FierceWireless.com

2

Like many consumers, I’m increasingly watching video content on my smartphone and tablet, rather than my TV. And I use multiple services—Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, or and even my cable provider Com-cast’s Xfinity app—to find the video content I want to watch.

And I’m not alone. According to Nielsen’s most recent cross-platform report, the amount of time Americans spent watching video via tra-ditional TV rose less than 1 percent year-over-year as of third quarter 2012. Yet time spent watching video via the Internet increased 37 percent, while minutes spent by mobile subscribers watching video on a mobile phone rose 25 percent during the one-year period.

I know that the video content I’m streaming eats up a lot of data, so I’m careful to use Wi-Fi whenever I can. But I often am disappointed in the availability or strength of my Wi-Fi connection and I long for a scenario where I could just use my existing cellular connection to seamlessly deliver my content when I want it, wherever I happen to be. That scenario may be unlikely – unless some pretty significant hurdles are overcome.

For one, operators have little incentive to let OTT players like Netf-lix and YouTube eat up valuable bandwidth on their network without receiving some sort of payment for the delivery of those services. One new business model being debated within the industry is where OTT providers subsidize the cost of the mobile data consumed by their customers. Although some operators, such as AT&T, have expressed an interest in this, few OTT players seem amenable to the idea.

Second, some fear net neutrality issues – particularly if operators appear to favor OTT services that they have billing relationships with over other OTT services, such as giving some higher quality of service than others.

But there are alternatives. Some operators are deploying platforms and products that promise to make OTT content better and easier for consumers to access and will help operators monetize these content offerings.

This ebook will provide an in-depth look at the threat from OTT pro-viders, and examine how operators are making progress in delivering content to their customers. l

Sue Marek /// Editor in ChiEf /// FierceWireless

Thank you To our sponsor:

MiniMizing the Ott threat

February 2013

03Multi-Screen

Vision Offers New Opportunities for Operators

06The Push to

Monetize OTT Content

08GSMA’s RCS Gains Traction

with Operators, Despite Slow Start

05Counterpath Enables OTT for

Wireline and Wireless Operators Helping to Disrupt the Disruptors

Sponsored Content

11Operators Cultivate Relationships with OTT Providers to

Present United Front

13Taking a Peek at viewdini

43 February 2013 February 2013

FierceWireless.com

4

experience more synchronized, per-sonalized and socialized.

There is also a marketing chal-lenge for multi-screen services. Not only must customers be edu-cated regarding available content and methods for accessing it on multiple devices, but multi-screen services require an appealing price point. Bachelet’s research of 17 pay TV operators in six coun-tries revealed that three quarters of them make cross-platform content available for free to their pay-TV subscribers.

OperatOrS jOin the Ott crOwdThere is ongoing debate regard-ing the competitive impact from OTT content providers, but it appears pay-TV operators are not losing considerable revenue to OTT alternatives.

“It’s not a zero-sum,” said West-fall. In fact, people who watch Hulu or Netflix at home on their TVs do not necessarily cancel their cable or satellite TV service. They just

broaden their source of content to include diversified choices, he said.

Though many young adults do not sign up for pay TV services, or at least delay signing up until they

are a bit older—perhaps once they land a good-paying job or start a family—that trend does not appear to be directly tied to their third-party OTT content consumption.

Further, people who sign up for premium pay-TV service are more likely to pay for content on an iPad while away from home. “That’s creating a new opportu-nity that hadn’t existed before,” Westfall said.

Pay-TV providers’ cloud-based multi-screen services closely resemble OTT services in that they are not tied to a particular delivery network or device. “So it’s not a

very big step for them to deliver their own over-the-top services to non-subscribers if they wish to do so,” Bachelet said.

“Using basically the same technol-ogy they’ve been using to deliver multi-screen services to their subscribers, operators can extend multi-screen services beyond their subscriber base,” he added.

This is already happening. One example is UK satellite pay TV pro-vider Sky’s July 2012 launch of an IPTV service called Now TV, which is available for use by non-Sky subscribers on numerous platforms including Microsoft’s Xbox 360, PCs and Android, Mac and iOS devices. Sky also has another IPTV product for non-Sky customers called Sky Go Monthly Ticket.

