Mobile TV: It Will Be Successful, It Will Be Important

Hi NEUMaster-Computing,

I have been analyzing mobile communications for a very long time -- five years before the first cellular system was commercially launched (in Chicago at the end of 1983) -- and many applications we use today as a matter of course weren't thought about in the early days.

In fact, virtually all the telecom experts said cellular would never be as inexpensive as landline phones because radio technology would always be more expensive than the copper lines that were already under the ground.

That's why I wrote it's not a good idea to bet against technology....including advances in mobile TV.

You bring up an interesting point about the prohibition of camera phones.  I believe, and have written for years, that camera phones are a very important tool in getting out the word (text, photos, videos) about government abuses.

I recently wrote in Internet Evolution about what I called the "serendipitous broadcaster" -- ordinary people who are now able to use their camera phones for live, streaming broadcasts.

http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=526&doc_id=137940& 

Indeed no one of us even could dream of using a phone in a desert in the middle of 80s, thanks for GSM technologies which are cover now even few meters under sea, and now GSM technology can provide via CDMA a property to transmit even Videos.

Of course I like watching (ball and net) and many Computer technologies on TV, but I am in fact one of the least TV watchers - and I didnt watch TV for 3 months till now!

For me, my mobile is a communication device only (and in fact GSM 2 is enough for me), but I would welcome very much the idea of mobile TVs on GSM 4

 I would like to mention that: Technology is accepted widely here, but not in other countries, for example mobiles with cameras are prohibited in many governmental institutes in many 3rd world countries ((for security reasons)) and the market of camera mobile dropped because of that in these countries, and the worst is: the camera mobiles are prohibited from entering the borders of many countries.

 Mobile TV is a very lovely idea, but it would be prohibited there and as a good alternative that would be technologically and commercially acceptable there is mobile radio with multiple small area local broadcasting stations, which will find a better market in these places.

Hi Brian,

I don't believe I wrote that I never comment on technology.  I did write that it's not a good idea to bet against technology.  Your comment about a new RF protocol helping Sprint helps illustrate my point!

I used mobile phones ("radiotelephones") five years before cellular was first available in the world (i.e., Chicago and Baltimore/Washington) and no one (including me) thought cellular would be anything like what it is today.  No one thought technology would leapfrog the billions of dollars of copper wires that were buried underground around the world.  (Actually, I do know one person at Motorola who was more prescient.)

I completely agree that WiMAX is currently a wildcard.  Although WiMAX proponents tout high data rates, so did 1xRTT, 1xEV-DO, GPRS and EDGE proponents also tout fast speeds.  But as everyone found out, when you hype the ** theoretically maximum ** data rates you get into trouble when real-world experiences don't come close to theory.

And while WiMAX technology is improving, so is GSM and CDMA technology.  When WiMAX becomes commercial next year and in 2009, cellular protocols will have improved, too.

Also, it remains a very difficult business proposition to market a wireless data-only service without also offering voice.  The reason we have cellular data is because voice revenues continue to subsidize data investments, although data usage and data as a percentage of ARPU have indeed increased. 

I'd certainly like to see WiMAX succeed and break new ground in pricing, services and policies, but we'll all have to wait.  IF Sprint does build WiMAX and IF it offers mobile TV as one of the services (as I believe it will), the value proposition for the user and the "revenue proposition" for Sprint will be interesting to see.

One last point about WiMAX:  I didn't forecast success.  I just noted that it was one other technology that could be used for mobile TV delivery.  I try to be very careful about what I write!

I agree with you that Americans are relatively sophisticated viewers from the standpoint of not wanting to put up with crummy video quality (as for crummy programs, well, that's a completely different story!) as well as for adopting PVRs and watching videos on the Web.  Your comment about Americans not willing to spend much time dealing with poor quality mobile TV images is certainly correct.

However, what you see now for mobile TV is just the start of the technology.  Many more than 100 trials are occurring around the world of numerous technologies, both 3G and dedicated networks such as DVB-H, MediaFLO, DMB, etc.

