Isa Seow, is the founder of the Centre for Content Promotion and a senior academic at the Republic Polytechnic school of technology and the arts, Singapore and is taking part in a ‘Keynote Super Session’ called “Can Service Providers both Protect Revenue and Provide the Content and Services Users Demand.” This will take place at the close of Day Two of the Broadband Asia conference, taking place on the 29th-30th April 2014 at the Suntec, Singapore.
Here he discusses the challenges of Internet providers getting involved in content, the fate of net neutrality and defends the use of DRM.
What are the primary concerns you believe ISPs are facing in terms of creating revenue from delivering content?
Good quality, high-value content requires large investment, and telcos and ISPs may or may not have attempted to go fully into such investments.
ISPs could theoretically create their own content, but the reality is that telcos and ISPSs are not content people. Companies in the entertainment field spend millions thinking about, developing and distributing excellent content, but then that is their core business.
The reality is ISPs need to deliver interesting and entertaining content but this is not cheap and sometimes is at odds with delivering bandwidth. With Hollywood or high-value content, the business model is different and there are well established methods and business models.
How to sell online is less clear because of piracy and other reasons. For example: the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) and Content Scramble System (CSS) models provided Hollywood with a third-party beneficiary right – the Internet, however, does not.
The platforms are also shifting. IPTV? Mobile? iPads? There needs to be a large volume of releases so it’s worthwhile for studios to license content to ISPs.
The words I hear from technology people sometimes are, “isn’t content free?” – to which the response is, “Well, no! Is anything free?
I have attended conferences in China, India, Singapore and elsewhere – all over Asia where you’ll find misunderstanding regarding content. Good content that’s considered high-value, and time sensitive is seldom free. Even with free-to-air TV, content is being paid for. A device manufacturer who just manufactures a new mobile TV screen in China would think FTA TV should be free for my audiences.
From the artist’s point of view, the artiste has the right to put things out for free if they want, but also to charge when they wish also. There is a perception that musicians can make music cheaply these days (e.g. “you don’t have to buy expensive equipment to sing a song on a guitar.” – but what about the guy who spent USD$100 million investing in a film? There are various types of content and we cannot lump them all up and decide they are all free.
The business model is through selling per-copy, per-device, per-telco/territory, per-view or rarely, for advertising eye balls/clicks.
What makes it more complicated is the type of content. All forms of content have different business models. Music, is not only sold per copy, it is now based on subscription online (like a buffet) or royalty based. Games are mostly freemium. So in delivering content, ISPs have many challenges in understanding the various forms of content.
Coming to the ISP problem, the challenge is investing in high value content and having the business geared towards content. I believe one complication is that ISPs are the ones that provide the bandwidth – the pipes.
If, or when, they start to deliver content, this complicates some of the current regulatory protections they enjoy as infrastructure/internet providers. Can they continue to be protected from the legal responsibilities that come with delivering content?
“Net neutrality is an idealistic and important ideal to have.”
Isa Seow, is the founder of the Centre for Content Promotion and a senior academic at the Republic Polytechnic school of technology and the arts, Singapore and is taking part in a ‘Keynote Super Session’ called “Can Service Providers both Protect Revenue and Provide the Content and Services Users Demand.” This will take place at the close of Day Two of the Broadband Asia conference, taking place on the 29th-30th April 2014 at the Suntec, Singapore.
Here he discusses the challenges of Internet providers getting involved in content, the fate of net neutrality and defends the use of DRM.
What are the primary concerns you believe ISPs are facing in terms of creating revenue from delivering content?
Good quality, high-value content requires large investment, and telcos and ISPs may or may not have attempted to go fully into such investments.
ISPs could theoretically create their own content, but the reality is that telcos and ISPSs are not content people. Companies in the entertainment field spend millions thinking about, developing and distributing excellent content, but then that is their core business.
The reality is ISPs need to deliver interesting and entertaining content but this is not cheap and sometimes is at odds with delivering bandwidth. With Hollywood or high-value content, the business model is different and there are well established methods and business models.
How to sell online is less clear because of piracy and other reasons. For example: the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) and Content Scramble System (CSS) models provided Hollywood with a third-party beneficiary right – the Internet, however, does not.
The platforms are also shifting. IPTV? Mobile? iPads? There needs to be a large volume of releases so it’s worthwhile for studios to license content to ISPs.
The words I hear from technology people sometimes are, “isn’t content free?” – to which the response is, “Well, no! Is anything free?
I have attended conferences in China, India, Singapore and elsewhere – all over Asia where you’ll find misunderstanding regarding content. Good content that’s considered high-value, and time sensitive is seldom free. Even with free-to-air TV, content is being paid for. A device manufacturer who just manufactures a new mobile TV screen in China would think FTA TV should be free for my audiences.
From the artist’s point of view, the artiste has the right to put things out for free if they want, but also to charge when they wish also. There is a perception that musicians can make music cheaply these days (e.g. “you don’t have to buy expensive equipment to sing a song on a guitar.” – but what about the guy who spent USD$100 million investing in a film? There are various types of content and we cannot lump them all up and decide they are all free.
The business model is through selling per-copy, per-device, per-telco/territory, per-view or rarely, for advertising eye balls/clicks.
What makes it more complicated is the type of content. All forms of content have different business models. Music, is not only sold per copy, it is now based on subscription online (like a buffet) or royalty based. Games are mostly freemium. So in delivering content, ISPs have many challenges in understanding the various forms of content.
Coming to the ISP problem, the challenge is investing in high value content and having the business geared towards content. I believe one complication is that ISPs are the ones that provide the bandwidth – the pipes.
If, or when, they start to deliver content, this complicates some of the current regulatory protections they enjoy as infrastructure/internet providers. Can they continue to be protected from the legal responsibilities that come with delivering content?