables companies to easily schedule and deliver live events and eliminate traditional network bandwidth demands.
IgniteLIVE is a scalable, network friendly solution for businesses to communicate with employees, customers, and partners for town hall meetings, executive and inter-departmental communications, and product launches.
Traditional streaming solutions have limited reach, poor user-interaction options, and require expensive network upgrades and lengthy deployments. Company networks are often challenged when employees view the stream at the same time or are located in remote offices with low bandwidth. The key differentiator with Ignite's live streaming solution is the ability to eliminate these challenges with its peer-assisted delivery technology.
IgniteLIVE can be deployed as a standalone product or seamlessly integrated into an existing live streaming solution, allowing companies who already have a streaming product to gain the added efficiencies of peer-assisted live streaming.
"Companies of all sizes are increasing their demand for more live events, and we are really excited about our new product offering," said Jim Janicki, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at Ignite Technologies. "IgniteLIVE offers customers a unique combination of unprecedented reach, matched with our peer-assisted delivery technology providing a low cost and more efficient live event streaming solution."
IgniteLIVE is a full featured live-event solution for businesses to communicate with employees, customers, and partners. Pricing for IgniteLIVE begins as low as $5.00 per viewer, per year for unlimited events.
Features include: custom console brand with corporate logo to customize; automated delivery of e-mail invitations and one-click 'Join Now' easy upload of invitees and automated delivery to ensure high participation rate; live moderated Q&A - polling - chat options for engaging participants during event and receiving immediate feedback; detailed reporting -review reports of viewership and peering efficiency; and peer-assisted delivery to optimize bandwidth and resources with Ignite's patented delivery technology.
Report from CEO Marty Lafferty
 The question I've been asked most this week is: Why are we opposed to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)?
Public interest groups including Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have been vocal in decrying its potential devastation of consumer privacy online by virtually eliminating the First and Fourth Amendments.
That would be reason enough for us to want to see this measure abandoned by the US Senate, but we also have additional concerns based on our organizational mission.
The DCIA is focused on commercial advancement of distributed computing technologies - such as cloud computing - and as InfoWorld, among others, reported this week, "CISPA poses a threat to the privacy of entire organizations, from non-profits and small businesses on up to enterprises - and even to the very future of cloud computing."
While the ill-conceived measure purports to address an issue around which there's general consensus - cybersecurity - it fails to accomplish that, while it would instigate a dangerous regime with a high potential for disastrous consequences.
As Congressman Markey (D-MA) opined this week, it should be called the cyber "insecurity" bill because it allows sensitive information to be shared with the federal government with impunity, even if it is not related to cybersecurity, and permits the government to use that data to spy on its citizens. Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) agreed with Markey.
What CISPA does not do is require entities to disclose what they are doing to protect cybersecurity - or even to reveal when they have been attacked. What it does is condone the sharing of proprietary and confidential material in the total absence of judicial oversight.
Under the House-approved measure, the federal government, public agencies, utilities, and private organizations designated as "certified entities" would be able freely to circulate customer data without due process and without any fear of reprisal if supposed "concerns" regarding the data turned out to be totally unfounded.
Under the vague and overly-broad language of the bill, "cybersecurity providers," who would be encouraged to voluntarily divulge data, include broadband network operators, cloud services providers, and, ironically, software companies and services firms that offer cybersecurity benefits to their customers.
Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) called CISPA "a massive government overreach, giving secret government agencies information without accountability."
Hosting companies and data centers that support even the most rudimentary applications and include as part of their service the securing of their customers' data, could simply choose to release information, including e-mails, financial data, proprietary business practices, and other sensitive private material.
The Internet service providers (ISPs), which transmit that data, could also elect to release it.
And the web-based companies or other institutions, which are engaged with their customers in the business transactions that rely upon this information, could similarly do so.
CISPA does not specify individual citizens as its targets, but rather is broad enough in its scope to include institutions of all kinds, from small-and-medium size businesses (SMBs) to large enterprises.
The criteria for determining to proceed with data disclosure are entirely subjective. Differing political views alone could justify providing access to information in the name of "protecting security." A customer relationship dispute could trigger releasing data. - as long as it could be posed as some sort of "security" question. Almost any related rationale could be made into an excuse.
And if the outcome was that the disclosed data in the end posed no cybersecurity threat, there would be absolutely no repercussions to the disclosing party. Zero consequences for performing an act that would be ruinous to the customer whose confidentiality would have been violated without due process.
In addition to this unacceptable elimination of a fundamental level of security expected in customer vendor relationships, too much data is now being generated by individuals and institutions for this kind of approach even to be practical in achieving its stated goal if it were enacted.