I am convinced that the poor performance of mobile TV can be remedied in many cases, such as by using channels dedicated to mobile TV and letting technology improve (there's my "it's not a good idea to bet against technology" point ).

In addition, time-shifting and PVR functionality will be offered for mobile TV in the future.

If "mobile TV" is equated with handsets-only, the service is too limited.  In other parts of the world, especially South Korea and Japan, different types of electronic devices are mobile TV-enabled.  As for laptops, mobile TV is certainly do-able with HSDPA, 1xEV-DO and DMB, as examples.

I do think it's much more likely, though, that cellular phones will be the dominant mobile TV device simply because so many people carry it as a matter of course.

I am pleased to reply to reader comments.  It's one of the major advantages of the Internet and "new media."

Well, I think you're right--or even profound--with your video wallet comment.

The part I'd disagree steadfastly on is on your never say never comment with technology.  I do remember, back in mid-1990s at Sprint, we were facing some massive capacity constraints in areas where we simply were never going to be able to lay more fiber.  Then, some whizbang new technology--I think Division Wave Sense Multiplexing or some variation of that phrase--dramatically increased the capacity of the existing fiber.  It truly saved the day.

So, it is possible that some gift like that will fall on the wireless carriers, and if they can increase capacity in a non-linear method to increased costs, your vision could come true.  But I'm very aware of the limitations of the existing capacity and of the new technology you mention (in particular, the adoption rate of Wimax, for instance is a major wild card and, in my opinion, likely will be very slow), and I just don't see this taking off the way you forecast.

I think I feel reinforced in that view by something you typed, actually.  You basically said, my paraphrase, that people will pay for it if it allows them to do something they can't do today.  I agree with that.  But I don't see mass adoption of persons streaming a live version of The Colbert Report, for instance, from their hotel room because their hotel doesn't have Comedy Central.  Or, streaming on their cell phone their local baseball team's game because they are in another city and can't see it.  It wouldn't take very long for a viewer to give up on the program after a series of jumbles and pauses.  We are very sophisticated television viewers.  (As a time-shift thing, watching downloaded programs on the device but not over the air, I do see that happening and, of course, people do it today.)

Now, you could stretch mobile tv to include laptops with wireless cards.  That's a bit of a stretch from where you started, but you did mention Wimax.  And, I guess a laptop could shrink enough that it could be used in some portable manner as a Skype-type of phone with a bluetooth headset, so "Never say never," is probably fair, but I'm still at least going to say "most likely never."

Also, I particularly like your replies to replies.  It's like a real conversation :-)

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your comments.  I've got a few of my own!  To wit:

1.  I remember when the first portable LCD TVs were introduced.  $500?  I don't remember exactly how much they originally cost.  But people haven't been carrying over-the-air television sets because they don't consider having a TV with them is worth spending money to purchase the device AND also having to carry a TV-only device.

With mobile TV, you're already carrying the TV.  That's an important point, I believe.

2.  People are willing to accept technology that offers ** poorer ** quality, if they are able to (1) do something they haven't been able to do before and/or (2) do it in a portable environment.  For example, cordless phones and cellular phones all typically deliver worse quality (on average, and certainly at the start of their development cycles) than landline phones.

Another example:  VoIP.  I love my AT&T CallVantage VoIP service that almost always delivers quality that's as good as a landline, perhaps sometimes even a bit better.  The very few times when it isn't quite as good, I'll call back.

Most VoIP services definitely are not as good as CallVantage (especially non peer-to-peer), but millions of people use them because the cost, extra features, etc. are worth putting up with lower quality audio.

Same thing with mobile TV.  The quality can sometimes be pretty good.  But I believe many people will accept lower quality video (within reason) and, also, the quality will improve.

3.  Speaking of quality, new mobile networks, such as DVB-H, MediFLO, plus new wireless networks, such as WiMAX, can provide superior quality to 3G-based mobile TV.  Never say never about technological improvements.  Cellular-based mobile TV is very new.

