[opendtv] Re: Mobile DTV test

At 2:14 PM -0700 4/16/04, John Willkie wrote:
>People want to provide services that they can profit from.  Please explain
>the "business model" for TV on a DVD player, pda, pocket pc or portable TV
>set.  If we went full bore on such a service NOW, would there be a 2%
>penetration rate in, say, North America before 2025?

I think that part of the problem here is that we are talking about 
this as if the only service that would be offered is traditional TV 
entertainment to portable devices. I agree that this is a relatively 
narrow market niche.

But a ubiquitous wireless digital data pipe is another story. That 
pipe can deliver all kinds of bitstreams.

It can deliver traditional long form TV programs;
It can deliver new short form services that integrate audio, video 
and data to deliver information, news, etc. (typically optimized for 
low complexity portable devices);
It can deliver all kinds of digital audio services;
It can deliver IP multicasts with virtually any kind of content;
It can update all kinds of directory services that are broadcast 
using data carousels;
It can broadcast updates to electronic signage and point of sales displays.

In short, the real problem we are dealing with here is the narrow 
definition of services  for each chunk of spectrum assigned today. A 
more enlightened spectrum policy would focus on reliable delivery of 
bits to mobile/portable devices (these bits would ALSO be available 
to all fixed devices). And an enlightened spectrum policy would ALSO 
let the marketplace determine who would be able to deliver their bits 
and when, as well as the market rate for those bits.


>Note: most of these devices that you mention are the domain of kids.  How
>will broadcasters get money from those kids?  Is a cell phone on a bus a
>better environment (set & setting) for a Cisco commercial than a sedate
>suburban home?  If not (and that's the case, amigo) then you have to figure
>out how to PAY for the content being extended.

Narrow thinking as outlined above.

>
>MS recently paid $40 million to show baseball games on MSN.  You literally
>need somebody LIKE THAT to pay broadcasters something LIKE THAT.  Just to
>try it out.  Or, develop your own compelling content from scratch, which
>will be more expensive (many failures in TV shows).

An interesting observation. It turns out that MLB has seen the light 
and is making their content available via an alternative distribution 
network for which there are real customers. This alternative network 
knows no geographic boundaries. In a small sense it competes with 
both radio and television broadcasters, who offer a subset of the 
games delivered via the Internet. We are seeing the same thing happen 
with multi-channel TV systems as sports leagues move to deliver 
packages of all or most of their games to paying subscribers.

The real take away here is that the traditional gatekeeper role of 
broadcasters may not survive the ability for content owners to take 
their content direct to the customer via multiple distribution 
networks. In the emerging digital world, broadcasters will live or 
die based on their ability to create original content or to put 
packages of other peoples content together.

The foot dragging we are seeing with DTV has MORE to do with the 
potential disintermediation of broadcasters, as content owners bypass 
them and go direct to their consumers...

Regards
Craig
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: