It’s a shame that in our industry, some bloggers are more concerned with writing a headline just for drama sake, as opposed to actually getting the details right. In the past few days, at least half a dozen sites said that NBC was "dropping", "dumping" or "ditching" Silverlight in favor or Flash for streaming of football games on NBCSports and NFL.com. Some also had headlines like "NBC has enough of Silverlight".

Problem is, none of this is true. Did any of these journalists actually speak to anyone at NBC or the NFL? If any of them made a simple inquiry to NBC or the NFL they would have gotten the same response I got which was, "NBC did not drop Silverlight and this was an entirely separate event and partnership. The NFL selected Adobe." And in order to "drop", "dump", or "ditch" something it means you have to be using it first. Since the NFL games had never been broadcast before, how were they using Silverlight in the past? The Olympics has nothing to do with the NFL. And it looks even worse for those who wrote these posts trying to make Silverlight sound bad, but then in the same post said that the NFL video experience with Flash was not very good.

I’m sure some will say who cares, the bottom line is that the NFL selected Flash. Ok, then make the story about that, don’t try to make it out to be something it isn’t.

I’ve expressed interest in the past about launching a new conference focusing on the content delivery market as it pertains to video. The conference would talk to all of the workflow pieces in the CDN ecosystem and the focus of the show would be on producing really strong conference sessions, with a limited exhibition component. I would be planning a conference agenda that would be of interest to those on Wall Street, those who buy CDN services and those vendors that are in the CDN market today.

After doing some initial planning, it looks like we may launch this new show, in NYC, in 4-5 months time. Initial estimates are that it would be a two-day show and include two tracks over both days and have about 20 sessions along with keynotes and some breakout presentations.

While we are still working on the details, the reason I am posting some details now is that I need feedback. I want to hear from everyone, vendors included about what you would want to see at the show, how you want to be involved, if you want to speak, what topics you think need to be covered and more importantly – what you think the format should be. I am gladly taking any and all feedback.

In the next few weeks, I should have an update on where this potential new show stands. We already have space reserved in one of the local hotels in NYC (not the Hilton) and will be looking to keep the event to a smaller, summit like experience with a lot of good networking.

If you want to sponsor, speak, attend or be involved in anyway, please let me know. I appreciate all feedback.

This morning, Tata Communications announced the launch of their new global CDN service using BitGravity’s technology. In addition, Tata announced it had made a $11.5 million investment in BitGravity, bringing BitGravity’s total money raised to date to just over $14 million. BitGravity says it will use the money to increase their sales and marketing efforts and that none of the money invested by Tata is needed to support their licensing of BitGravity’s technology.

With the size and reach of Tata’s IP network, over 200 countries and across 300 POPs, adding a CDN offering for their enterprise customers is a no brainer. Initially, their new CDN offering will deliver content from about 20 locations in the U.S., Asia and Europe. While some classified this as a reseller arrangement when Tata and BitGravity announced the initial partnership in March, Tata is not reselling BitGravity and has spent the past six months building out CDN capabilities on their own network. That being said, to be a true CDN player in the market, you have to do more than just deliver bits and I’m interested to see what product feature set Tata’s CDN offering will have.

While it is too early to know how successful Tata’s new CDN offering can be, it fits nicely into their core business. Tata won’t be the last IP carrier to enter the market and I know of some additional carriers who want to launch CDN offerings in the next few quarters.

Last night, the NFL and NBCSports.com broadcast the first of 17 free games this year dubbed "Sunday Night Football Extra" using Adobe Flash video. Some industry people I spoke to seemed surprised that the NFL and NBC were using Flash considering that NBC just did the Olympics in Silverlight. Others are suggesting that Adobe, which announced the games with a joint NFL press release, might be helping to subsidize the cost to the NFL and NBCSports.com by covering some of the bandwidth costs associated with broadcasting the games online.

While Adobe would not comment on the financial details of the deal with the NFL, it would not surprise me if Adobe is taking the same approach Microsoft’s took with NBC for the Olympics, by helping to cover the content delivery costs. Some might ask, if Adobe is willing to pay to get the NFL to use Flash, why didn’t Adobe pay to keep Microsoft’s Silverlight platform from being used for the Olympics? The answer is, Adobe didn’t need to. Outside of the NBC Olympics website, most of the other portals around the world were already using Flash video for the Olympics.

But for the NFL games, they represent a huge opportunity for Adobe down the road. If the games are successful, you could imagine the NFL really ramping up their online video strategy and it would be in Adobe’s best interest to make sure a property like the NFL uses their platform moving forward. There are only a few major sports leagues in the U.S. and the NFL probably has one of the most loyal fan bases around, outside of car racing, not to mention one of the largest marketing and promotional arms. While I have not been able to confirm that Adobe is in fact helping cover the costs of broadcasting the NFL games online, it’s a smart move on their part if they are. It will be very interesting to see if Adobe and Microsoft start bidding on some of the same high-profile events down the road as more main-stream content gets broadcast live over the web. 

