Network operators worldwide are looking closely at the opportunities associated with content delivery and especially television. In markets like the U.S. where cable broadband is strong offering TV programming may be essential for telecom service providers for competitive reasons alone.
Unfortunately both business/opportunity planning and network planning processes may be complicated by inconsistencies in defining just what IPTV is.
According to some forecasts it might appear that everyone on the planet is either already using IPTV or will be using it within a couple of years. At the same time publications are reporting slow roll-outs of IPTV in some areas and no roll-outs at all in others.
Defining the terms
While bias and errors can account for some of the discrepancies the biggest cause of confusion in the market space we call 'IPTV' is the lack of a good definition. To get one we have to decompose the term to 'television over IP.' As it happens there's plenty of room for confusion in both the pieces of this phrase.
To start off what exactly is 'television'‾ In the last decade that question would have been easily answered as in television is a form of video entertainment that involves the broadcast of multiple network channels to a user receiver that can tune to the channel of choice to permit viewing the material. ABC NBC Fox Warner Discovery Disney HBO and others are networks that provide 'television' shows. This is the most constraining view of television so it's a handy place to start.
What then does 'over IP' mean‾ The obvious answer 'Over the Internet' is clearly incorrect if the current IPTV services are examined because they don't send TV over the Internet but over broadband connections in parallel with Internet access. Even the definition 'Over the Internet protocol' may not be fully correct because it is very feasible to transmit 'IPTV' over Ethernet or ATM and not even use the IP protocol at all. The most straightforward interpretation of 'over IP ' however is 'using the IP protocol for delivery.'
The combination of these starting points would mean that at a minimum 'IPTV' is the delivery of a broadcast television experience over the IP protocol. This definition would include AT&T's U-Verse other Alcatel-Microsoft-based installations and similar competing offerings. What it would not include may be even more instructive.
What IPTV is not
The definition of IPTV would not include Verizon's FiOS service because FiOS broadcast channels are sent using linear video directly over fiber not using the IP protocol at all. It would not include any downloaded form of video or streaming video from YouTube or a network's video portal. In fact if we assume that the foundation requirement for IPTV is 'standard or HD broadcast television over IP ' it is quite likely that many geographies in the world will never see any IPTV at all.
A completely permissive definition is equally unrealistic. Internet video delivery even of TV episodes can't qualify as IPTV because it can't replicate a TV viewing experience reliably. Best-effort video is likely to generate customer complaints due to delay jitter. In addition compressed video is tremendously vulnerable to packet loss and pixelization problems. Some degree of QoS management is essential for true IPTV.
What IPTV really is
The best definition of IPTV is 'the QoS-assured delivery of standard- or high-definition network or studio programming in either broadcast or on-demand form using the IP protocol.' This does not demand that both broadcast channels and streaming VoD be supported but that at least one of them needs to be provided.