The key challenge for opera-tors getting into the OTT game is to ensure they do not cannibalize their core user base, Bachelet said. That will likely drive service provid-ers to offer even better premium content for their traditional pay-TV subscribers. l

Multi-screen is viewed as a way to engage customers across platforms, as well as reduce churn and attract new users.

Pay-TV operators have long sought to deliver content to their customers via any device and any network, but what was formerly a desire is now a necessity for competitive positioning.

“Multi-screen services are now becoming table stakes for pay-TV operators in devel-oped markets, particularly in light of competition from OTT video services offering con-tent to multiple devices,” said Cesar Bachelet, senior analyst at Analysys Mason.

Some operators may only have basic multi-screen services, offering access to some content via the EPG (electronic program guide) on various devices, typically PCs, smartphones and tablets. Others are more advanced and enable remote recording on a DVR and more remote interaction with the pay TV service. But all are working to engage customers across platforms in order to reduce churn and attract new users.

Nielsen’s most recent Cross-Platform Report reveals how important mul-

tiple screens are becoming. Ameri-cans’ monthly time spent watching video via traditional TV rose less than 1 percent year over year as of the third quarter of 2012. Yet time spent watch-

ing video via the Internet increased a whopping 37 percent, while min-utes spent by mobile subscribers watching video on a mobile phone rose 25 percent during the one-year period.

GettinG Over the hurdleSDespite inroads made by pay-TV providers in delivering cross-plat-form content, obstacles continue to plague the industry.

One major impediment has been content rights. Many older con-tracts for content delivery were not negotiated on a device-agnostic, or cross-platform, basis, and those legacy agreements prevent most pay TV operators from making all of their content available on all devices, Bachelet said.

Even new contracts may not extend across platforms. “Some of the content providers are still

paranoid about the secu-rity mechanisms for being able to view con-tent beyond the set-top box,” said Ron Westfall, research director, service provider infrastructure, at Current Analysis.

Naturally, there are also technological challenges. Delivering content to televisions is a lot simpler than delivering content

to PCs, tablets, and smartphones, which all feature different operat-ing systems as well as a plethora of screen sizes. The good news is that “operators have the tools in place to not only support multi-screen video but to scale and enhance it to allow application innovation,” Westfall said.

He said new standards will further help enable delivery of higher-quality multi-screen content. For example, MPEG DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP) will support adaptive bit-rate content for multiple devices, while High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) will enable the next iteration of compression technol-ogy for HD Video. Further, service delivery platform enhancements will enable operators to make the viewer

Multi-Screen Vision Offers New Opportunities for Operators by Tammy Parker

Americans’ monthly time spent watching video via traditional TV rose less than 1 percent year over year as of the third quarter of 2012. Yet time spent watching video via the Internet increased a whopping 37 percent.

QUARTER 3, 2012 — US

* based on sample of 17 pay TV operators in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and USA

BuSineSS MOdelS fOr

Multi-Screen ServiceS

76%

18%

6% Paid-for optional extra

Free to all pay-TV subscribers

Only included for higher-value subscribers

“Using basically the same technology they’ve been using to deliver multi-screen services to their subscribers, operators can extend multi-screen services beyond their subscriber base.”Cesar BaCheleT, senior analysT

aT analysys Mason.

Source: Analysys Mason

65 February 2013 February 2013

FierceWireless.com

Sponsored Content

Can operators entice OTT players to pay for the data their mutual customers consume?

More business models will arise in which over-the-top content (OTT) providers sub-sidize the cost of mobile data consumed by their customers, but it is unclear how many marquee names in OTT con-tent participate in this trend.

The concept of subsidized data, in which OTT providers pay mobile operators for the data their mutual customers consume when accessing OTT services, has been touted by mobile operators around the world. One pitch is that such “sponsored connectivity” would enable mobile custom-ers to use a particular OTT service without incurring addi-tional network data charges or having that data usage applied to their data caps. It would also grant operators an additional revenue stream to offset the costs of delivering growing amounts of data traffic over their networks.

