For decades, satellite distribution has been the foundation of television broadcasting, ensuring a reliable, far-reaching and predictable signal that has kept the industry running smoothly. But today, IP-based distribution is emerging as an alternative choice for broadcasters and content owners, offering the kind of flexibility and device reach at a price point that satellite struggles to match.
Broadcasters have historically relied on satellite distribution because of its reliability and broad reach. However, the high cost of leasing satellite capacity and maintaining the associated infrastructure is a growing concern. IP-based distribution offers a level of flexibility satellite can’t match, enabling dynamic, scalable content delivery to service providers, affiliates, FAST (Free Ad-Supported TV) channels, and direct-to-consumer streaming platforms.
Satellite has traditionally been superior for consistent video quality, but advancements in network capacity, video encoding, error correction, and transport protocols mean IP can match or even exceed its performance, delivering high-quality, low-latency streams at a fraction of the cost.
And then there’s monetisation. Unlike satellite, which is largely a one-size-fits-all solution, IP allows for targeted advertising, hyper-personalised content, and real-time audience analytics. This means broadcasters can optimise ad revenue and engagement strategies in ways not possible with traditional satellite distribution.
The challenges of transitioning to IP
Despite all its benefits, the move to IP isn’t a perfect replacement for satellite—at least, not yet. Satellite distribution provides an inherent resilience that is difficult to replicate in regions with underdeveloped network infrastructure or high traffic congestion.
Network performance is another issue. The public internet wasn’t built for broadcast-grade video distribution, and even with advances in transport protocols, ensuring broadcast-quality experiences over IP requires robust transport mechanisms. This is where content delivery networks (CDNs) and specialised IP transport protocols help mitigate packet loss, jitter, and latency.
The absence of universal standardisation in IP broadcasting further complicates the transition. While satellite broadcasting follows well-established DVB-S/S2 standards to ensure compatibility across devices and networks, IP-based distribution is fragmented across competing protocols. Broadcasters must evaluate each protocol’s unique features and trade-offs to ensure it meets their specific needs.
Finding the best transport protocol for IP video
Within the last 5-10 years, three prominent protocols have emerged in this space: Secure Reliable Transport (SRT), Reliable Internet Stream Transport (RIST), and Common Media Application Format (CMAF).
SRT was developed by Haivision and became an open-source protocol in 2017. It delivers low-latency, secure and reliable video transport over unpredictable networks, providing robust error correction and encryption, making it suitable for live video delivery over the internet, where security and stability are vital.
RIST was developed by a consortium of industry experts under the Video Services Forum to address the need for a unified, interoperable protocol tailored for professional broadcasting. It builds upon established streaming protocols like RTP and SMPTE-2022, focusing on interoperability, resulting in a simpler implementation suited for high-quality video transmission. RIST includes features like multicast support, security enhancements, more resilient retransmission mechanisms and connection bonding.
CMAF was designed for large-scale content delivery through Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). It utilises HTTP-based streaming, breaking video segments into smaller chunks to support near real-time delivery. While CMAF allows for efficient caching and distribution, making it ideal for over-the-top (OTT) and on-demand workflows, its reliance on HTTP can introduce higher latency compared to SRT and RIST.
Making the economic choices for cloud-based distribution
As broadcasters move more of their workflows to the cloud, the cost of distributing content out of the cloud may influence the choice of distribution protocols. Cloud egress costs, the fees incurred when transferring data out of a cloud provider’s network, can become significant as distribution endpoints start to scale.
Unlike satellite, where costs remain relatively fixed, cloud-based distribution expenses can escalate quickly, particularly when delivering high-bitrate streams to multiple destinations. For instance, per Gb cloud egress costs can often be significantly higher than CDN costs. In scenarios where broadcasters or content owners are distributing 15-25 Mbps streams to over a hundred distribution points, the cloud egress costs can stack up for SRT and RIST compared to CDN distribution. For some broadcasters, CMAF may be the most economical option, balancing efficiency with acceptable latency.
The future of broadcast delivery
With more broadcasters embracing cloud, AI, and fibre-based distribution, the cost savings and flexibility of IP-based workflows are too compelling to ignore. The focus is shifting from whether IP will replace traditional satellite to how quickly broadcasters can transition while managing costs, mitigating risks and maintaining the highest quality of service.
A proactive approach is needed, leveraging new cloud architectures and selecting the right transport protocols. Clearly, satellite still has an important role to play in specific scenarios, but its dominance is waning. The future belongs to broadcasters building their long-term IP roadmap towards a more scalable and cost-effective broadcast ecosystem.