4.  What's "higher end" today is standard tomorrow.  Yesterday's cellular phone is today's camera phone.  Today's camera phone is tomorrow's mobile TV phone. Gadget prices decrease or the price remains the same but you get more for your money.

5.  I think short clips -- both professionally produced and user-generated -- will be popular, as well as longer form videos.  You hit the nail on the head about parents carrying videos of their children.

The camera phone first became the photo wallet.  Soon it will become the video wallet.

Thanks very much for your comments, and feel free to disagree with me

I think you make one point that I would bet against and another that I'd bet on.  I was an early adopter of mobile TV and I've spent a lot of time evaluating location-based services.  The reality is that the data networks just can't deliver video at the rate people will expect to make it a satisfying experience.  People expect the same experience they get at home.  Mobile TV will never be close.

The mobile browsers, even at their highest speeds, are really at the same level as dial-up.  Faster phones, more RAM, etc., won't overcome this at a level to ever make mobile TV go mainstream.  Now, spiffy multi-mode devices that might somehow combine over the air transmission (like one of Verizon's phones) might have a chance but over-the-air tiny TVs have been available at Radio Shack for years and never went mainstream.  I know 90 percent of people now have a screen in their hands, so that fact can trump Radio Shack's niche penetration, but the combination of poor speed, higher-end phones needed, and expensive data plans will keep mobile tv from ever being more than a hobby.  The data plan prices, by the way, will have to stay expensive because data is now the growth engine for wireless revenue per user.  At the very least, they may go up before they drop.

Even one of the big providers, AT&T, agrees that the potential for network-type mobile TV is limited:

http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/10/23/att-exec-mobile-video-not-ready-for-prime-time/?source=yahoo_quote

Okay, then I get to where I agree with you--I think the phone is best suited for small video clips and the opportunity for user content is great.  I think people will put up with the quality problems a little more for amateur video.  And, localized content is key in the mobile space, I believe.  Short video clips of a high school touchdown pass, or even 1st grade soccer, is where I think mobile video can take off.

The traveler may not put up with stops and starts when trying to watch Jim Cramer's Mad Money in the airport, but he will to get a glimpse of his son or daughter at an event he missed while traveling.

Hi Homesteadtraders,

I probably watch much less TV than most people, although I watch much, much more TV on tiny, tiny screens!

Do you need TV with you all the time?  Certainly not.

But you don't need e-mail or your address book with you all the time, either.  But when you want to read/send e-mail, check a contact...or watch some TV...it will be there.

There is a huge amount of content available on mobile TV right now in the United States.  Most people have no idea what's available.  There are numerous news and weather programs -- including local content -- as well as sports, entertainment, user-generated content, etc.

I hate watching sports.  I find it incredibly boring and can't believe so many people actually find it interesting.  How can tens of millions (hundreds of millions) of people find it interesting to watch men in short pants running back across a field trying to kick a ball into a net?  But many people love it, and the World Cup results in many more people watching mobile TV.

I like watching technology programs.  I'm in the minority -- to say the least -- but as the cliche goes, different strokes for different folks.

As for soap operas, well, it's amazing anyone who actually likes watching them are capable, of, uh, I'd better not say anything else.  But there are millions of people who love watching soap operas.  Again, different strokes....

One aspect of mobile TV that's interesting to me is how much niche-market programming will be available.  On the Web I can watch technology programs and listen to technology podcasts by the dozens.  Bandwidth isn't free, but it's cheap enough to enable a huge array of different topics.

Spectrum, however, isn't cheap.  There are limits to how much spectrum is available.  That's why cellular operators are going for, obviously, the mass market for mobile TV.  But what about niche programming?

Perhaps on-demand technology will result in many niche subjects that may be downloaded.  Not all TV has to be junk.  And, as I wrote, perhaps it shouldn't be called "TV."  Perhaps wireless video should have another name so we don't produce programs based on preconceived notions.

To boldly go where no man, woman, person, being has gone before.... 