Due to some last minute changes, I now have two open spots for a round-table session at the Streaming Media West show entitled "Evaluating and Choosing The Right Methods Of Video Delivery" which takes place on Thursday, September 25, from 2:00-3:00pm. I am looking for two customers who can talk about how they deliver video today and the pros and cons of the many different delivery techniques available on the market. I am not accepting any vendor submissions for these speaking spots but vendors are welcome to submit one of their customers. If interested, please e-mail me right away as these spots will go fast.

Thursday, September 25, 2008
Evaluating and Choosing The Right Methods Of Video Delivery
With all the various means of distribution and protocols available for video today-CDN, P2P, streaming, progressive download-there is still no single solution that will meet all customers’ needs perfectly across all platforms and devices. Learn the various methodologies for content distribution, as well as the pros and cons of each type. Speakers will also discuss which methodologies apply best to which platforms and geographic locations based on type of content, length and format of video, and target audiences. Panelists will also provide you with guidelines and formulas for determining the best single and/or hybrid solution for your online video distribution needs.

On Tuesday, Google added video sharing to their paid business version of Google Apps calling the offering Google Video for Business. While some reviewers are calling it an "enterprise" video offering, it’s not even close to being something a real enterprise company would use. While the definition of what classifies a company as an enterprise organization can be debated, the majority of users for Google Apps are not Fortune 500 corporations, which is what I classify as enterprise.

For what the product does, share videos inside a corporate network, it works well. But the idea that this is going to be a product to replace enterprise video offerings in the market is not the case and I’m surprised that Google would be quoted saying otherwise. Matthew Glotzbach, management director for Google Enterprise is quoted as saying, "video hasn’t been a big part of the enterprise space because the costs
to build a video infrastructure behind a firewall are enormous." Say what? The enterprise market has been using and deploying online video since around 1996 and continues to build out their infrastructure as the costs are quite cheap for the value it brings. There are literally hundreds of examples and case studies of enterprise corporations who have been using online video for years.

Dave Girouard, president of enterprise, for Google is quoted as saying, "YouTube has enabled millions of consumers to easily capture and share video at an unprecedented level, yet corporate video has remained expensive and complicated." Corporate video is not expensive and complicated. Why is Google trying to make it sound like the enterprise market does not know what they are doing? Enterprise companies have been using video, and doing it well for many, many years. It’s not hard to find use cases.

The key here is that Google Video is very limited collaboration tool, not a video distribution tool. It does not support live, has a cap on the file size, has very limited functionality and you can’t use it for sharing video with anyone who doesn’t have
log-in accounts on your Google Apps domain. Not to mention it has no real functionality for creating video, only sharing it. Some blogs I read are thinking Google now competes with Cisco’s Enterprise TV offering or other true enterprise video platforms, which is not the case. Some are even comparing the Google offering to Brightcove, which baffles me as they are not even in the same ballpark in terms of functionality.

Another reason that enterprise companies won’t use the service is that they won’t trust Google. Some of the Enterprise companies I have asked about the service have already said they don’t trust the same infrastructure that serves YouTube to deliver their content securely, let alone without buffering issues. I know that for me, many times it still takes ten or fifteen seconds for a clip on YouTube to start, even when the video is only thirty seconds in length. Other users are still having the same problems I have seen even since Google acquired YouTube.

The bottom line, Google’s new video sharing functionality for business is an offering that will work well for it’s sole purpose, limited video sharing. But please Google, don’t try and make it sound like no one in the enterprise vertical was doing successful video delivery until YouTube came along. That’s just not the case.

Yesterday, Amazon launched their new streaming media based service for their newly branded Amazon Video On Demand offering. While there is not too much to review as the service is pretty straight forward, it is interesting to see that Amazon is using H.264 and encoding content in variable bit-rates, up to 1.2Mbps.

The videos are being delivered via Limelight Networks and not from Amazon’s own Amazon Web Services network. While HD quality content is not available today, I’m really interested to see when Amazon adds HD and what bitrate will be used for streaming.

While some users have been commenting that the quality of the stream is not DVD quality, it’s not suppose to be, nor does Amazon set customers expectations incorrectly with any promise of "DVD like quality". It’s a good move on their part as we have seen other content owners compare their video to "DVD quality", when in fact, it isn’t. The one thing I think Amazon does need to improve on is the seek functionality when skipping ahead in the video. For me, it takes too long, more than two or three seconds, for the video to start back up when I skip ahead.