A Call For The Home Media Network 1
`
`
`Gordon Bell and Jim Gemmell
`
`4 May 2001
`
`Technical Report
`MSR-TR-2001-52
`
`
`
`Microsoft Research
`Microsoft Corporation
`One Microsoft Way
`Redmond, WA 98052
`
`
`1 : This work has been submitted for publication to the Communications of the ACM. Copyright may
`be transferred without further notice and the publisher may then post the accepted version.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`1
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`“The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” – Alan Kay
`”… or at least posit a vision for others to build” – the authors
`1 Introduction
`Home media acquisition, production, storage, and use is on the cusp of a radical change.
`The current home’s hodge-podge of ad-hoc analog equipment will be replaced by all-
`digital, networked media equipment: the Home Media Network. There is no question that
`this change is coming; the question is “how soon”? The goal of this paper is to spur
`consumer and computer manufacturers to start delivering the Home Media Network now.
`We hope that this discussion of the issues, the advantages, and the breakthrough
`possibilities will convince manufacturers not to wait any longer.
`Typical homes have a plethora of answering machines, boom boxes, cameras, computers
`stereos, telephones, and TV sets. This congeries is interconnected via at least four,
`independent networks carrying audio, data, telephony, and TV. Some homes add
`intercoms, home theatres, surveillance cameras, and home automation controllers. We
`talk about home audio-visual (A/V) systems, but applying the word “system” is generous
`to the extreme. For the typical consumer, it is difficult (or impossible) to interconnect all
`the possible devices. In the living room alone, the proliferation of remote controls
`demonstrates the lack of integration (Figure 1). True, the TV is usually connected to a
`cable, satellite and a VCR/DVD. The stereo also has a number of connected components.
`“High end” homes may even centralize audio sources and amplifiers and run speaker
`wires to every room, including providing a receiver and player for each family member.
`However, to truly integrate all home media requires a scary collection of special
`equipment, a sense of humor, trained operators, and a full-time maintenance/user
`consultant (the responsible person in the family).
`
`
`Figure 1: Remote controls from one living room demonstrate the lack of integration in home A/V
`“systems”.
`The computer is starting to show how all media can be integrated. In essence, A/V
`content has been consumed by or “converged” into the computer. Consumer grade PCs
`can play CD-quality surround audio, play/rip/write CDs, and play/write DVDs. They can
`tune and record TV. They can also store and print digital photos, display art, and record
`phone messages. However, current PCs are not the answer, because they are not usually
`welcome in all rooms. They tend to be big, ugly, and noisy (just painting them black isn’t
`the answer). They take too long to turn on. Also, the benefit of a PC’s flexibility and
`extensibility comes at the price of management and maintenance, making few people
`
`9/7/2016
`
`2
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`willing to maintain many of them. Their complexity is comparable to the multiple
`remote controls and the interconnected A/V equipment that occupies most
`listening/viewing stations.
`We believe that a single, home network that connects a PC-based server (or servers) to
`specialized media appliances (and other devices) is likely to evolve. Smart speakers
`should connect directly to the network and just play the appropriate sounds served to
`them. Smart networked monitors should let us watch TV, surf the Web, and display our
`art, ambient environments, photos, and various video content. Microphones and cameras
`should connect to the network for communication, to allow telephony and
`videoconferencing.
`Instead of needing to find the right remote control for the right device, any remote control
`should command the unified system (e.g. pressing pause on any remote control will pause
`the media in the room). However, current remote controls do not have a rich enough user
`interface (UI) for all the potential of the home media network. A wireless keyboard, or a
`3D pointing devices such as the Gyropointer mouse allow richer UIs. Even better, a
`wireless tablet PC can support a very rich UI, and can also display and capture media
`(e.g. record audio). We believe the tablet PC will be the next generation universal remote.
`Farther in the future, you will be able to control the system by speaking to it, or gesturing
`with your hands.