AT&T executives have stated that some content providers want the operator to imple-ment such a toll-free data program.

Further, in mid-January 2013, the head of France Telecom said the Orange-branded operator has com-pelled Google to compensate it for Google-related traffic sent across Orange’s networks. Orange’s strong market position in Africa, an area where Google seeks influence, gave the operator leverage to force

this deal, which apparently cov-ers both Google search traffic and YouTube video traffic, among other things.

Despite Google’s apparent acqui-escence, other large OTT providers

appear less than enthusiastic about this business model, claiming operators should simply be glad for the data traffic generated by OTT offerings and not seek out addi-tional revenues from OTT players.

Netflix spokesman Joris Evers says Netflix would not participate in a sponsored-connectivity arrange-

ment because operators already derive benefits from their custom-ers’ use of Netflix. “We drive demand for data services—mostly fixed, usage on mobile is fairly lim-

The Push to Monetize OTT Content by Tammy Parker

The 1990’s witnessed the birth of the Internet OTT services providers who quickly became the first real disruptive threat to Wireline and Wireless operators worldwide. Now the OTT industry has exploded with services such as Skype, Viber, Rebtel, iMes-sage, What’s App and others that are eroding Wireline and Wire-less Operator revenues. Skype, arguably viewed as the ‘ultimate telco disruptor,’ represents over 30% of all Internet voice traffic and with services like What’s App and Apple’s iMessage impacting SMS usage, operators are clearly being threatened. So what’s the answer for Wireline and Wireless operators? They need to launch their own OTT solution. OTT gives Wireline and Wireless operators the capabilities to compete with a solution today that neutralizes the “Skype” effect while creating new revenue streams.

CounterPath is currently work-ing with a number of operators to develop their own OTT offer-ing. With a full suite of softphone and server products that enable compelling go-to-market offers that extends the current pre-IMS and IMS cores into the broadband SIP environment, CounterPath provides a solution that includes the elements needed for OTT and Skype-like services that is cen-tered around a universal identity

– the phone number. This extends beyond just voice as well. Wireline and Wireless OTT solutions include a single application that provides seamless voice, video, messaging and presence applications across mobiles, tablets and PCs.

By deploying OTT today, opera-tors are creating a clear pathway to an RCS enabled world. Coun-terPath’s products are future proofing a solution that can be migrated to RCS as soon as the ecosystem and related interop-erability is ready. CounterPath believes there will eventually be a mix of OTT and RCS solutions that will ‘work together.’ Coun-terPath’s softphones are built to support both deployment sce-narios within the same softphone architecture; so operators can have a single softphone work across OTT and RCS deployment simultaneously.

Another important component to OTT services outside the softphone is a server to enable convergence. For Wireline operators, this typically means a SIP-based Switch that enables SMS enablement of VoIP num-bers, VoIP number mapping to a mobile number and in-call handover (e.g., PC to mobile). For wireless operators, this means a Switch to map SIP and SS7 services that enable a seamless experience of mobile services

between the mobile and Wi-Fi / Broadband networks. Ultimately, CounterPath ensures that all mobile services will be available (within a single app) on PCs, tab-lets and smartphones through our exclusive NCG (Network Conver-gence Gateway) solution.

An excellent example of operator led OTT is Rogers One Number service. Rogers, the largest mobile operator in Canada, partnered with CounterPath to launch Rogers One Number in February 2012. This service uses CounterPath’s unique technology to seamlessly bridge mobile services across PCs and tablets. While operators like TMO, Telefónica, FT/Orange and others have opted to offer a standalone OTT service, Rogers recognized that its greatest asset is the mobile number. The mobile network is the world’s largest ubiquitous com-munity that can be extended with OTT solutions that enrich the user experience. Wireline and Wire-less OTT led services are the right approach now because it gives greater flexibility that can bridge to RCS in the future.