According to the 2011 IDC Digital Universe Study, 1.8 trillion gigabytes of data were created last year; and Cisco projects that, by 2015, 1 million minutes of video will be transmitted over the Internet every second and there will be twice as many networked devices as there are people in the world.
Federal authorities can't analyze this amount of traffic, and increasing the amount of data that they are expected to inspect and evaluate, as CISPA proposes to do, will just make matters worse.
What government reasonably can and should do is to focus much more narrowly on critical infrastructure subsets of this data, such as utility grids, internal government networks, and the financial system.
Securing those would fulfill its obligations to protect the citizenry from cyberthreats for which it should take direct responsibility. And facilitating new, distributed private sector response mechanisms, which would be much nimbler and more effective than CISPA's centralized government program, would have far better results.
Our concern as a trade association seeking to foster the adoption of cloud computing and to encourage the innovative advancement of cloud-based services is this: CISPA, as drafted, could be the single greatest deterrent in the history of technologically-focused regulation to the usage of Internet-based solutions.
CISPA would stifle innovation in our sector generally, and impede cloud computing in particular.
If your organization is concerned in any way with the privacy of its data, why should it subject itself to storing proprietary information in a data center that is rendered totally insecure by government fiat?
And again the irony is profound here - especially if the hosting company or cloud services provider offers data protection - at any moment and without warning that vendor or other entity in the data flow chain could decide to share your sensitive data with the federal government and other parties.
This is why we oppose CISPA and urge DCINFO readers respectfully to ask that your Senators reject this measure and also request that President Obama veto it should that become necessary. Demand Progress supporters have sent more than 200,000 e-mails and 15,000 phone-calls to Congress to stop CISPA.
A more reasonable approach would be to adopt the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, a Senate alternative to CISPA, which aims more narrowly to "enhance the security and resiliency of the nation's cyber and communications infrastructure." This not only avoids the privacy-threatening aspects of CISPA, but also has a greater likelihood of being successfully implemented thanks to its more realistic scope. The bill is far from perfect, but with careful redrafting could be much more effective - and less harmful - than CISPA.
The most effective cybersecurity strategy will be one that is agile and decentralized, focused on sharing information about threats and attacks, and, just as important, on proven ways to defend against them - approaches that are totally foreign to CISPA. Share wisely, and take care.
CISPA Approved by House but Critics Urge Senate to Block "Horrible" Bill
Excerpted from The Guardian Report by Dominic Rushe
Free speech advocates are calling for the Senate to block controversial cybersecurity legislation they claim will give the US authorities unprecedented access to online communications.
The House of Representatives on Thursday ignored the threat of a White House veto to pass the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The bill aims to make it easier for companies to share information collected on the Internet with the federal government in order to help prevent electronic attacks from cybercriminals, foreign governments, and terrorists.
Sponsors of the bill have made several amendments to CISPA in the past week, but critics say the bill still threatens to overrule existing privacy protections for citizens, and hands the National Security Agency (NSA) too much power to access and use people's private information.
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) said it was "disappointed that CISPA passed the House in such flawed form and under such a flawed process."
"We are also disappointed that House leadership chose to block amendments on two core issues we had long identified - the flow of information from the private sector directly to NSA and the use of that information for national security purposes unrelated to cybersecurity."
"CISPA goes too far for little reason," said Michelle Richardson, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans' online privacy. As we've seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there's no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity."
Richardson said senior figures including Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, Anna Eshoo, on the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, plus 28 Congressional Republicans had voted against the bill.
"We are disappointed that it got this far but we remain optimistic that this bill can be killed," Richardson said. She said the big danger now was that a compromise would be drawn up which could still endanger civil liberties online.
Earlier this week, the Obama administration said it would veto the bill unless major amendments were made. Obama's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."
"Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held legally accountable for failing to safeguard personal information adequately," the OMB said.
On Thursday night the bill's author, Republican Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House intelligence committee, defended it. "This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this country," he said. According to Open Secrets, Rogers' Pac received $103,000 in this election cycle from 12 companies that have lobbied for CISPA.
Cybersecurity experts said that the threat the bill aims to tackle is serious, but that better compliance with existing rules was at least as important as new legislation.
Tony Busseri, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Route1, a cybersecurity firm that counts the US Navy and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) among its clients, said the threat of cybersecurity was "massive" especially with the proliferation of tablet computing and mobile devices that meant more and more sensitive information was moving outside the office.
"It's about managing vulnerabilities," he said. "Candidly we don't apply the rules and regulations that are already there to protect us. The risk here is that we end up politicizing this issue."
Top Five Biggest Concerns about CISPA
Excerpted from PC Magazine Report by Chloe Albanesius
The House on Thursday opted for an earlier-than-expected vote on the controversial CISPA bill, which now moves to the Senate. But what's the big deal with this bill? How might it affect the average web user?