`To the technophile, a digital home media network is obvious and inevitable. There are
`technical and political problems (e.g. copyright protection) to be solved, but they appear
`solvable. Digital media has already invaded the home in CDs, DVDs, PVRs and portable
`digital music players – surely integration can’t be that far away, can it? On the other
`hand, the average non-technical person asks, “why bother”? Why bother, indeed, when
`existing wiring doesn’t do the trick, much of the content is still analog, and the desired
`gear is priced for the high-end buyer?
`The remainder of this article provides motivations of why we should bother, how and
`what future content will be distributed and stored, what the hardware/wiring requirements
`are, and interim steps in the journey towards the all-digital future of the Home Media
`Network. One critical interim step is the development of “digital transformers” that
`connect existing analog equipment to the home media network. Of particular interest is
`the Digital Home Entertainment Center (DHEC) that would almost completely replace all
`components of the current home entertainment center.
`2 Why bother?
`To understand why we should bother with the digital home media network, we need to
`think beyond just wiring everything together and reducing the remote control count. The
`Home Media Network can take advantage of software creativity that computer platforms
`provide to enable breakthroughs in media usage.
`To begin with, we enable content to go where it has never gone before. That big-screen
`display that is turned off right now is just a big, ugly, gray blob. What if it was a work of
`art? A slide show of your favorite photos? A fireplace? A passive or interactive
`aquarium? A window looking out on a tropical beach or at the scenery from the dining
`
`9/7/2016
`
`3
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`car of the Orient Express? Imagine lying on your bed and hearing the sound of the wind
`on a beach, while peering at the stars on the bedroom wall or ceiling displays.
`Perhaps you watch your favorite TV show, and it mentions a Web site. You click
`“bookmark” on your remote-control. After the show ends, a PC or the TV can bring up
`the TV bookmarks for web surfing. You watch a baseball game and “bookmark” some
`plays. Then email the bookmarks to a friend, who had the game recorded while working
`late. Coming home that night, she is able to watch the highlights you selected. The next
`morning in bed, you bring up the “Times” on the ceiling display. Then you watch a
`video-on-demand lecture while exercising. A camera and microphone co-located with a
`large monitor allow you to videoconference.
`Integrating media with the world of computers doesn’t just mean Web surfing. It means
`software that takes the “management” out of media-management. Lets take a moment
`imagine a world without arcane, nested menus; that doesn’t force us to memorize channel
`numbers, song numbers, radio frequencies, or the special key-combination required to set
`the time (or record the message, or…). The software needs to learn the kind of music or
`programs we like. One can ask for songs selected by a favorite DJ, but when the DJ picks
`a song the system knows you don’t like, it will skip it or play something you do like from
`your own library instead. Once a song is given the thumbs down, there is no reason to
`ever hear it again (at least not in your home). It will also learn what kind of photos and art
`you like. It will dig through the 99% of your photos that you will never bother to put in a
`photo album and bring them up to let you identify keepers.2
`Imagining the possibilities is exciting. Some users have even wilder imaginations that us:
`a common feature request for UltimateTV is to be able to fast forward a real time
`broadcast channel! Rather than commenting on viewer intelligence, we’d like to point out
`the unlimited expectations in those requests.
`But enough of being imaginative. Instead of us defending the motivation to switch to
`digital, lets put the champions of the status quo on the defensive. Why keep analog? It is
`not inherently cheaper. It is lower in quality. Let’s face it, analog has reached the end of
`its useful life, and it is time to bury it. Lets not use HDTV, which will only prolong the
`life of analog (The MPEG format that HDTV uses is fine – we are referring to HDTV as
`a transmission scheme, and as a display standard). This means a complete change in
`every aspect of audio and TV distribution, display surfaces, controllers, networks,
`computers, and how all of these work together and are controlled. To achieve this goal
`requires effort, determination, new standards – and getting started!
