The importance of data capture standards for IPTV, VoIP and VOD

Usage is recorded for various purposes. The first and most obvious reason is billing. Collecting revenue for a service rendered is the mainstay of back-office systems, accounting systems, revenue assurance, etc. One way to justify a million dollar system and an industry-wide standard is the collection of funds in the quickest, most efficient way. In addition, consumers understand that their bill every month correlates directly to what they consume of the service. Where it gets tricky is when the business model no longer requires transactional accountability. Companies that need to fund industry endeavors don't get it and naturally, neither do consumers.

One item that seems to have hit the radar on the privacy news page is the new video and IPTV services that will offer personalized aspects of service. This may include offering free videos each month within a specific category or having advertising pushed to a set that the consumer is likely to buy. This idea is great in concept, but a little scary to the average consumer. Imagine a message flashing on your screen informing the user that two free movies are available to this month that are of a slightly personal nature. How would the consumer feel (especially in front of the children)? How can a valued service like this exist while not feeling like a stuffy telecom executive is sitting in the living room?

Being able to offer quality programming and content that is appreciated by the audience is one of careful application and execution. One might appreciate a phone call offering a $24.95 flat rated calling plan instead of $200 usage bill. It means that the user is no longer watching the clock or giving a second thought to picking up the phone. That is the kind of personalization people might appreciate. The bottom line on personalization is that if a company can save time or money for their customers and let them feel like they are not being violated, then both personalization and privacy can coexist as equals.

Personalization requires information. This is where fear enters. In most cases, this data is a normal part of functioning for a communications provider. Most of the data required for personalization is already required for such other service delivery mechanisms as traffic analysis, fraud control, billing, capacity management, and customer service. The average consumer expects that most providers know that service data is used to enhance services. This data is mostly looked at in the aggregate and is individualized only by account number or other internal identification criteria. Most consumers likely feel like their provider should know how and when they use the service for support and dispute resolution.

Information requirements for the personalization of services are complex as more advanced services such as multimedia and video are rolled out. Time and duration stamping on the record is no longer applicable for many of the newer services. The industry has taken slow steps to achieve a standard that will satisfy the service, and now is the time to increase that initiative. Many of the industry standard organizations have beefed up their agendas to include data transfer requirements, settlement standards, and usage requirements. Organizations that are offering services based on extensive content negotiation and delivery will find it advantageous to join one of these efforts. The time and resources it requires will pay off in an efficient and substantive standard that can ease implementation and allow partnerships to happen with minimal set-up time. A cohesive approach to usage data will serve the industry and keep consumers informed.

Can personalization and privacy coexist? The answer is a resounding "Yes." With the right application of data that comes from the industry working together to create a unified approach, personalization will be a win for everyone.

Traditionally, the term "usage" is associated with network engineers, billing analysts, scary systems no one understands, and errors that seem to delay the launch of brilliant products. The word "usage" spoken in a corporate strategic meeting is enough to gloss over a few eyes and yield a yawn or two. If IPTV had been in the product mix ten years ago, that may have changed.

Page 2: next page
Page 1 | 2