The Cyber Information Sharing & Protection Act (CISPA) is intended to allow for information-sharing between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. In defending the bill recently, Facebook argued that it and other tech firms are limited in what they can share when a cyber scammer strikes.
"When one company detects an attack, sharing information about that attack promptly with other companies can help protect those other companies and their users from being victimized by the same attack," Joel Kaplan, Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, argued in a blog post.
But what information are we talking about? My Facebook photos? Google searches? Cloud-based files? That's the concern of opponents - from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU to the White House. Basically, they fear that CISPA will give tech companies carte blanche to hand over all user data in the name of cyber security - without those users' permission.
But there are also some very specific concerns about what CISPA will and won't do. We break down a few of the top ones.
1. Immunity: CISPA offers "good faith" immunity to companies that identify and report a cyber-security issue to the feds. But, EFF argued, the definition of good faith is very vague, "which is likely to make difficult any attempt at litigating against companies" that might put your data at risk. During a floor debate this week, Rep. Jared Polis suggested that CISPA incentivizes companies to hand over any and all data just to secure this immunity.
2. Military, NSA Access to Data: Detractors fear that CISPA will allow for companies to hand over data to any branch of the government - including the military and the National Security Agency (NSA). In objecting to the bill this week, the White House argued that CISPA "effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity and thus, significantly departs from longstanding efforts to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres." Instead, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the administration said, should play a "central role" in cybersecurity issues. In attempting to address this issue, the House approved an amendment that calls on the Inspector General in his required report about CISPA to list "all federal agencies receiving information shared with the government," but it doesn't expressly stop agencies like the NSA from viewing the data.
3. Just the Beginning: Though bill sponsors argue that they have no nefarious intentions with CISPA, opponents are mainly concerned with its unintended consequences. As ACLU Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson argued last night, "Once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there's no going back." In its statement, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) said it was concerned that CISPA does not address the use of data "for national security purposes unrelated to cybersecurity."
4. Bypassing Existing Laws: A common theme on the House floor and in CISPA-related statements from privacy groups is that the bill overrides privacy, wiretap, and surveillance laws that are already on the books. "Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public's trust in the Government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections," the White House said.
5. GOP Ignoring Amendments: Members of Congress opposed to CISPA have complained that House leadership did not allow votes on amendments that would have addressed some of their concerns. "Such momentous issues deserved a vote of the full House," CDT argued. During a floor debate yesterday, however, Rep. Richard Nugent said that the process was "a perfect example of how this House is supposed to work," while other supporters noted that CISPA was passed out of committee with a vote of 17 to 1.
CISPA has drawn comparisons to another controversial cyber-security bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). For more, see the top concerns people had with SOPA (and its companion bill, PIPA) at the time.
CISPA: A "Vaguely-Defined" Bill against an "Imaginary Threat"
Excerpted from RT Report
The House of Representative has passed CISPA, a bill seeking to increase the government's power to monitor private data online. Political commentator Luke Samuel says the law is directed against a nebulously-defined and imaginary threat.
RT: Is CISPA really so bad for the average user? If you do nothing wrong, what does anybody have to worry about it?
Luke Samuel (LS): Well, this is the common attitude in the discussion around privacy. Effectively, if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried about passing over your private information. And I actually think that's a really damaging attitude. We as citizens have a right to hold back information from the state and from government snoops. So I think this portrays what's underlying a lot of anti-privacy legislation around the world, not just online, but also offline. This attitude that being able to hold your personal information is no longer important, which it is.
RT: We've seen so much of these web-regulating lawmaking attempts, SOPA, PIPA, and now CISPA. Why is it all coming at once?
LS: Well it's important, actually, to distinguish CISPA from the rest of them because CISPA is not about intellectual property (IP). This is an act about something far more nebulous. It's about protecting "cybersecurity." And by the way, no one really knows what cybersecurity actually means, which makes it a far more dangerous act. It's effectively giving the American government significant powers to inspect and to snoop, to investigate concerns which no one has really defined. And that's what a lot of campaigners around this act have pointed out. But these terms are fundamentally ill-defined and nebulous. That actually makes it a more dangerous piece of legislation than those that have gone before it.
RT: Thousands of Europeans came out against ACTA. What can they do about CISPA? It's a US law, but it could still reach them if they use, for instance, Google.
LS: Well that's absolutely right. But that also underplays the role that the British government specifically have played during much the same in lawmaking over here. We know that earlier this year the coalition government in the United Kingdom (UK) announced plans very similar to what's being proposed in CISPA now: the power to effectively intercept and read private communications from the web. CISPA does affect an international audience, but it almost doesn't need that because governments, especially in the UK, are sharing that impulse to interfere in our private Internet communications. It's an extremely worrying global trend.