Today operator led OTT is the best path forward to offer com-pelling services that immediately fend off competitive threats and build revenue streams against the mobile number. l

CounterPath Enables OTT for Wireline and Wireless Operators Helping to Disrupt the Disruptors

“I can understand why operators might want [sponsored-connectivity models], because operators feel that their networks are being clogged up by people streaming Netflix, Spotify, YouTube and the like.”andreas BernsTroM, Ceo of

Voip proVider reBTel

continued on page 7

87 February 2013 February 2013

FierceWireless.com

At least 19 vendors offer RCS on a hosted basis so far, but many believe 2013 is the year of RCS.

One of the biggest beefs with the GSMA’s Rich Com-munication Services (RCS)/joyn initiative is it’s taking too long. One of the biggest compliments about joyn is how much progress it’s made in the past six months.

So it goes. As operators around the world gradually roll

out RCS, whether they are the RCS 5.0 version favored by U.S.-based MetroPCS Communications or the RCSe version that European opera-tors are deploying, the rollouts are gaining steam. Is it too little too late? The answer depends on who you ask. Right now, both sides of that coin are betting that they’re right on the money.

rcS: in Search Of a definitiOn Last year at Mobile World Con-gress, the GSMA announced significant advancements in RCS,

including the development of the RCS 5.0 specification and the consumer-facing joyn brand. RCS is often cited as the mobile operators’ answer to OTT providers that offer free or lower-cost voice and mes-saging solutions.

Simply put, RCS delivers an expe-rience beyond voice and SMS by providing consumers with instant messaging or chat, live video and file sharing across any device, on any network, with all the joyn-enabled contacts in their address book.

Stephen Sale, principal ana-lyst at Analysys Mason, said the GSMA’s RCS/joyn initiative is broadly positive—it ticks a lot of the right boxes. It responds to the new wave of competition

GSMA’s RCS Gains Traction with Operators, Despite Slow Start by monica alleven

ited. Our service is a great driver for demand for ISPs,” he said.

Similarly, Andreas Bernstrom, CEO of VoIP provider Rebtel, con-tends mobile broadband access should be considered a utility, much like water or electricity, and therefore operators should focus on making money simply from data usage.

Nonetheless, Bernstrom empa-thizes with operators’ desire for sponsored-connectivity models. “I can understand why operators might want to do this, because operators feel that their networks are being clogged up by people streaming Netflix, Spotify, YouTube and the like,” he said.

Rebtel has not been approached by operators seeking aid in subsidiz-ing mobile customers’ use of its

VoIP service. “It’s never even been mentioned. What has been men-tioned is, ‘We’re going to turn you off. We might try to block you,’” Bernstrom said.

Those efforts have been thwarted by consumer opposition, which Bernstrom believes will also prevent operators from forcing any unpopu-lar service-specific charging models

on consumers and OTT providers. He also suggested there might

be something illegal about an OTT player paying a network operator to enable people to access the OTT’s service.

Not only might there be Net neutrality complaints regarding such arrangements, but there could be issues impacting “the competitive structure,” Bernstrom said. For example, a carrier could favor OTT services with which it has billing partnerships, perhaps ensuring them more bandwidth or higher quality of service to the detriment of non-partnered OTT services.

thinkinG OutSide the BOxHowever, Bernstrom said there might be opportunities for part-nership arrangements between companies such as audio-streaming

service Spotify, which could tie a year of free Spotify access into a mobile service contract.

Similar arrangements have already come into vogue. In sub-Saharan Africa, Facebook pays operators to provide free Facebook access to mobile customers via the 0.facebook.com initiative. “They

only do this in markets where they estimate otherwise the user would not get Facebook at all,” said Don Bowman, CTO at Sandvine, which provides network policy control solutions.

Elsewhere, consumers have been given the option to pay extra to add an unlimited Facebook access pack-age to their regular service, thus

converting what would be a variable charge into a fixed charge, he said.

In addition, Amazon’s Kindle and General Motors’ OnStar already provide “stealth” connectivity spon-sorships by paying cellular providers to deliver their OTT services with-out end users even being aware of how the connectivity is being accomplished. Such device-specific plans could set the stage for future business arrangements.