`3 Building the Home Media Network
`Lets consider how the Home Media Network must be designed and built. Clearly it will
`be different from the streaming media aimed at enterprises and the Web. These
`environments are designed for many viewers. Startup latency is typically not a concern,
`and is traded-off against throughput. Quality is often low, since bandwidth restrictions
`don’t allow the bit-rate required for improvement. The home is the opposite. There are
`
`2 Companies such as Net Perceptions and Personify have built data mining tools that companies use to
`understand individual preferences for marketing purposes.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`4
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`only a few streams to manage. Startup latency should be short (e.g. channel-flipping-type
`experience), and VHS/CDs define the low quality bar.
`The home dictates another important difference – the “mainframe” architecture makes
`sense with “thin clients” or “network computers” and centralized configuration and
`maintenance services. This idea is unpopular with PC users who want the option to buy
`different computers for different applications to keep control. In WAN environments,
`bandwidth limitations are a barrier. Within the home, these difficulties disappear. Most of
`us want to maintain just one or two machines. Bandwidth in the home should be plentiful
`as we show below. Hence, the home is just fine for thin clients (including TV sets – we
`are already familiar with “head ends” for cable or satellite).
`These thin clients are “smart” in that they are configurable, connect to the network, and
`can be updated. However, they are not meant to be an extensible, general purpose
`platform, like the PC, with many unbounded functions. Such flexibility leads to
`unexpected combinations that makes performance unpredictable and maintenance
`difficult.
`In an ideal world, all media devices are completely digital and all transmission is via an
`Internet Protocol (IP) network. However, we foresee a very long interim that involves
`both legacy analog and digital for transmission and viewing. To cope with this mix, we
`envision each analog receiver or television set has a “digital transformer” that converts
`digital to the analog world of the amplifier/speakers and TV sets or monitors. For
`example, Voyetra’s Audiotron also marketed as Gateway’s Connected Music Player
`network device drives an amplifier with speakers and plays audio content from any server
`on an Ethernet/IP network. The next device we would expect in the genre is a Videotron,
`or Connected TV Player that plays TV content coming over an IP network. Similar
`digital media appliances will be forthcoming for cameras and microphones. Of course,
`there will also be combination units, like a speaker/mic combination as an IP phone.
`Figure 2 shows a home with media servers, digital transformers, and digital media
`appliances.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`5
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure 2: The Home Media Network with digital transformers to support legacy analog devices.
`
`We propose one digital transformer that will be critical: the Digital Home Entertainment
`Center (DHEC). The DHEC will ahnost completely replace every AN component by
`integration into a single unit (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). It would typically reside in the
`living room or listening room, to drive each monitor and audio system. The prototype for
`the DHEC is a multimedia PC. However, the DHEC must be designed for consumer
`buying habits and sensibilities. It should have the following features:
`
`0 Ethernet, DVD/CD, (quiet) hard drive, and no fan (or sufficiently configured for
`reduced acoustic noise).
`0 DVI output providing at least 1024 x 768 and 1280 X 720 progressive scan at 60
`Hz
`
`0 Dolby surround sound to drive an amplified six speaker system.
`0 TV broadcast or Open Cable input with video tuner, radio timer, and MPEG-2/4
`encoders.
`
`Optional timers to connect to proprietary cable and satellite systems.
`IEEE 1394 input for video camera.
`
`0 USB for security and IP protection devices; videoconferencing camera and
`microphone
`
`0 Great software — at minimum, it must support PVR and a jukebox for the owner’s
`audio collection.
`
`0 Any remote can control generic fimctions: volume, channel, mute, pause, rewind,
`etc. Full fimctional control would either be via a wireless keyboard with on screen
`picture-in-picture GUI, or a tablet-PC.
`
`Note that a tablet is simply a networked device running the control soflware. Any
`networked PC could be used to control the DHEC, opening up interesting possibilities,
`such as browsing the Web from a PC for TV programming, finding an interesting show,
`
`9/7/2016
`
`6
`
`Drafi V8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`and relaying a command to the DHEC to record it. Note, also, that once home networks
`are fast enough and media servers are attached the hard drive will be optional.
`
`The DHEC provides a considerable challenge from many points of view. It needs to fit
`Consumer Electronic buying habits and perceptions for an industry that provides total
`modularity, compatibility and incremental upgrade ability over decades. Most consumer
`electronics manufacturers are unfamiliar with digital networks and computers in general.