RT: Cybersecurity is a concern, though. A lot of sensitive information is online these days. Isn't it time to have some more tightened laws to police it if it gets out of hand?
LS: Well, that's the wrong focus. What we should be discussing is our right to retain information. Sure, there may be some spotty jihadi sympathizers out there who may want to come and infiltrate our Internet security. To be honest, I think these spotty jihadists exist more in the minds of Western governments than they do anywhere in reality.
Can anyone actually name a significant act of cyberterrorism that has happened in the West, ever? No, because it never has. It's an imagined threat. And it's an imagined threat which now threatens our freedom online and threatens our experience of the Internet. So the fact that this legislation is being effectively introduced in response to an imagined threat actually adds to the suspicion and danger around it.
I don't think this is about Internet security. I think it's about national security generally. I think this act is more likely to be used to control and monitor efforts to organize terrorist attacks offline. The danger with that is that in America specifically, we've recently had arrests of individuals for encouraging al-Qaeda sympathies. Now, that couldn't be possible under the American legal system because of the First Amendment.
And because of these recent cases, there's a radical reinterpretation underway of the First Amendment and, more broadly, free speech's position in American society. So I don't think we should be concerned about that small minority that might try to shut down MasterCard for another half an hour. We should be concerned about the American government's will and drive to control not just our freedom online, but our freedom to publish ideas more widely.
The House of Representatives approved CISPA, which stands for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, with a vote of 248-168 on Thursday. The Senate is set to discuss and vote on the legislation, after which it will go to President Obama's desk. The White House has so far come out with a statement saying Obama will be advised to veto the legislation.
CISPA was introduced by Representative Mike Rogers last November and has since been amended a number of times. The bill has been censured by a number of famous personalities and NGOs, including Tim Berners-Lee, the man credited with creating the World Wide Web, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The Extremely Sad Story of a Hip-Hop Site Destroyed...
Excerpted from Digital Music News Report by Paul Resnikoff
The following comes from Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) attorneys Corynne McSherry and Cindy Cohn. The team just forced the disclosure of court documents that expose outrageous details about the seizure and near-destruction of hip-hop blog Dajaz1.com by the US Government and RIAA.
Proper legal processes seem completely absent in this picture - and worse, label reps themselves may have supplied Dajaz1 with promotional, leaked, and ultimately, "infringing" materials.
The site has since gone back online after being blacked-out for more than a year. But as anyone with any (online) business understands, missing a year is essentially the same as being put out of business. You have to start over.
After a year-long seizure and six more months of secrecy, the court records were finally released concerning the mysterious government takedown of Dajaz1.com - a popular blog dedicated to hip hop music and culture.
The records confirm that one of the key reasons the blog remained censored for so long is that the government obtained three secret extensions of time by claiming that it was waiting for "rights holders" and later, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), to evaluate a "sampling of allegedly infringing content" obtained from the website and respond to other "outstanding questions."
In other words, having goaded the government into an outrageous and very public seizure of the blog, the RIAA members refused to follow up and answer the government's questions.
In turn, the government acted shamefully, not returning the blog or apologizing for its apparent mistake, but instead secretly asking the court to extend the seizure and deny Dajaz1 the right to seek return of is property or otherwise get due process.
The government also refused to answer Congressional questions about the case. ICE finally released the domain name in December of 2011, again with no explanation.
It's not hard to guess what some of the unanswered "outstanding questions" might have been. Dajaz1.com, was seized with much fanfare by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the 2010 Thanksgiving weekend.
It was widely reported at the time that Dajaz1 should never have been targeted, that much of the blog's content was lawful, and that many of the allegedly infringing links were given to the site's owner by artists and labels themselves - including Kanye West, Diddy, and a vice president of a major record label.
So, at a minimum, we imagine the government was asking the RIAA to provide some evidence that the seizure was justified in the first place.
EFF teamed with the California First Amendment Coalition, represented by Josh Koltun, and our efforts were joined by Wired, in seeking the unsealing of the court records. Confronted with the prospect of having to defend the ongoing secrecy in court even after had it returned the domain, the government agreed to allow the records to be unsealed.
Now that the full court records are out, this seizure raises critical questions about the government's use of its new powers to shut down lawful speech in the form of domain seizures for alleged copyright infringements.
It also demonstrates the basic unfairness of the processes and secrecy invoked here and possibly in hundreds of other domain name seizures across the country. For nearly a year, the government muzzled Dajaz1.com - denying the blog's author the right to speak and the public's right to read what was published there - and then compounded matters by claiming extreme secrecy and blocking the Dajaz1 and the public's access to information about the case.