Bowman suggested a company such as online photo manage-ment site Flickr might consider subsidizing the cost of mobile data generated by a consumer who uploads photos to Flickr from Sam-sung’s new Android-based Galaxy Camera, which includes cellular connectivity.

Yet another possibility for spon-sored connectivity could involve “freemium” service models, in which OTT providers subsidize limited usage of their service before a customer gets assessed by an operator for premium levels of data consumption.

The “perfect sweet spot” for sponsored connectivity is a ser-vice that generates high hours of use and low bytes of data traffic, Bowman said. The worst combina-tion would entail low hours of use with high bytes of usage, such as streaming video.

Nonetheless, Bowman, like Ber-nstrom, thinks most top marquee OTT names will avoid sponsored connectivity deals, particularly in developed markets. “I think it’s unlikely that Google is going to start forking over millions of dollars just to drive the network for AT&T,” Bowman said. l

continued from page 6

“I think it’s unlikely that Google is going to start forking over millions of dollars just to drive the network for AT&T,”don BowMan,

CTo aT sandVine

continued on page 9

joyn is the consumer-facing brand for the RCS 5.0 specification

109 February 2013 February 2013

FierceWireless.com

109

from OTT communications apps by capitalizing on the operators’ core service model: universality, native usability and direct avail-ability, as captured by the phrase: “It’s just there, it just works.”

As such, however, it highlights the more fundamental challenge to operator business models. OTT providers cater to niches using downloadable apps on an opt-in basis. RCS/joyn “doesn’t really answer to the new ways that the market is being seg-mented,” Sale said. “This is something of an existential cri-sis for network-based, typically national, communications provid-ers. There’s no easy solution.”

where’S the Beef Critics say the GSMA’s RCS efforts are coming too late, and they point to the association’s attempt in 2010 to create what was widely viewed as operators’ answer to the app storefronts operated by Apple and Android/Google. Last year, part of the Wholesale Applications Community (WAC) was folded into the GSMA and its technology assets were sold to Apigee.

Graham Trickey, senior direc-tor at GSMA, said WAC and RCS are quite different. Having been involved in both, he said the WAC was a joint venture, which added another layer of complexity. With RCS, “I think we are seeing com-mitments from operators and perhaps new is the collaboration between operators who thought they were competitors with each other… But the things that make

an operator community unique are the ubiquity and interoperability they offer,” he said.

The GSMA and its members that have joined the RCS initiative – one that like so many other big endeav-ors started years ago – are finding reasons to be optimistic. At least 19 vendors offer RCS on a hosted basis, meaning operators that don’t have the means or wherewithal to deploy IMS in their networks can tap the resources of a trusted vendor without the up-front costs of building their own.

At the same time, handset OEMs are closer to embedding RCS in their handsets, so consumers won’t have to download the apps to reap the benefits – a big selling point because consumers are not

inclined to automatically download things if they don’t have to. With solutions embedded in the phones, the services will be there from the get-go.

playinG fOr keepS In early 2011, the GSMA awarded Jibe Mobile the Best RCS Mobile Client Award for its Smart Address Book. For Jibe, it’s all about mak-ing RCS simpler for end users and developers. Perhaps the best way to see it in action is through its work with game develop-ers. With Jibe’s SDK, a game developer can download the code and “code away,” allowing for interactions between gam-ers that previously took a lot more time and effort to create.

The folks at Jibe say they’re seeing a lot more inquiries from potential customers thanks to the GSMA’s joyn initiative. In just the past six months, activity has intensified so much that CEO Amir Sarhangi sees a huge change in terms of the number of carriers con-

tacting the company. A year ago, there was very little uptake in the U.S.; now, in the last six months, “it’s been amazing,” he said.

“We really wanted to make this technology very much available to anybody, so any vendor that wanted to create these types of services, they can do it very quickly,” using Android and iOS, Sarhangi said. As more U.S. operators roll out LTE, the more IMS will be in the field

and hence, the more networks ready for RCS. “I’m right now very bullish and optimistic for 2013.”

wOrkinG with, nOt aGainSt Indeed, gathering together to find the OTT challenges seems to be a tactic the operators are embracing.