`The time scale for change in standards is measured in decades. Most likely the change
`will have to come from the PC industry that is equally unfamiliar with television
`standards.
`
`set top
`
`PVR
`
`HDTV receiver =
`
`a a a remotes
`
`camera
`
`radio I
`
`CD
`
`..
`
`DVD ml
`cassette C“
`
`-*
`
`
`surround
`
`speakers
`
`Figure 3: Existing home entertainment center
`
`camera
`
`Digital Home
`Entertainment
`
`Center
`
`
`monitor
`surround
`
`speakers
`
`Figure 4: The Digital Home Entertainment Center (DHEC) simplifies and adds function (note: legacy
`audio cassette tapes assumed to be recorded digitally into the DHEC).
`
`9/7/2016
`
`7
`
`Drafi V8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`3.1 Displays – Beyond HDTV
`Virtually all homes have TVs, and many have fairly large screen TVs. All current
`television sets are poor in comparison to computer monitors. First, TV monitors use
`interlaced scanning that sweeps half the screen 30 times per second, while computers
`monitors use progressive scanning that sweep every 60+ times per second. Second, the
`NTSC standard for TV has a maximum vertical resolution of 480 lines (interlace
`problems make this effectively more like 320 lines), whereas current computer screens
`have at least 768 lines. The Digital Video Interface (DVI) standard shows we are headed
`in monitor resolution. At the low end, it supports VGA (640x480), and goes all the way
`up to QXGA (2048 x 1536). IBM’s 20” LCD panel already provides QXGA.
`At first glance it would seem obvious that the 16:9 format would be preferred over the
`4:3 format of TV and most monitors. However, from a true cost perspective, 4:3 provides
`more pixels per unit cost3 and appears to be better suited to computer use. Thus, 16:9 is
`not inevitable.
`Whether current and future TV sets can be used, depends on how one may use them.
`Some of the major viewing categories are:
`• Ordinary TV content.
`TV sets can go beyond current TV content. S-video and new HDTV set quality is
`adequate for computer art, photos, home video, and DVDs – “TV screen savers”.
`(see Figure 2.)
`• Lectures with demos and slides.
`Current television sets are marginal, but can be used if the slides use very large
`fonts. For most users, a progressive scan monitor with at least SGA resolution
`(800x600) is required (see Figure 3) unless content is appropriately scaled.
`• “Mini-mail” and “Mini-browsing” using limited and/or translated content.
`Current TVs can do mail and Web-browsing, but large fonts and the right colors
`are required, resulting in only a few (10-20) lines of text being displayed at a
`time. This is a very different and limited experience from full resolution mail and
`browsing found on PCs today. Web pages usually must be authored specifically
`for TV sets. However, mini-mail and mini-browsing are expected to be widely
`used in small portable devices, and we also expect some usefulness in them
`appearing on TV sets. WebTV has over a million users that view color and size
`translated Web pages for better viewing on TV sets. A TV format seems to be
`more readily accepted in Europe, perhaps because of their experience with TV-
`based Teletext that uses appropriate fonts for example to display a schedule.
`• Browsing and mail at distance using very large displays.
`e.g. reading the “Times” in bed, or browsing from the living room couch.
`SGA (800x600) is the minimum, useful resolution. Selker (2000) has
`demonstrated projectors that display on the bedroom ceiling that could be used in
`a variety of way ranging from reading a newspaper to a planetarium. XGA
`(1024x768) is desirable for mail and most applications. It is unclear whether
`
`3 An observation by David Marsh. The cost appears to be proportional to monitor deflection angle.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`8
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`HDTV sets that barely meet SGA capability will be adequate based on user
`expectations.
`
`
`Figure 5: Digital art on a 42” projection TV (TV set as a “screen saver”).
`
`
`
`Figure 6: Telepresentation consisting of video and slides on the projection TV.
