TV Stations About To Make A Bad Bet On Mobile Broadcast TV
from the let's-see-how-that-works dept
Every few months over the past few years, we've heard stories about how some companies somewhere were betting on people watching broadcast television on their mobiles. The problem, however, is that it's always been companies betting on the phenomenon -- and not users clamoring for it. And, despite wild predictions from analyst firms who sell their reports to eager companies who want to convince their investors that something big is coming, almost every real world test has shown that people just aren't that interested in watching broadcast TV on their mobile phones. Sure, there are some people who will watch it, but two things that don't seem to go together all that well are "broadcast television" and "being mobile." Broadcast television is a "lean back" technology that you watch when you can sit back and relax. That generally doesn't fit with being mobile. Yet, despite all of these problems, it seems that a bunch of television networks are, once again, betting that people will want to access broadcast television from their mobile phones, despite little evidence to support that notion. A lot of money is going to get spent (and lost) before all of these companies realize they should have focused on offering something that people actually want.
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
Filed Under: distribution, mobile tv, television networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A bad bet on mobile ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even though he does admit to not actually using it much, unless he misses a show or wants to watch something later, he told me that the reason its mildly successfull is because its not forced upon consumers , so mobile companies arent advertising this technology as "the next big thing" they just through it in ,
also the cost of wathcing is including in the contract itself, not like here in the uk were they want you to pay another monthly subscription fee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exactly
I would never pay for it, but if it was already in my contract without an increased cost I would probalby use it if the interface was easy enough to navigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure?
I have to agree with the poster and say this is a waste of time and money by the mobile carriers and the TV stations. Besides if I really really really wanted to watch "live" TV on my tiny phone screen, they have a neat little device called a sling box, that lets me do that, and so much more, for less than 11 months of service subscription.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be different in this case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not that interested in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sports
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Like The Idea
We agree that broadcast is the lowest form of TV. PVR or personalized service is much better, especially for mobile.
But if TV broadcasters, which are already broadcasting digital signals of their TV stations, simply added another transmitter on their existing towers, it would be quite cheap for them to add a QVGA stream for handsets. They already have transmitters, towers, backup power, staff, programming, and importantly, hours of content and regional broadcast rights each day.
Of course, they should offer it for free, ad-subsidized, as they do their full-screen TV. And the carriers have nothing to do with it, so they don't get to take a big cut and raise the price.
The only challenge is that carriers (in the US) currently subsidize and re-sell almost all the handsets that are used. They will not subsidize and promote devices that have off-air TV receivers that jeopardize their own mobile video service.
Yet, as we know, carrier control is diminishing. Customers are slowly starting to buy their own phones, no subsidy, directly from the handset vendor. Nokia is pushing this, the EU, Asia, and other regions are leading this, shut out and small handset vendors are keen to sell straight to consumers, and the Web makes mail-order sales easier without a retail presence. In Japan, customers that buy their own phones want a digital TV receiver in it, so the handset vendors compete by offering one. Thus, they DO watch broadcast TV on their phones. I see this as a low-cost, low complexity mobile TV solution. Sure, it's also low-value to consumers, but it's one of the only cases of mobile video worldwide where the price matches the value.
Do I think mobile video will exist the way carriers, MobiTV, Qualcomm, and DVB-H Forum think it will work? NO. People won't pay $10+ per month, people won't pay much at all for broadcast. People will expect a range of video content for free.
Asked a different question: Do I think mobile video will be around in 5 years? Yes, I think almost every phone, and almost every subscriber will use some amount of mobile video on their phone.
__________________
Derek Kerton
The KERTON Group
Strategy - Partnerships - Marketing
for Wireless and Telecom
www.kertongroup.com 408-935-8702
__________________
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tv phones
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really the fact that they are Mobile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Mobile" does not mean "cellphone"
I've said it in these forums before... The battle here is not going to be for the cellphone customer. It's going to be between the local broadcaster and the MediaFLO in the US. With MediaFLO struggling to get top-tier cities and wrangling with operators for the meager revenue they'll receive from subscribers, local broadcasters are going to use free spectrum and cheap transmitters to provide free, ad-supported programming (the way they have for the past 50 years) to devices that you purchase at an electronics store.
If you're not watching ATSC-M/H, you're not paying attention to "Mobile Video."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't count the number of people I see watching video on their ipod either! But for me, it's because there aren't any.
@ruffio
Yes it is big in Japan. 3G networks make tv content a logical choice, and it has caught on. Just because something is popular there doesn't mean it will be here! People in Japan have long commute rides by train each day and many other reasons why it might work there and not here. Newspapers are also incredibly popular there, I guess we should make more of those too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]