Instead of working against OTT and trying to banish them from their systems, big operators like AT&T and Verizon Wireless are opening innovation centers in Silicon Valley.

Smaller operators are just as enthusiastic, if not more so. Regional provider MetroPCS Com-munications, which grew up as a CDMA carrier, was the first U.S. operator to commercially launch RCS, the 5.0 version that includes

presence, a step beyond the Euro-peans’ RCSe version launched in Spain, Korea and Germany.

“We want to work with OTT,” said Solyman Ashrafi, VP of product management at MetroPCS, who champions RCS as the “new dial tone.” He envisions services and

applications mashing up with one another, creating whole new differ-entiated services.

OTT players are very agile and innovative, but they’re frag-mented with their proprietary solutions. That’s where operators can come in and bridge the gap, if you will, and allow for services and applications to do mashups, where commerce, dating or travel apps meet up with telephony or non-telephony services.

With RCS finally being launched, that begs the question of how future-proof it is. “The current services are largely addressing last year’s problem,” said Analy-sys Mason’s Sale. “What about next year’s? It might be that the frameworks are now in place for RCS to deliver on an ongoing basis. They might not. Or it may be that most innovation in com-munication services has already happened. It may not. This will be a challenge for the industry.” l

continued from page 8

“The current services are largely addressing last year’s problem. What about next year’s? It might be that the frameworks are now in place for RCS to deliver on an ongoing basis. They might not. Or it may be that most innovation in communication services has already happened. It may not. This will be a challenge for the industry.”sTephen sale, prinCipal analysT aT analysys Mason

prOS

• Rich feature set • Not limited to those who have

downloaded applications • Not limited to phones • Shifts to telecom or SMS network,

for example, if RCS not available • Works on non-smartphone devices

rich cOMMunicatiOn Suite (rcS)

cOnS

• Not yet widely avail-able in the U.S.; rollout just starting in Europe

• Business model (e.g., pricing) and rules unknown

• Device manufacturer

Source: The Future Of Mobile Messaging, Forrester Research, August 15, 2012.

1211 February 2013 February 2013

FierceWireless.com

12

The bond between operators and OTT providers is complex, yet necessary as wireless networks and services mature.

Need proof that over the top forces are front and center? One need look no further than the wireless industry’s own conferences.

Ray Bariso, VP of operations and business support sys-tems at Ericsson, remembers a couple years ago when he and other panelists convened for a session on the topic of OTT, and they were all dressed

in their usual attire – suits. They were joined on stage by a product manager from Google Voice who strolled out in a T-shirt and jeans. The Google executive admitted that he wasn’t sure what OTT stood for; all he cared about was developing the best possible user experience.

That message resonated with the audience, and Bariso says it’s one the wireless industry can learn from. Granted, the network is important, but too much of the time, “we’re over-engineering everything,” he said. Take Mother’s Day, for instance. Networks are designed to handle the deluge of traffic that occurs on that one day of the year.

“That’s our tradition, that’s our culture. We’re so focused on the network when the real innovation and all the changes are all going to be done in the software world.”

Slowly, progress is happening. AT&T and Verizon Wireless are cultivating relation-ships with developers and others through innovation centers. But ask pretty much anyone in the new generation of develop-ers where they want to work, and names like Apple, Amazon, Google and Face-book come to mind.

What’s taking so long? “I don’t think there’s reluctance” on the part of operators, Bariso said. “They

want to do it. Some just move faster than others. It’s more of a culture thing… You can’t take a big Tier One and transform them to the mindset of Google or Amazon overnight.”

nO rcS? nO prOBleM Ericsson is one of about 19 vendors that offer full or partially hosted rich communications services (RCS) platforms, which should serve to speed deployment of RCS and help the ecosystem reach interoperability that much faster.

