Transitioning Video to All-IP IP Video Better Than Broadcast. Fabio Souza Cisco Video Group May/2017

Transcription

1 Transitioning Video to All-IP IP Video Better Than Broadcast Fabio Souza Cisco Video Group May/2017

2 Video is Moving to IP and Mobile Online video already 70% of millennial TV viewing time Millennials already consume 2x more mobile video than yo Video will drive 82% of IP traffic by 2020 Mobile video traffic will increase 11x by 2020 Source: Cisco Visual Networking Index; Cisco Global Cloud Index

3 The Big Picture - Audience Drivers of viewing shift: 1. IP 2. On Demand 3. User Generated On Demand Netflix itunes Google Play Drama Movies YT, Twitter Snapchat Broadcast Online Periscope FB & YT Live Sport News Reality Live

4 Follow the Money Premium $ follow premium content On Demand Netflix itunes Google Play Drama Movies YT, Twitter Snapchat Broadcast Online Periscope FB & YT Live Sport News Reality Live

5 Service Providers Differentiation Journey On Demand Everything on-demand, safely recorded in the cloud, always available, on any device Drama Movies A unified IP video core converging legacy and IP networks at the edge to reduce cost and increase velocity Broadcast Online Sport News Reality Personalized live experience. Broad device reach, great quality, more features Live

6 Service Providers Differentiation Journey On Demand Everything on-demand, recorded in the Cloud cloud, always available, on any device Drama Movies New $$$ A unified IP video core converging legacy and IP networks Converged at the Video edge Core to reduce cost and increase velocity Broadcast Online Sport News Reality New $$ Personalized live experience. Broad Smart Streaming Capabilities device reach, great quality, more features Live

7 Challenges when Transitioning to IP

8 What Does IP Video Better Than Broadcast Means? CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BROADCAST TODAY IP TODAY IP TOMORROW (2020 VISION) CONSUMER EXPERIENCE PERCEIVED VIDEO QUALITY DEVICE REACH PERSONALIZATION SP OPERATIONAL COST STREAM COST PER VIEWER CUSTOMER CHURN SP REQUIREMENTS ALTERNATE CONTENT ADVERTISING MOBILE VIDEO

9 Making IP Video Better than Broadcast

10 Example MVPD Arch. Current Status Several inefficiencies and inhibitors to scale IP Video Content Providers ABR Transcoder Encoder Blackout Linear Packager Variants Regional Splicer Regional ABR Transcoder Region Package & Encrypt 5000 Splice Variants Region Specific Specific Local Ad Splice Statmux Scramble eqam Aging legacy encoding farms with no IP ABR support Multicast Infastr CapEx expensive and complex to operate Separate Control and Advertising/Blackout System for traditional and ABR Legacy Regional Splicers are only source of truth for blackout/ad eligible channels Silos of Operational staff for Legacy broadcast vs. IP/Data National Transcode Farms (2x) Regional Splice Farms (25x) Edge (130x) 600 Encodes Multicast Network 5000 Splices Multicast Network Legacy Broadcast No IP-native blackout system means transcoding to ABR must happen after Legacy Splice - expensive 5000 Transcodes Access ports are >2X (on a $/Mbps) basis compared to QAM broadcast price points 400 Transcodes Unicast via CDN Unicast via CDN DOCSIS/IP Stack

11 Converged IP Video Core: Multiple Access Networks Optimize IP ABR Path for Video; Software centric microservices Content Providers ABR Transcoder ABR Transcoder Blackout Variants Linear Packager Alternate Content SS Region Specific Alternate Content Manipulator JITP & JITE ABR TS Multicast ABR h.264 mpeg2 VDE VOD Pump VQAN Statmux & Scramble vcmts vsae-gw User Plane vepc-c DEPI Converged IP Video Core and Intelligent Edge Processing National Data Center Converged Video Core Edge Intelligent Processing LTE RAN 600 Encodes 5000 Splices Unicast via CDN VOD Library Management and Control, SON cdvr R-PHY C-Policy EPC-C Regional Record (25x)

12 ABR was not designed for Large Scale Live Video Delivery Save ~30% BW w/ Smart ABR ABR STREAMING SMART STREAMING CONCEPT TOTAL BANDWIDTH CLIENT 1 CLIENT 2 CLIENT 3 Source: Cisco

13 Video Quality Smart Streaming Smart Rate Control ABR An encoding technique focusing on highest QoE, while saving bandwidth 720p60 4,1Mbit/s 720p60 2.2Mbit/s Smart Rate Control Encoding Substantially less storage cost and bandwidth utilization on the CDN Equal or better Video Quality Reach more customers and achieve higher picture quality on congested mobile networks Compatible with native players Applicable to AVC as well HEVC CBR Smart Rate Control SVQs Average 9,86 9,64 SVQs Minimum 8,84 9,29 Average Bitrate (Mbit/s): 2,2 Mbit/s Bitrate saving (%): 47 % 2s segments. Total duration of clip: 200s. CBR File-size Cisco SRC File-size 103 MB 55 MB

14 Perceived Video Quality Metric Visual Quality ABR Segment Score SVQ = 3.33 SVQ = 5.08 SVQ = 6.41 SVQ = 8.54

15 Regular ABR Profile 1 (8 Mb/s) Profile 2 (6 Mb/s) Profile 3 (4 Mb/s) Profile 4 (3 Mb/s) Behaviour of a standard ABR client, which takes adaptation decision only based on current bandwidth estimates.

16 Smart ABR Profile 1 (8 Mb/s) Profile 2 (6 Mb/s) Profile 3 (4 Mb/s) Profile 4 (3 Mb/s) Smart ABR technology influences e.g. ABR clients to use a lower bit rate when the visual quality is not impacted. The bandwidth saved can be used to increase the visual quality for the others clients. Smart ABR technology can be applied at different points in the ABR delivery chain (headend, network, playlist proxy, client)

17 70% of Industry Professionals Believe Live OTT Viewing Will Overtake Broadcast by 2022* UNDERSTAND BARRIERS FOR IP TRANSITION AGREE & ADOPT TRANSITION PRINCIPLES LEVERAGE THE POWER OF THE NETWORK THANK YOU NO RIP & REPLACE MAKE IP VIDEO BETTER THAN BROADCAST Source: 486 industry professionals based on L3, Streaming Media & Unisphere Research survey 2017