Equally troubling, the records confirm what was already suggested by the initial affidavit used to obtain the seizure order: that ICE, and its attorneys, are effectively acting as the hired gun of the content industry at taxpayers' expense.
Instead of relying on rightsholders to determine whether a seizure was appropriate, the government should have been conducting its own thorough investigation. If it had acted in anything like good faith, it could have determined that the site wasn't a proper target even before the seizure, or at least could have discovered and rectified the mistake before a year had passed.
The whole story is, in a word, appalling. The only silver lining? US taxpayers and their representatives have an object lesson, if one were needed, in why the government should not be granted new IP enforcement powers and why we need to reconsider the inclusion of copyright infringement as a basis for civil seizure and forfeiture.
And in the short term, maybe when Hollywood comes knocking again, ICE will remember that the RIAA isn't such a reliable crime-fighting partner after all.
US Households Turn Up Connected-TV Adoption
Excerpted from eMarketer Report
Online video will continue to enjoy its place in the sun, especially as the connected-TV category grows. According to an April 2012 analysis by Leichtman Research Group (LRG), 38% of US households - roughly two in five - will have at least one TV connected to the Internet in 2012. That is up from 30% in 2011.
By LRG standards, connected TVs include those hooked up to the Internet through video game systems and Blu-ray players, Apple TVs, or Roku set-top boxes (STBs). The category also includes Internet-enabled "smart TVs," which LRG indicated are steadily growing in number.
Connected game consoles are the most popular method for streaming - 28% of households had an Internet-connected game console during the study period. Only 4% of all households, however, had an Internet-enabled TV set, or a smart TV. STBs like Apple TV and Roku were even less popular, present in only 1% of households.
Although many US households have been quick to adopt connected TV through game console streaming, a November 2011 study by market research company YouGov found that they trailed other markets in true "smart TV" adoption. Smart TVs were more popular in European countries and in the UAE. France led, with 18% of respondents owning smart TVs, while in the US only 9% of respondents owned them.
The connected living room will likely become more pervasive. Electronics companies such as Samsung, Lenovo, and Philips are already bringing smart TV products to the market. Apple is expected to release a smart TV later this spring, which is likely to boost both category awareness and adoption. Although the category is still fairly nascent, marketers can soon expect new opportunities for reaching an ever-connected online TV audience.
Connected TVs Offer Appetizing Distribution Platform
Excerpted from TV Blog Report by David Goetzl
So much of the magnificence of the web is rooted in content democracy, where anyone can become a global publisher. No walls or mazes.
Not long ago, video creators looking for wide distribution on TV sets had few options beyond going door to door begging cable companies for what's known as a hunting license. Then, after capturing one, going door to door again, begging for a spot on the dial in market after market.
Now, however, there is another emerging option. It doesn't quite harbor the democracy of the web, but the de facto lawmakers might not be as hard to lobby as a Comcast or Time Warner Cable. Smart and connected TVs and other over-the-top (OTT) options offer a chance to cut a deal with a Yahoo, Roku, or Samsung and launch a content portal via an app or widget.
Take iFood.tv, a five-year-old venture from former Microsoft executive Alok Ranjan and start-up veteran Vikrant Mathur. It started as a website with a load of food and recipe-related videos.
Since January, it's found its way onto TVs via Roku and Boxee; Google TV and Yahoo Connected TV; and on Samsung's Smart Hub. Viewers may not be accessing its offerings as much as Netflix or Hulu, but it's got an entry point.
"We are putting a big bet that the food and recipe kind of content is very suitable," said Ranjan, an engineer with an MBA.
IFood.tv has plenty of content with 35,000 videos available for on-demand viewing, collected from professional chefs, TV shows, cookbook authors and others. The company also says it has advantages with a recommendation engine based on personal taste, along with easy navigation and search technology.
Last month, the Silicon Valley company brought a trio of "channels" - focusing on Indian food, healthy food and vegetarian options - to various connected TV portals such as Google TV. It is also taking advantage of Apple TV - the Indian food channel can be downloaded as a free iPhone app and then streamed through the platform.
With its legacy online business, even without the cachet of a Food Network or Epicurious, iFood.tv had about 3 million US visitors in April, according to Quantcast data (down 8% from the year before).
The growth of smart-phones and tablets should prove a benefit as users look to access recipes in the kitchen. Large-screen connected TVs, however, probably have a limited presence there.
Co-founder Ranjan says, though, that "five, ten years from now almost all the TVs will be connected."
Seems like a reasonable assumption, both considering consumer behavior and manufacturers' interest in getting into the software business. IMS Research forecasts about 70% of total global TV shipments in 2016 will be Internet-connected. In 2011, the figure was 25%.