`We believe future displays must have monitor characteristics, including progressive
`scanning and higher resolution. Unfortunately, the television networks and set
`manufacturers seem slow to catch on, being hampered with 50 years of experience with
`interlaced scanning. On the other hand, TV manufacturers envision the TV set being the
`center of the home multimedia. Currently, interlaced displays are cheaper than
`progressive displays. However, this need not be the case, it is almost entirely a matter of
`the large difference in volume levels between television sets and computer monitors,
`together with the channels of distribution.
`Some colleagues believe the ultimate device is high-resolution glasses that are capable of
`accepting all formats, but these are yet to become available. For the foreseeable future,
`there are limited options available at any price for viewing both television and computer
`content in what we envision is the true future. A very interesting alternative is the use of
`computer display DLT or LCD projectors. For home use, these are limited because they
`are often large, noisy, and need a darkened room. Plasma panels of 30-50” provide one
`
`9/7/2016
`
`9
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`of the nicest alternatives because they are very bright and can be useful for displaying art.
`Unfortunately, their use is limited by their high cost and power consumption (over
`$10,000 cost and 350 watts). They are unlikely the monitor for many users.
`
`3.2 Building the network: old wires, new wires or wireless?
`A plethora of networking schemes have been introduced for the digital home network
`(Table 1). Their capabilities are constantly evolving with technology and need. A typical
`home with three TV sets needs bandwidth for:
`• data being routed to/from the Internet (up to 5 Mbps);
`•
`three video streams (DVD quality: 24 Mbps; HDTV quality: 60 Mbps), and
`•
`in-home PC server traffic, which can be almost any amount for
`backup/replication, video from digital TV tuners to servers, and video
`intercom/surveillance.
`So, 50-100 Mbps is the minimum for the Home Media Network. CAT5 Ethernet is a
`proven solution, with plenty of headroom for bandwidth. However, asking users to install
`new wires is a huge obstacle to adoption. 802.11a’s wireless 54 Mbps should be
`adequate, although many are concerned that interference from wireless phones and other
`devices will reduce its practical bit rate in many situations. HomePNA is currently
`achieves 10 Mbps over existing telephone wire, but a 100 Mbps version is slated to
`become available later this year.
`If new CAT5 wiring is being added to a home, it is prudent to also include RG-6 co-axial
`cable for legacy, analog CATV. A single bundle with two CAT5 and two RG-6 cables is
`common and cheap (installation costs make the cabling cost insignificant). To really
`hedge your bets, a fiber optic pair can be added to the bundle for little cost.4
`Ironically, an in-home CATV distribution network could be enhanced to provide a home
`network without the need for another data network or re-wiring. Such a network would
`work similarly to the network cable companies already deploy to serve IP to subscribers.
`Cable networks have already been modified to carry “digital TV” channels. In a similar
`way, some channels could be utilized in the home for IP networking. Cable is less
`prevalent in many parts of the world, so clearly it is not a universal solution. For
`example, Japan is committing to wire homes with fiber that would allow a completely
`centralized architecture for all types of content distribution. Various European countries
`use a mix of broadcast, cable, and satellites for distributing what amounts to a small
`number of TV channels.
`
`
`4 SPDIF utilizes fiber for digital audio.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`10
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Network
`
`CAT5+
`
`Ethernet
`
`(4 Twisted pr.)
`
`CATV
`
`(RGU Coax)
`
`HomePNA
`(1 twisted pr)
`
`Power
`(AC Power line)
`
`Advantage
`
`Disadvantage
`
`Separate wiring; low
`cost: easy install.
`Telco compatible.
`“Fungible” wiring.
`
`Exists for TV sets;
`could also serve IP
`throughout the home
`
`Uses existing wiring;
`features for QoS
`
`New wiring. Useful for analog
`audio and composite video.
`Inability to transmit CATV.
`
`RF analog: no digital
`
`Speed.
`
`1 GHz (150
`6 Ivfl-Iz chs.)
