New CDN Contract Data Shows AT&T and Verizon Not Winning Deals or Disrupting Market

For more than a few years now, many have been proclaiming doom and gloom to CDNs like Akamai with the reasoning that AT&T and Verizon would come in and disrupt the market, forcing pricing down and taking away market share from the industry leaders. While owning the network does have major advantages, just look at what Level 3 has done, owning the network by itself does not make one a player in the content delivery market.

Two weeks ago at my Content Delivery Summit in NYC, the most common question I got asked by media customers and industry executives was why AT&T and Verizon were absent from the show. While we had just about every other CDN vendor presenting, many with their customers, and had numerous telcos and carriers discussing their deployment strategy, no one from AT&T or Verizon presented or spoke in any capacity.

I offered Verizon multiple speaking opportunities, but they declined all requests saying they weren't yet ready to talk about what they are doing with regards to their external digital media offerings. While it's natural for a company not to want to speak if they aren't yet ready to talk about their technology, it's now been 14 months since Verizon first announced some of their Verizon Digital Media Services (VDMS) at NAB. Since that time, the company still hasn't offered any insight into their products, has no technical information on their website, has not done a press release with a single customer and has refused all briefing requests. And a few months ago, the number they had listed on their website for customers to call to get more information about their Verizon Digital Media Services, didn't work and wasn't a valid number.

While I know Verizon is in fact working on their external digital media services, one really has to wonder if they are getting any traction at all. I hear of them having meetings with large media and entertainment companies, including the big boys like Netflix, but to date, I have yet to hear of a single large customer using them. Amongst many in the industry, Verizon is quickly being compared to AT&T, another vendor who to date, hasn't gotten any real traction with their CDN or digital media services. Unlike Verizon, AT&T has put out a lot of releases about their CDN offering and talked a big game, but has little to show for it. From multiple people I have spoken to who have an insight into AT&T's CDN traffic, it looks as if AT&T will do under $20M this year in CDN services. That's not disruption in the market.

During my pricing presentation at the Content Delivery Summit, I gave out details of a recently completed survey I did of 725 customers who use CDNs for the delivery of video. Of the 408 qualified responses from companies who spent more than $100K a year on video delivery, not a single customer was using AT&T or Verizon. Of the 307 qualified responses from companies who spent less than $100K per year, only 6 customers were using AT&T and 7 were using Verizon. Here's a link to the slides from my presentation and the video will be up shortly.

The reason for me highlighting this data is not to make fun of any vendor, but rather to use it as an example to many who are still saying that vendors like AT&T are going to hurt Akamai, Limelight or Level 3's CDN business. Even as recent as last week, I saw a report from a Wall Street analyst saying AT&T and other carriers were putting pressure on Akamai's CDN pricing. While Level 3, EdgeCast and Amazon are being aggressive on pricing, none of the major carriers, outside of Level 3, have yet to impact the CDN market in any way.

For more than five years now, Wall Street analysts have implied that AT&T will be a big threat to Akamai. In 2007 I wrote a post saying "Analysts Covering Akamai Should Not Be Worried About AT&T" and in 2008, followed up with two more posts entitled "AT&T's CDN Offering Not Displacing Akamai or Limelight Anytime Soon" and "Goldman Has It Wrong: Akamai Not Affected By Network Operators." Yet even with all the evidence we have in the market to show what's really taking place, and the data to show it takes a few hundred million dollars to really enter the CDN market and do any substantial revenue, many still think carriers are going to somehow disrupt the CDN market. That notion could not be further from the truth and the biggest new disruptor's in the market will come from the likes of Amazon and Dell, not carriers.

As for Verizon, I'm not counting them out just yet. I think they still have a shot at doing something disruptive, but to date, they have been working on these services for two years now and haven't gotten to scale or signed up many customers. I think they could still do something positive, but they have a lot to prove in the market and their window of opportunity won't be open forever. But in reference to AT&T, I do think it's about time people stop saying they will "disrupt" anything having to do with the content delivery business.

Note: I notified Verizon as soon as I realized they had a non-working sales number listed on their website. Also, this post is in reference to Verizon's external digital media and CDN services, not their internal CDN, which is quite advanced.

Sponsored by

CDN Contract Data Shows AT&T and Verizon Not Winning Deals or Disrupting Market

For more than a few years now, many have been proclaiming doom and gloom to CDNs like Akamai with the reasoning that AT&T and Verizon would come in and disrupt the market, forcing pricing down and taking away market share from the industry leaders. While owning the network does have major advantages, just look at what Level 3 has done, owning the network by itself does not make one a player in the content delivery market.

Two weeks ago at my Content Delivery Summit in NYC, the most common question I got asked by media customers and industry executives was why AT&T and Verizon were absent from the show. While we had just about every other CDN vendor presenting, many with their customers, and had numerous telcos and carriers discussing their deployment strategy, no one from AT&T or Verizon presented or spoke in any capacity.