Other vendors are jumping into the fray as well. CounterPath, for one, isn’t waiting for RCS. Last year, CounterPath went to market

with a solution for Rogers Com-munications that offers Rogers’ customers the ability to keep their wireless numbers but use them for single-number reachability via talk and text, whether they’re using their mobile devices or computers.

Taking a page from Unified Mes-saging, the service enables access to one inbox and contact list, which are automatically synced between computer and mobile phone. Rog-ers configured it so customers can call any Canadian number and send outgoing text messages to other Canadian wireless numbers from their computer at no additional charge. It’s an OTT solution offered via the operator instead of Google, Apple, Skype or another OTT player.

“We see OTT as a stepping stone into RCS, and they’ll work together,” said Todd Carothers, EVP, products and marketing at CounterPath. “It’s a benefit that it’s not RCS because the ecosys-tem is just evolving… Whether it’s RCS or not, operators know they need to do something else that protects their revenue base.”

Likewise, while RCS is nearly synonymous with IMS, Broad-Soft’s BroadCloud RCS may be deployed in either IMS or non-IMS network environments. For non-IMS networks, BroadSoft supplies the required IMS func-tionality while retaining flexibility for the operator to migrate to IMS later, according to Leslie Ferry, vice president of marketing.

First-to-market vendors are not always the market lead-ers, she said. Those who follow have more time to build a bet-ter service and do it with a more

refined business model in mind. As the dot-bomb days proved, not every upstart has a viable busi-ness plan, and offering services for free doesn’t pay the light bill.

the race iS On One thing that makes the OTT/operator relationship all the more complicated is operators may not want to focus too much attention to their competitors’ faults because those competitors are also their partners. While RF engineers like to build for 99.999 percent reli-ability, OTT players don’t have the same service quality require-ments. Some consumers are willing to make that trade-off if it saves them enough money.

SAP Mobile Services Group Director of Product Bill Dudley noted that one popular OTT mes-saging service boasted a dramatic number of inbound and outbound messages last year, but there was a huge discrepancy between the two, indicating that millions of messages never reached their intended recipients. That sort of service, or lack thereof, doesn’t fly in the carrier community.

Of course, messaging is one of the biggest OTT headaches for operators. iMessage, Apple’s iOS messaging service, gets blamed for a lot of the SMS revenue declines for operators even though it, too, has suffered from service disrup-tions. Still, RCS supporters say they don’t see the absence of RCS in Apple’s devices as a big prob-lem; some even express hope that Apple will one day add it to its mix.

Yet the time-to-market ques-tion still remains. Kevin Mitchell, director of solutions marketing for the service provider group at Acme Packet, stresses a degree of urgency as RCS deployments are just not moving fast enough. That’s in part because it’s based

on IMS, which is unwieldy, com-plex and expensive, he said.

Operators have an advantage, however, in that OTT players are building islands that don’t nec-essarily translate well to global service deployments. Operators can seize on their own ubiquity and RCS helps in that regard. That said, “RCS is not a cure-all,” Mitchell said. “It doesn’t solve all the problems.” l

Operators Cultivate Relationships with OTT Providers to Present United Front by monica alleven

“We see OTT as a stepping stone into RCS, and they’ll work together. It’s a benefit that it’s not RCS because the ecosystem is just evolving… Whether it’s RCS or not, operators know they need to do something else that protects their revenue base.”Todd CaroThers, eVp, produCTs and

MarkeTing aT CounTerpaTh

1413 February 2013 February 2013

FierceWireless.com

14

Verizon’s mobile video strategy is still evolving but for now viewdini offers a strategy for dealing with OTT players.

If you follow Verizon Wire-less’ mobile video offerings, you’ll notice there’s a lot of “evolving” going on.

For years, the operator has offered some form of video. Late last year, the carrier announced it was discontinu-ing the VCast Video service about the same time it started shutting down the Verizon Apps store. “We’re evolving our strategy to further simplify today’s experience and meet the needs of tomorrow,” the company stated on its web-site.