`
`10 Mbps
`
`<14 Mbps
`
`Uses existing wiring
`
`Speed; may not work on all
`plugs"
`
`1394
`
`$800 Mbps
`
`Point to point video
`transmission
`
`Distance; lack of protocols
`
`802. 1 lb
`
`(wireless)
`
`802.1 la
`
`(wireless)
`
`Bluetooth
`.
`(wireless)
`
`Home RF
`
`(wireless)
`
`Fiber
`
`(1392, SPDIF,
`etc.)
`
`1 1 Mbps
`
`No wires
`
`Crowded spectrum; speed
`
`54 Mbps
`
`No wires
`
`Crowded spectrum
`
`<1 Mbps
`
`No wires
`
`Crowded spectrum: speed; short
`distance
`
`310 Mbps
`
`No wires
`
`Crowded spectrum; speed
`
`>1 Gbps
`
`Speed.
`
`Installation skills: lack of home
`net equipment
`
`Table 1: Data-Networking and Interconnection Schemes
`
`Figure 7 shows the “wiring closet” for a home with wired and wireless telephony, IP
`networking for three rooms, and an 802.1 lb wireless Ethernet. The closet also has cable
`and DSL modems for Internet services, a battery backup for brown-outs, a firewall
`appliance, an Ethernet switch, and a patch panel. Not shown is the coax for TVs in four
`rooms. If you are not impressed with how compact and tidy this is, go look under your
`computer desk!
`
`5 Both DSL and cable modems were installed because neither had provided consistent bandwidth or reliable
`service. Cable is currently the preferred route because of performance and reliability. This is inherent in
`having a single organization versus two or three that are responsible for a complete service.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`1 1
`
`Draft V8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`
`Figure 7: Home coat & wiring closet supporting: wired and wireless telephony, CAT5 and Ethernet
`switch for 3 rooms, 802.11b wireless Ethernet, cable and DSL modems, battery backup, a firewall
`appliance, and a patch panel.
`4 Content distribution, storage and management
`The Home Media Network raises profound questions about content distribution, storage,
`and management. Being digital makes distribution vastly easier and more convenient.
`However it also makes copying (piracy) convenient. Will “theftware” effect or destroy a
`television or music industry? By what channels will the content reach us for various
`quality levels? Will there be an open market for content and with new distributors? There
`are also questions about the right place to archive personal digital media. In this section,
`we consider these issues.
`
`4.1 Distribution and content caching for non-real time use
`There is much speculation about the future of electronic media delivery (we do not
`concern ourselves with physical distribution, e.g. video rental or CD purchase). Today,
`virtually all electronic video distribution is broadcast for real time listening or viewing.
`Most video arrives via television distribution channels (open broadcast, satellite, and
`cable). On the web, real time (streaming) video is more popular than downloads, since
`people don’t want to wait for long downloads. Present bandwidth limitations prevent
`streaming web video from attaining TV-quality, and this has impeded its adoption. It is
`unlikely that “edge caching” of content with a large number of peripheral caches will
`help either the user or network because the limit is still the bandwidth into the home.
`While real time viewing dominates today, we believe this will change. The experience of
`the Personal Video digital Recorder (PVR) users of ReplayTV, TiVo, and UltimateTV is
`they begin to watch most content in a time-shifted manner: “prime time no longer exists”.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`12
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Thus, as long as a good way is found to stuff your media cache with content that you
`want, real time distribution will only be needed for a few categories like news, sports, and
`communication (videophone). Cache stuffing may even be the way to go for news and
`sports. We do not get most news instantly. It comes on the “6 o’clock news” or in the
`“news cycle” of the all-news station. Viewers may often prefer a cached version of the
`last news cast to waiting for the next one. Clearly the 6 o’clock news being watched at
`6:15 is much better because it permits skipping over the 15 minutes of commercials that
`accompany the news. Certainly sports highlights can be cached, and sports occurring in
`different time zones may be inconvenient to watch live.6
`Almost any distribution network is suitable for cache stuffing. Existing web dialup
`connections could use the usual unicast methods like FTP and HTTP, or could receive a
`multicast. Napster-style sharing can be applied to video as well as audio. Existing
`television channels could be re-purposed for cache stuffing. A single analog TV channel
`can be used to transmit 4-6 digital streams of VHS quality, or 2 at HDTV quality. We
`could see some analog channels switch to digital streams at night to stuff caches. Of
`course, there already is digital TV distribution. However, when cache stuffing is the
`primary goal rather than real time viewing, we may see transmissions altered to serve that
`purpose, e.g. send slightly slower than real time in order to add more error correction.