I offered Verizon multiple speaking opportunities, but they declined all requests saying they weren't yet ready to talk about what they are doing with regards to their external digital media offerings. While it's natural for a company not to want to speak if they aren't yet ready to talk about their technology, it's now been 14 months since Verizon first announced some of their Verizon Digital Media Services (VDMS) at NAB. Since that time, the company still hasn't offered any insight into their products, has no technical information on their website, has not done a press release with a single customer and has refused all briefing requests. And a few months ago, the number they had listed on their website for customers to call to get more information about their Verizon Digital Media Services, didn't work and wasn't a valid number.

While I know Verizon is in fact working on their external digital media services, one really has to wonder if they are getting any traction at all. I hear of them having meetings with large media and entertainment companies, including the big boys like Netflix, but to date, I have yet to hear of a single large customer using them. Amongst many in the industry, Verizon is quickly being compared to AT&T, another vendor who to date, hasn't gotten any real traction with their CDN or digital media services. Unlike Verizon, AT&T has put out a lot of releases about their CDN offering and talked a big game, but has little to show for it. From multiple people I have spoken to who have an insight into AT&T's CDN traffic, it looks as if AT&T will do under $20M this year in CDN services. That's not disruption in the market.

During my pricing presentation at the Content Delivery Summit, I gave out details of a recently completed survey I did of 725 customers who use CDNs for the delivery of video. Of the 408 qualified responses from companies who spent more than $100K a year on video delivery, not a single customer was using AT&T or Verizon. Of the 307 qualified responses from companies who spent less than $100K per year, only 6 customers were using AT&T and 7 were using Verizon. Here's a link to the slides from my presentation and the video will be up shortly.

The reason for me highlighting this data is not to make fun of any vendor, but rather to use it as an example to many who are still saying that vendors like AT&T are going to hurt Akamai, Limelight or Level 3's CDN business. Even as recent as last week, I saw a report from a Wall Street analyst saying AT&T and other carriers were putting pressure on Akamai's CDN pricing. While Level 3, EdgeCast and Amazon are being aggressive on pricing, none of the major carriers, outside of Level 3, have yet to impact the CDN market in any way.

For more than five years now, Wall Street analysts have implied that AT&T will be a big threat to Akamai. In 2007 I wrote a post saying "Analysts Covering Akamai Should Not Be Worried About AT&T" and in 2008, followed up with two more posts entitled "AT&T's CDN Offering Not Displacing Akamai or Limelight Anytime Soon" and "Goldman Has It Wrong: Akamai Not Affected By Network Operators." Yet even with all the evidence we have in the market to show what's really taking place, and the data to show it takes a few hundred million dollars to really enter the CDN market and do any substantial revenue, many still think carriers are going to somehow disrupt the CDN market. That notion could not be further from the truth and the biggest new disruptor's in the market will come from the likes of Amazon and Dell, not carriers.

As for Verizon, I'm not counting them out just yet. I think they still have a shot at doing something disruptive, but to date, they have been working on these services for two years now and haven't gotten to scale or signed up many customers. I think they could still do something positive, but they have a lot to prove in the market and their window of opportunity won't be open forever. But in reference to AT&T, I do think it's about time people stop saying they will "disrupt" anything having to do with the content delivery business.

Note: I notified Verizon as soon as I realized they had a non-working sales number listed on their website. Also, this post is in reference to Verizon's external digital media and CDN services, not their internal CDN, which is quite advanced.

Less Than 10% of iPad Users Have Bought An Apple TV, Total Sales of 5.5M Are Meaningless

Yesterday at the D10 conference Apple's CEO said that so far this year, Apple has sold 2.8M Apple TV units. If you combine that with the 2.7M units Apple sold from September 2010 to December 2011, Apple has now sold a total of 5.5M second (720p) and third (1080p) generation Apple TV's. It originally took Apple 16 months to sell 2.7M units and now they are selling that same volume in 1/3 the time. While it's good to see the growth, the problem is that Apple still has no real presence in the living room and selling 5.5M Apple TV units in 21 months time really isn't that spectacular.

While Apple won't call their Apple TV device a failure since they always thought of it as a "hobby" to begin with, the fact is, they have yet to even get 10% of users who buy an iPad to also purchase an Apple TV. Between the fiscal Q1 of 2011 up until Apple's Q1 of 2012, the company has now sold almost 60M iPads and even more if you count those sold before 2011. So even for those users who have selected Apple's ecosystem, less than 10% of them have purchased the Apple TV. And if you factor in users like myself who have multiple Apple TV units, the percentage of unique users Apple is reaching in the living room is well under 5M.

Naturally, you don't expect Apple to sell many Apple TV units to consumers not using the Apple ecosystem and the content available via the Apple TV doesn't even come close to the variety of content offered from Roku, for the same $99 price. But Apple can't even crack the 10% mark with iPad users and if you combine all of the iPhones sold with the iPad, the Apple TV isn't even reaching 2% of the total iOS market.

Of course these numbers aren't going to stop all of the crazy analysts and media people who are already declaring Apple as the winner in being able to disrupt the traditional TV and broadcast market with a product that does not yet exist (an Apple TV with a screen) and has been speculated about for more than three years with nothing yet in the market. These are many of the same analysts who said that when the first generation Apple TV came out in 2007 it would kill off DVDs. Deutsche Bank went so far as to say that the new Apple TV would, "cannibalize a good chunk of the U.S. DVD player market in the next several years".