"Internet connectivity is becoming a standard on high-end TV sets, and it's increasingly being added to mid-end televisions," Veronica Thayer, a market analyst at IMS Research, said in a statement.
For now, iFood.tv and other companies launching video-on-demand "channels" via connected TVs already have pretty strong potential reach. The Leichtman Research Group says 38% of US homes have at least one Internet-connected set via a gaming system, Blu-ray player, Apple TV, Roku device or functionality built into the TV set directly.
IFood.tv has attracted a bucket of advertisers that include Kraft, L'Oreal and American Express. It is running a campaign now for the Brioni's coffee brand with an eco-friendly message, which includes a healthy living micro-site and some sponsored video.
"We try to engage the users with the message in the context of what the users are already doing," said co-founder Mathur, also an engineer with an MBA.
He's hoping that a growing connected-TV universe and over-the-top movement, and ubiquitous iFood.tv distribution across it, will attract a bevy of hungry advertisers. That's an appetizing opportunity for other independent video developers, too.
Good News for Broadband Providers: Connected TV Penetration to Reach 70%
Excerpted from V2M Report by Tara Seals
Consumer electronics (CE) manufacturers are increasingly building web connectivity into their living room entertainment devices, with smart-TV penetration to hit 70 percent of total TV shipments during 2016. Last year connected TVs accounted for a full quarter of TV sets shipped globally, IMS Research has revealed.
The segment will result in more than $117 billion in revenue for CE manufacturers, but the opportunity for video service providers of all stripes is not to be underestimated. Take, for instance, the opportunity to drive upper-tier broadband sales. Higher usage of connected TVs to access, say, Netflix or VUDU, will require increased bandwidth availability.
Increases in consumers opting for higher broadband tiers can aid in the quest for OTT monetization, while offsetting increased investment in broadband infrastructure. In fact, online video has already pushed median US broadband usage to more than double from the last year, to more than 10 gigabytes per month per household, according to Sandvine Research. Netflix alone accounts for 29 percent of broadband usage over fixed networks during peak hours.
"The faster bandwidth consumption escalates, the better the cable industry is positioned," wrote BTIG Research's Richard Greenfield in his blog. "With an increasing number of IP-enabled devices 'on net' in the home all the time, consumers will demand increasingly robust bandwidth and be willing to pay for it."
More available screens or online video, particularly on the main living-room device, can only serve to spur the opportunity along. "Internet connectivity is becoming a standard on high-end TV sets, and it's increasingly being added to mid-end televisions," says Veronica Thayer, Market Analyst at IMS Research. "TV set manufacturers' product launch plans are expected to drive the majority of the growth for connected TV sets during the forecast period."
Also important for operators trying to get their arms around the exploding device profile landscape, the IMS Research study also reveals that proprietary operating systems will remain the main type used by manufacturers in the next five years, although Android OS will start gaining presence and it's expected to reach a significant share of the market by 2014. IMS Research's forecast shows that during 2016, more than 80 percent of the connected TV sets shipped worldwide will have built-in Wi-Fi, and close to 30 percent will have advanced user interface features such as motion, gesture or voice.
In Search of Apps for Television
Excerpted from NY Times Report by Amy Chozick and Nick Wingfield
The same consumers who delight in navigating the iPad still click frustratingly through cable channels to find a basketball game. Their complaint: Why can't television be more like a tablet?
The technology industry is trying to address that question for the millions of customers ready to embrace the next generation of viewing options. In the process it could transform the clunky cable interface, with its thousands of channels and a bricklike remote control, into a series of apps that pop up on the television screen.
While still in its early stages, the idea has taken off among tech-loving consumers, and companies are trying to satisfy them. Already, apps for Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Wal-Mart's Vudu streaming service, among others, are built into Internet-enabled televisions. Devices like Microsoft's Xbox 360 and the streaming video player Roku let viewers watch apps that mimic channels. New sets by Samsung and others come with built-in apps loaded with television shows, movies and sports.
Apple has a video player called Apple TV with apps to Netflix, Major League Baseball and other content. Many media executives predict Apple will ultimately enter the television market in a more aggressive way, with either a new set-top box (STB) or an Apple-made TV set. Both would rely on apps scattered across the screen as they are on the iPad. Apple declined to comment.
"I've told my bosses, 'This is beachfront real estate. Buy in now,' " Lisa Hsia, Executive Vice President of Digital Media at NBCUniversal's Bravo channel, said of developing TV apps.
A model built around TV apps, however, could let viewers use favorite apps on the screen on an a la carte basis, thus bypassing cable subscriptions and all the extraneous channels they don't watch. And therein lies the tension that has the television industry delicately assessing how to balance the current system with an Internet-based future that some feel is inevitable.