`One problem content distributors have with time-shifting is the viewer’s ability to skip
`the commercials that pay for the content/distribution. However, as digital rights
`management (DRM – see below) matures, cache stuffing will allow for some interesting
`opportunities in ad-insertion and pay-per-view that can please both viewers and
`distributors.
`The answers to questions about electronic media distribution will unfold as the
`technology evolves to deliver content digitally at higher speeds using both the cable TV
`and digital telephony infrastructures. There will always be some content (news and
`sports) that will be transmitted live via TV, radio or webcast. However, we believe that
`time-shifted viewing will be dominant, and most distribution will take the form of a file
`transfer rather than a real time stream.
`In contrast to video, high-quality streaming audio is attainable over current dialup
`connections, and non-real-time distribution is common, the most famous example being
`Napster. An estimated 25,000 thousand radio stations worldwide unicast their content via
`the Web to reach a completely worldwide audience.7 However, nearly all are only
`available in real time, creating barriers to listeners in different time zones. We expect
`that, someday, worldwide radio programs will be cached at least as much as they are
`streamed. As with TV, distribution methods that today are intended for real-time
`consumption will become cache-stuffing methods (e.g. the digital satellite radio networks
`now being launched).
`
`6 One category of video that will remain on-demand is video that you browse. E.g., you might be looking
`through titles for one that interests you, and wish to preview a portion to evaluate it. However, lower
`quality is usually acceptable for a preview.
`7 These “webcasts” meet a demand that is not satisfied by local radio broadcast: typical metropolitan areas
`have only 40 FM stations, so many listening categories are not covered. E.g., San Francisco has no classical
`station, and of course you will not hear news/sports from your old home town.
`
`9/7/2016
`
`13
`
`Draft v8
`
`Netflix, Inc. Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`4.2 Location: will personal content be stored inside the home or outside
`with a service?
`Like their grown corporate database cousins, it would seem that managing the media
`server’s content, including backup, archiving, etc. will become a main consideration for
`the user. Over time, we would expect the need for the amount of stored content to
`continually increase as users save content for long-term use.
`The “right” place to store personal content is hotly debated. Personal content could be
`stored on a central service, a home server (or servers), or on one or more home DHECs
`associated with each viewing station (like today’s PVRs). Some observers believe that all
`content will be stored away from the home by service providers that maintain very large
`servers (hubs). Mail services such as Hotmail and Yahoo are examples of a central
`approach. There are embryonic examples of this trend for photos like MSN, Ofoto and
`Shutterfly. We see serious problems with a central service approach, including security,
`control, lack of bandwidth (for the foreseeable future), and most importantly, the cost and
`commitment to maintain someone’s personal files forever.
`Terabyte personal stores for PCs at negligible cost are likely by 2005. These will greatly
`reduce the incentive to store outside the home and outside one’s control and ability to
`retrieve content such as letters, photos and video forever. We believe that personal
`content will be stored primarily in the home, and will be stored outside the home for the
`purposes of backup and serving to or sharing with others. Such a personal store presents
`its own challenges (Bell, 2001).
`As example of the lack of incentive to store outside the home, consider the disk-based
`personal video recorders (PVR). These recorders capture content from CATV, store it on
`embedded disks in digital format, and then replay the content on the attached TV set. A
`few TV set manufacturers have built in the PVR capability. It is vastly cheaper to have
`these disks in the home than to buy the necessary bandwidth to view the same TV
`programs as video on demand.
`The “centrality” of home servers versus distributed storage is less important from an
`architecture viewpoint than whethe