TV Broadcasters Also Threaten Mobile Video

Wed, May 2nd 2007 11:34am — Derek Kerton

Mobile video has it's share of uncertainty. Do users even want it? Then there is an industry debate between unicast and broadcast. Then there is the Elephant in the corner that I think is the biggest threat to carriers, Modio, Hiwire, and Qualcomm: sideloading. But let's not neglect another powerful threat: existing TV Broadcasters also are intent on continuing to own the role of broadcaster, and extending that role to the mobile space. The National Association of Broadcasters formed the Open Mobile Video Coalition with the intent of broadcasting their local TV content in a digital format suitable for specially equipped mobile phones. While this strategy has already become reality in Japan, where phone users can tune into free broadcast digital TV, it is no slam dunk in the US, where phone subsidies run high. The customers will like 'free'. But any mobile video solution that cuts the carriers out of the loop is unlikely to appear in any handset that is subsidized by the carriers. Thus, phones that pick up free TV signals are likely to cost $200 more than similar counterparts - that's not free. If the cellular market were a totally competitive market, then some carrier would "defect" and offer the free TV phones simply in order to stab at the competition, and win a few customers. But in an oligopoly, it is unlikely that the carriers will defect, and free broadcast TV phones won't get much traction.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

3 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Industry Analyst, 2 May 2007 @ 11:34am

We don't need no stinking cellular companies
The real threat is from broadcasters who want to continue their life as they've lived it for the past 50 years. . . free broadcasts over spectrum they already own, delivering the signals to a device that the consumers pay fo themselves. Getting mobile carriers involved is a needless and unwanted complication "Cellular companies? We don't need no stinking cellular companies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
permood, 2 May 2007 @ 11:34am

mobilemarkaz.com
is there any way to get update on this via email? permood www.mobilemarkaz.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 May 2007 @ 11:34am

But We Do...
RE #1: We shouldn't need the cellphone companies, but the reality is the existence of subsidies gives them enormous power to continue to control the entire ecosystem. Because they subsidize cell phones by some $200, they can control what goes into the cellphone, and its capabilities. If something threatens a carrier business model, like a free TV receiver, or Bluetooth data transfers they will: a) not pay for it, and b) have it removed or disabled. Since carriers are the real customer for Nokia, Samsung, Moto, etc. these vendors will give their customer what it wants. If sheeple were willing to pay the full cost, up-front, for their mobile devices then the consumer could dictate the device's functionality. I paid $500 for my unlocked Treo from Palm at the same time as Cingular was offering their locked version for about $275. How many people, other than IT departments, do that? The average consumer isn't willing to shell out the extra $200 upfront that buys then control. They will always migrate to the subsidized phone, and thus carriers retain their control. see: http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/article/5118
[ link to this | view in chronology ]