And, you can get away from mobile TV.  Just don't subscribe.  Or turn it on only when you have time -- or don't have time but really want to watch something!

Sometimes technology is intrusive, but we do have the power to control it (sometimes).

Thanks very much for your comments. 

Hi Matthew,

My eyeglasses already are so strong that they make the Hubble Telescope look fuzzy.

But I would ** love ** to find a great pair of inexpensive glasses -- preferably Bluetooth or some other non-wired protocol -- to view my e-mail, videos, etc.  Alternatively, I would love to have a heads-up screen built into my glasses.

Of course, I might not live very long as I walk into walls and cross the street on a red light, but that's just a minor disadvantage.

Thanks for the comment. 

Hi Jabbermouth,

I'm not in the target demographic, either.  I'm in the demographic that spoke to Prometheus to discuss whether bringing fire to Earth would make sense.

But to discuss your points:

I have very little interest in listening to anything Sean Hannity, and the rest of that crew say (I'm a Keith Olbermann fan).  Nor do I care to see the California fires again and again -- but I live on the East Coast and don't know anyone in danger. 

However, if I lived in the area, perhaps I would have a much different perspective.  Eh?  There is a "my local TV" service with many channels -- on-demand (not live) -- that provide news clips of breaking events on a city-by-city basis.

Breaking news is just one (but certainly not the only) of the reasons mobile TV has value.  I carry multiple phones (I'm a wireless data consultant and a wireless geek, so that's what I do) and get many, many news alerts.  So I'm kept informed, but there are times when watching video is useful.

If fires were threatening my house in the suburbs of Maryland or threatening houses where friends/relatives live, I'd certainly have more than a passing interest!  And I'd want live reports. 

As for your point about people not willing to pay for mobile video/TV-enabled phones, technology will help solve that.  Last night, during a press reception at the CTIA Wireless I.T & Entertainment conference, I received press kits on a USB drive -- a 512 MB drive -- handed out like it was a prize on a cereal box.

512 MB!  It wasn't too long ago that 20 MB hard drives were a big deal.  That's why I said -- don't bet against technology. 

Just as the majority of phones now come with a camera (yes, many aren't particularly good, but still...), during the next several years phones will come with video as standard and the cost of phones will be dramatically less they are today.

Regarding citizen broadcasters, I agree and disagree.  Yes, it is happening.  But it's still, relatively speaking, an early adopter phenomenon (especially depending on the country).  Moreover, even professionals who should be adopting this -- such as journalists -- are taking time to experiment with real-time streaming.

I think encouraging the development of citizen broadcasters -- especially the ability to post video without first saving -- as an event occurs (such as Kyte.TV or Robert Scoble's PodTech videos) -- has a great deal of value.

To be clear:  I certainly see the problems with mobile TV, and I often discuss them in my mobile TV weblog, for example.  But overall, after analyzing wireless for a long, long time, I think wireless imaging (that includes mobile video/TV) is a very big deal.

I am glad (well, sometimes) to read any criticism of my views.

Thanks very much for your comments.

I like TV just as much as the next person. I can do without running water, indoor plumbing and lights, but I love my old films. Just try to take my TV away. But, I think even I might draw the line at TV on my phone. While the concept of having a TV around all the time sounds cool in immediate thought, stepping back, I look and think that there are times that enough is enough. Do we REALLY need TV with us all the time? I don't think so. Nor do I think it is healthy to have it around all the time. Of course, there are a few things that could be helpful on Mobile TV. Maybe something like the Weather Channel, especailly during storms when you might have cell service but not other types. Maybe even the news, for the same reasons. But the rest, I don't know. Do you really need to see your favourite soap on your phone? Is the Citizen TV discussed really necessary to have phone access to? I highly doubt it. I do think some aspects of Mobile TV might have a rightful place. But a totally mobile TV on my phone? I think not. It is good to get away from it once in a while. It is bad enough that you can't tear the kids away from texting. Imagine if they had TV with that too?