[opendtv] Re: Mobile TV: $2 Billion in Ad Buys

Actually, John, I believe you have mischaracterized my position.

I believe that Qualcomm will never make back trough operations the expense
they incurred in building out their demo network, for many of the reasons
that were outlined below: they have to buy the content at the top of the
market, etc.

I've never said that mobile would never bring in one additional dime for
broadcasters.  Indeed, I have said repeatedly here that broadcasters are the
best suited to deploy mobile services, for many of the reasons outlined
below (plus branding, etc.)

I've also said that I see a market for ubiquitous mobile/home broadcast
services, and one interesting niche being must-watch sporting events when
one cannot watch the live event at home.  And, we need to consider
'non-real-time" services.

Indeed, my criticism of mobile in general was that people can't watch video
services while driving.  Of course, real-time traffic updates to a
dash-board video screen IS PERMITTED, at least in most states.

Another of my angles on mobile has been that you could use it to reach
additional "viewers", but at what expense of bandwidth?  Indeed, I posted to
OpenDTV a spreadsheet to play with potential audience sizes and bandwidth
costs more than 6 years ago.  

If the FCC had started a proceeding on the Sinclair petition in 2000, we
would still be a few years short of a report and order, due to the hardened
positions at the time, the egos involved, and the bandwidth that the parties
would devote to it.  I also need to mention that the Sinclair proposal was
one that largely only Sinclair was interested in pursuing, at least by the
end of 2000.  Even if they had everything in place a few years ago, we would
now be saddled with a technology that isn't used anywhere in the world for
mobile TV and which is not favored by broadcasters interested in deploying
mobile services.

IF the Sinclair proposal had been undertaken, we would have also been
saddled with MPEG-2/AC-3 for the video and audio.  I "think" that mobile
video in the U.S. will be choosing from a wider selection of codecs than
that pool.

Sinclair is to be commended: they are 'intellectual author' of what might be
some very cool services that will require phones (and other mobile devices)
that should be in stores in 4q 2009.

I should also mention that, thanks to the indulgence of Mark Aitken, Mark
Richer and Jerry Whitaker, I am a member of ATSC's s4-0 and S4-2
subcommittees, where I am actively involved in aspects of the m/h process
that should lead to a published ATSC M/H standard by February 18 of 2009.  I
speak not for the ATSC or any subcommittee, nor can I speak much of the
work.  Heck, I've had to remove sentences as I write this to delete
information that I didn't acquire in the clear.

I can say that there are three basic proposals: MPH from LG/Harris, A-VSB
from Samsung/Rohde & Schwarz, and another one from Thomson/Micronas.  And 'I
think' that the selection of (a) viable system is up to the Open Mobile
Video Coalition (OMVC).

$2 billion for multicasting over the last 9 years, I doubt it.  CBS doesn't
multicast, nor does Fox.  NBC has for a few years, but their second channel
is a very inexpensive buy.  In some markets, they also offer a NBC Newsraw
channel, which currently has more limited prospects.  ABC has only been
multicasting at their O&O's for a bit more than a year.

Of course, the question is an unfair one.  Multicasts aren't carried on
cable, and in many markets, digital transmissions are only now being folded
into Nielsen numbers.  Without numbers, getting any money is difficult at
best.

That 2 billion figure might sound impressive, but I think one needs to
consider the increase in license fees that the NFL (which can negotiate with
Qualcomm) would demand of broadcasters.

To put it into context, local ads by cable systems are something like $4
billion per year.

If you can reach at least some people in places where tv doesn't now reach,
there will be extra dollars.  You will also get advertising dollars in the
"buzz" phase.  The long-term viability of mobile needs real-time and
non-real-time content, perhaps some of it new and/or unique.  And, the
long-term viability of mobile TV is an open question: work needs to be
devoted to making it happen.

The good news is that the OMVC breakfast at NAB had 2000 attendees, in a
year when overall "attendance" was down.  (I didn't attend the previous two
years, but I'm rather sure I was counted as an attendee, since I received my
credentials.)