"The question that hasn't yet been answered is whether television viewing will consist of a single app that mimics the pay TV bundle or a series of different apps that together form a content experience," said Jon Miller, the Chief Digital Officer at News Corporation, which owns Fox Broadcasting and cable channels like Fox News and FX.
A la carte apps would upend the entrenched and lucrative economics of television, which have long relied on a system in which cable customers pay for channels even if they don't watch them.
The so-called bundle setup helps little-watched channels bring in revenue from monthly cable fees and allows the most popular channels to get high fees from every subscriber, even the ones who don't watch them.
The idea of undermining this model is so sensitive that media executives who think that apps are the future of television would not discuss the subject publicly, for fear of disturbing their cable and satellite partners.
But many analysts caution against predicting the near-term demise of cable and satellite delivery, pointing out that the spending and viewing habits of consumers are also firmly entrenched.
"The model we have is the model we have, and while it's tempting to imagine an app for TNT and an app for ESPN, that's not the likely outcome," said Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. A la carte apps might seem like a bright idea, Mr. Moffett said, but it is unlikely consumers would pay $20 a month for individual channels when the traditional cable bundle provides a bargain price.
Currently, most TV apps created by networks work on an authentication model that requires cable subscribers to log in before gaining access to a channel's app. The handful of apps already available on television screens also largely require a cable subscription.
For the most part, the apps being offered today are intended as complements to traditional TV viewing and are available only on tablets and mobile devices. For instance, NBC Sports will soon introduce its NBC Olympics Live Extra app, which will allow subscribers to stream every Olympic event from London this summer. It is available only on iPads, tablets and other mobile devices, not on TV screens through Xbox or Roku.
"No one on the digital side wants to take away audience from the TV," said Rick Cordella, Vice President and General Manager for NBC Sports Digital.
Time Warner's HBO still relies heavily on the cable bundle because it does not have the customer service or sales force of a company like Comcast or Time Warner Cable. But HBO Go does allow subscribers to have access to the pay channel's library of almost every series, movie, documentary and heavyweight fight directly on the TV screen, via the Xbox.
"The HBO Go app is seen as a doorway into the entire world of HBO programming," said Eric Kessler, Co-President at HBO. "That adds tremendous value to the subscription."
As such, HBO Go could help the channel lay the groundwork to eventually break out on its own on an a la carte basis, even if that might not happen soon, said James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research. "HBO has the largest subscriber base of any video service in the world, but they know none of their customers by name," Mr. McQuivey, said. "That will be a huge liability in the future. HBO knows that; that's why they need a direct relationship."
The ability of any channel to strike out on its own, even strong ones like HBO or the Walt Disney Company's ESPN, remains problematic. ESPN makes about $5 a month from each of the country's more than 100 million cable subscribers. If ESPN ever sold its live sports and talk shows directly to the consumer, it would need to charge several times that rate. "We have no plans to bisect our partnerships with distributors," said Sean Bratches, the ESPN Executive Vice President for Sales and Marketing.
But just as with previous transformations in television, the economics will have to catch up as technology evolves, said Jeremy Allaire, chief executive of Brightcove, a technology firm based in Boston that builds apps for media companies.
By 2014, an estimated 89.5 million people in the United States will use tablet computers, up from 54.8 million users in 2012, according to the research firm eMarketer. "You have to achieve scale before the economics will work," Mr. Allaire said. "But at some point, we think direct-to-consumer will be very important."
That model may prove attractive to smaller cable channels, many of whom dislike how they are buried within the traditional electronic guides that viewers use to navigate their cable boxes.
Bigger cable channels may find it appealing as well. The head of digital strategy at one major channel said he was excited about the idea of having an app that sat on the home screen of a television. It would provide a "safer passage" to eventually sell the channel directly to customers, rather than through a cable package, said the executive, who declined to be identified to avoid upsetting the company's cable partners.
Cable and satellite companies have sped up the development of their own TV apps in the hope that they will eventually mimic the set-top box. In an ideal cable industry model, customers will have one or two apps that offer hundreds of channels rather than dozens of apps for individual networks. "You download all these apps, and then you get app fatigue," said Matt Strauss, Comcast Cable's Senior Vice President for Digital and Emerging Platforms.
"Apps create amazing experiences," Mr. Strauss said. "But I believe most customers and households are still looking for an aggregated experience that's intuitive and personalized."
Huawei to Bring Touch-Free Smart-Phones and Infinite Cloud Storage
Excerpted from CIO India Report by Michael Kan
Huawei Technologies is aiming to bring touch-free smart-phones and more inexpensive cloud storage to users, as the company boosts its research and development spending in order to bring "disruptive" technologies that will alter the market landscape.