Five years has passed since that statement and the Apple TV hasn't cannibalized or disrupted anything in the market. At the same time, when Apple TV hit the 1M sales mark, other analysts were quoted as saying, "one million is a real benchmark". Really? We're now judging the success of a device based on selling only 1M units? Clearly, most of the analysts and media really don't understand these streaming devices or their real impact on the over-the-top video market. They don't get how they really work or have any idea what you can or can't do with them. All I keep hearing about is how good AirPlay is, yet about half the content apps I have on my iPad don't even have AirPlay functionality built in. For instance, TNT's iPad app is AirPlay enabled, yet TNT's iPhone app isn't. And you still can't get something as basic as Hulu on the Apple TV.

To think of it another way, the Apple TV is nothing more than a $99 adapter that lets you mirror what is on your iPad/iPhone on your TV, if the app supports it. That's all it is. And for all of the raving by the media and analysts about how "disruptive" the Apple TV was suppose to be, Apple has yet to even sell it to 10% of their installed iPad base. These are same analysts who are saying the new iTV or whatever it's going to be called, if/when it is released, is going change and disrupt the TV and broadcast markets, which in truth, is as far from reality as you can get.

Note: Here is an interesting analysis on how much revenue Apple might be generating from their Apple TV product.

CDN Yottaa Raises $9M In Series B Round, Wants To Become The Next Cotendo

In February, Boston based Yottaa (pronounced "Yo-ta") announced a new dynamic site acceleration service aimed at the small and medium sized business (SMB) markets with the goal of trying to fill the void left in the market for DSA services, due to Akamai's recent purchase of Cotendo. This week, the company raised $9M in a Series B round and has now raised $13M to date.

For those not familiar with dynamic site acceleration, it is a suite of technologies and products that deals with optimizing dynamically served content across the network. Traditional DSA services often include TCP optimization, route optimization, connection management, on-the-fly compression, SSL offload and pre-fetching technologies.

In addition to offering DSA services, Yottaa also offers mobile content acceleration and content delivery for small objects, not video. The company also announced that they have been granted two patents in the areas of web performance optimization (WPO), Front-end Optimization (FEO), web security and cloud routing. While Yottaa has a long way to go to become the next Cotendo, the company in on track to do under $10M this year, (Cotendo did $24M in 2011) Yottaa did say that in the last month, 5% of the Internet population has visited sites accelerated by the their network.

Yottaa was one of the presenters at last week's Content Delivery Summit and you can see their presentation here that they did with Mocospace, which is one of the largest entertainment destinations on the mobile web with 25 million registered users, spending over 1 million hours per day playing games and making friends.

The company now employees 40 people and current investors General Catalyst Partners, Stata Venture Partners and Cambridge West Ventures combined for the second round of funding, along with additional undisclosed investors.

News Recap From The Streaming Media East Show and Content Delivery Summit

A lot of news came out at or during the Content Delivery Summit and Streaming Media East shows last week, here’s a rundown of all the news I got sent or saw on the wire.

Multiple Enterprise Webcasting Pros Looking For New Jobs, Here Are Their Resumes

There's a lot of webcasting deployments taking place inside the firewall of enterprise corporations and for anyone who may be looking to build out their internal webcasting team, three experienced professionals from Lockheed Martin (Richard Banse, John Hohenstein and Brian Rooney) are looking for new gigs. Over the last few weeks, Lockheed Martin has been doing layoffs and some members from their core enterprise video team are now looking for new opportunities.

Some of them have presented at our StreamingMedia.com shows in the past and these guys have helped build the internal multicast streaming capability at Lockheed Martin, handled a lot of the audio visual hardware, transcoding, media management and a host of AV related tasks. I have included all three of their resumes below, so that anyone who may be looking for this kind of skill set can reach out to them directly.

Richard Banse
Manager of Creative Services
Lockheed Martin IS&GS
View Richard Banse's Resume

John Hohenstein
Multimedia Production Analyst
Sr. – IS&GS Media Services
Lockheed Martin IS&GS
View John Hohenstein's Resume

Brian Rooney
Multimedia Design Engr Sr
Lockheed Martin IS&GS
View Brian Rooney's Resume

Hopefully someone out there is hiring for these kinds of positions and can put them back to work.

CDN Pricing Stable, Survey Data and Traffic Growth Analysis Coming This Week

At last week’s Content Delivery Summit, I presented my findings from a recently completed CDN pricing survey, with data collected from over 800 customers that use content delivery networks for the delivery of video. Later this week, I will post all of my slides from the event along with details on how pricing has changed as well as expected growth forecasts for traffic volumes.

I’ll be breaking down the pricing based on small customers who spend under $100K-$250K per year, medium sized customers spending $250-500K per year, and large customers who spend more than $1M per year. I also have data from those who spend less than $100K per year and use resellers and regional service providers. Here’s a video interview I did with Andy Plesser from Beet.tv talking about what the pricing data showed.