The Verizon Video service was replaced by viewdini, which initially debuted in mid-2012, offering a search-and-discovery mechanism for all the copyright-protected content you could hope to see on Verizon’s network. The app, now free for download on both Android and iOS, offers video from Hulu+, Net-flix, Comcast’s Xfinity, mSpot and others. The ideal experi-ence happens on LTE-enabled tablets, but it’s available on LTE smartphone and 3G devices as well.

BiG expectatiOnS When it was announced, viewdini was widely seen as a strategy for dealing with over the top (OTT) play-ers, which also happen to supply content listed in the app. Verizon executives have publicly talked about using innovation as part of their OTT strategy, saying they need to build their own services that com-pete with OTT while also helping the OTT players. If that’s the case, viewdini would seem the perfect vehicle for that.

It’s difficult to assess how suc-cessful it has been. Verizon Wireless isn’t sharing download numbers for viewdini and while it conceivably could be a way for Verizon to get additional revenue from content pro-viders – likely through referral fees – the company doesn’t comment on contractual arrangements with its partners, said spokesman David Samberg.

Developed with TV.com, viewdini reflects what a lot of people already are doing in front of their TVs at home. Watching a movie and want more info on the cast and crew? It’s right there, at your fingertips, via smartphone or tablet. A search for a movie title will bring up a link to download the movie, the amount it costs (newer movie releases, for example, are $19.99 on pre-order) and related content, like trailers, plot summary and cast bios.

challenGeS and challenGerS According to ABI Research, North American mobile video consumers, by and large, are going for brand names they recognize, such as Netflix or HBO for their premium movies/series and Amazon Instant

Video for newer releases. “They’re comfortable with knowing which service to select and directly engag-ing with that brand’s application on their smartphones and tablets,” said Sam Rosen, practice director at ABI.

Applications like viewdini that aggregate content will have a role for cord-cutters who subscribe to multiple OTT video offerings, but most likely, they’ll be used side-by-

side with the applications provided directly by Comcast, Netflix and the others, Rosen said. Add to the mix the desire for Apple, Google and Amazon to capture pay per view (PPV) and electronic sell-through (EST) services such as Vudu or

Taking a Peek at viewdini by monica alleven

Amazon Instant Video, and the stakes are even higher.

According to research by mobile video ad network Rhythm NewMe-dia, consumers don’t necessarily have a lot of time to spend searching for content, which can work both for and against a service like viewdini. Rhythm CEO Ujjal Kohli is a big believer in the “snackable” version of content, versus the “meals” that require longer periods of free time to consume. Like food, snackable con-tent is consumed throughout the day, on demand, and the menu can vary a lot depending on the consumer’s appetite.

Applications like viewdini help validate consumers’ desire for snack-able content, but they also amplify the need for speed. If the consumer

has only 10 minutes for a break, he or she doesn’t want to spend half of that time searching for something. Having all the content aggregated in one place serves the consumer, so long as it’s a fairly quick search.

lOOkinG fOrward If demos and teasers are any indica-tion, LTE Broadcast will be part of Verizon’s future. Research firm iGR released a white paper on LTE Broad-cast in January and while none of the operators interviewed for the paper had firm LTE Broadcast implementa-tion plans, they didn’t rule out future deployment.

During his keynote at CES 2013, Verizon Chairman and CEO Low-ell McAdam shared some LTE Broadcast-enabled scenarios, both

here and in the future, including the prospect of Verizon broadcasting, via mobile, the Super Bowl in the 2014 timeframe, a remark he made while on stage with NFL Commis-sioner Roger Goodell. A Verizon spokeswoman later emphasized that McAdam made no firm com-mitment, although he did say it was something “we’re shooting for.”

iGR concludes that LTE Broadcast, which is most efficient for broadcast-ing the same content to multiple users at the same time, is a capabil-ity that will be deployed after initial LTE networks are loaded. Given that Verizon’s LTE deployment is six months ahead of projections and now covers 89 percent of the coun-try, it’s not hard to imagine how that could evolve in one year. l

Verizon’s viewdini service offers a search-and-discovery mechanism for all copyright protected content on Verizon’s network.