"We are focused on disruptive technology and taking interesting ideas and turning them into something exciting," said John Roese, General Manager for Huawei's North American research and develop center, on Friday.
The China-based company is best known as a supplier of telecommunication equipment. But the firm has been ambitiously expanding into both the consumer and enterprise sides of the technology business, aiming to provide products including Huawei branded smart-phones, tablets along with servers and cloud computing offerings.
Last year, the company spent $3.76 billion on research and development, resulting in 11,000 new employees hired for the company's R&D efforts. For this year, Huawei's R&D spending is expected to grow by 20 percent to about $4.5 billion.
Roese, who spoke to journalists on Friday, manages a research and development staff of 1,000 employees in North America, and was a former CTO for Nortel. One technology the company has been working on is touch-free smart-phones, allowing the devices to read users' hand gestures in order to initiate commands.
"What if you use the camera of a tablet or a smart-phone and use it to capture the visualization of your hands," he said. "So imagine instead of touching a smart-phone, you can actually have a three-dimensional interaction with it."
Touchscreen smart-phones and tablets currently allow for the use of several fingers to issue certain commands when pressed on the display. But users only have five fingers on a hand, limiting the number of commands that can be made, Roese said. Using hand gestures, however, would allow users to more easily bring objects forward, push them back or rotate them within the smart-phone's graphical user interface, he said.
Other companies already offer motion-sensing input. Microsoft for example uses motion sensing in its Xbox 360 Kinect device. Last month, Sony also announced the Android-based smart-phone, the Xperia sola, which can read finger gestures to highlight links in text.
Huawei, however, expects its own touch-free smart-phones will need a powerful graphics processor and also two front-facing cameras to fully read a user's hand movements, according to Roese. The technology will be added incrementally over time, starting with small features, and likely start on tablets first, he added.
Last year, the company sold 20 million smart-phones. But for 2012, the company plans to reach even higher, and has the goal of smart-phone sales hitting 60 million units.
Outside of mobile phones, Huawei also wants to make cloud storage less expensive. The company has partnered with CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, to investigate new storage techniques.
Through the partnership, Huawei's cloud storage system is being used to process and store 15,360TB of physics data taken each year. Roese believes the research could revolutionize computing storage architecture.
"If we are successful, which I think we will be, it literally could change the economics of storage by an order of a magnitude," he said. Suppliers could give infinite backup and only charge people when they needed to restore it, while still making money, he said.
"Of all the projects, and there are lots of good projects, that is the one that could have a profound impact on the market," he said.
Coming Events of Interest
Cloud Computing World Forum - May 8th in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Cloud Computing World Forum Africa is the only place to discuss the latest topics in cloud, including security, mobile, applications, communications, virtualization, CRM and much, much more.
Data Center + Network: The Converged Cloud - May 17th Webinar. By making data centers more agile, increasing provisioning speed, and reducing capital expenditures, cloud is forever altering the way enterprises deploy technology.
Cloud Expo - June 11th-14th in New York, NY. Two unstoppable enterprise IT trends, Cloud Computing and Big Data, will converge in New York at the tenth annual Cloud Expo being held at the Javits Convention Center. A vast selection of technical and strategic General Sessions, Industry Keynotes, Power Panels, Breakout Sessions, and a bustling Expo Floor.
IEEE 32nd International Conference on Distributed Computing - June 18th-21st in Taipa, Macao. ICDCS brings together scientists and engineers in industry, academia, and government: Cloud Computing Systems, Algorithms and Theory, Distributed OS and Middleware, Data Management and Data Centers, Network/Web/P2P Protocols and Applications, Fault Tolerance and Dependability, Wireless, Mobile, Sensor, and Ubiquitous Computing, Security and Privacy.
Cloud Management Summit - June 19th in Mountain View, CA. A forum for corporate decision-makers to learn about how to manage today's public, private, and hybrid clouds using the latest cloud solutions and strategies aimed at addressing their application management, access control, performance management, helpdesk, security, storage, and service management requirements on-premise and in the cloud.
2012 Creative Storage Conference - June 26th in Culver City. CA. In association with key industry sponsors, CS2012 is finalizing a series of technology, application, and trend sessions that will feature distinguished experts from the professional media and entertainment industries.
CLOUD COMPUTING WEST 2012 - November 8th-9th in Santa Monica. CA. CCW:2012 will zero in on the latest advances in applying cloud-based solutions to all aspects of high-value entertainment content production, storage, and delivery; the impact of cloud services on broadband network management and economics; and evaluating and investing in cloud computing services providers.
|