Perhaps multicasting cuts into your main service bit-budget, (PBS stations
are somewhat notorious about over-booking their bits) but for most
multicasters, the multicasts occupy what otherwise would be null packets.

John Willkie

P.S., in a year when auto advertising (the big kahuna in TV advertising) is
down by 30% (or more), and when there are layoffs at many network-owned TV
stations in response, $2 BB in additional ad revenue must sound very, very
good!)

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de John Shutt
Enviado el: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:37 AM
Para: OpenDTV
Asunto: [opendtv] Mobile TV: $2 Billion in Ad Buys

"Media General Broadcast Group Senior Vice President Jim Conschafter not 
only delivered the $2 billion estimate but listed the three advantages 
broadcasters have over mobile TV competitors: the fact they have local news 
and other content mobile TV consumers want; that their cost of additional 
infrastructure for the service is relatively small; and that broadcasters 
already have a relationship with advertisers."

<snip>

"It was also opined that in addition to cell phones, that laptops will be 
used as viewing devices in the initial phases of mobile TV, because of their

larger screen size and longer battery life. And as consumers demand mobile 
TV reception, the fact that most cell phone users replace their handsets 
every 24 months could foretell a rapid ramp-up in mobile TV capable 
devices."

Wow.  Bert thinks local is something to be shunned, John W. thinks Mobile 
won't bring in one extra dime, and I can only wonder where we would be today

if the Sinclair Petition were adopted in 2000.

My question is has multicasting by broadcasters brought in $2 Billion in 
additional ad buys?  If not, why would a simulcast of your main service to 
mobile devices (eating into your multicast bandwidth) bring in even one 
extra dollar?

John

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0096/t.13000.html

Mobile TV: $2 Billion in Ad Buys



April 17, 2008

Monday morning's Open Mobile Video Coalition breakfast drew a packed house 
that had the feeling of a gold rush as the take-away information of the day 
was the estimated $2 billion in additional advertising revenue broadcasters 
can expect to harvest from broadcasting mobile TV within their DTV channel 
spectrum by 2012.

In a status report on the business side of OMVC developments, Media General 
Broadcast Group Senior Vice President Jim Conschafter not only delivered the

$2 billion estimate but listed the three advantages broadcasters have over 
mobile TV competitors: the fact they have local news and other content 
mobile TV consumers want; that their cost of additional infrastructure for 
the service is relatively small; and that broadcasters already have a 
relationship with advertisers.

Conschafter pointed to several needs for the future: "We need device makers 
to make receivers, we need service operators to bundle our television 
signals in and we need retailers to sell devices."

On the technical side, Cox Communications Vice President of Engineering 
Sterling Davis pointed out that that the OMVC has been working with the ATSC

on a series of trials to finalize a mobile video for broadcasters by the end

of the year so that mobile TV broadcasting in the DTV signal can begin at 
the same time analog TV shuts down.

"This series of trials that the ATSC called for as a demonstration of 
viability on IDOV has yielded preliminary results and we are on-track to 
make a final report to the ATSC by May 15," he said.

He said preliminary findings are positive so far. "Both high-VHF and UHF 
reception is feasible, [as] mobile reception is received as much as 41 miles

from the transmitter, and mobile transmission does not interfere with normal

digital broadcasting."

MSNBC host and executive Dan Abrams moderated a Q&A session with the entire 
OMVC committee, and among the questions were whether adding a mobile service

will bring on a digital rights nightmare as the license fees paid for sports

and other events and programming need to be renegotiated.

"If [mobile TV service] is a success, everybody will make money," responded 
OMVC President Brandon Burgess, who is also chairman and chief executive 
officer for ION Media Networks.

It was also opined that in addition to cell phones, that laptops will be 
used as viewing devices in the initial phases of mobile TV, because of their

larger screen size and longer battery life. And as consumers demand mobile 
TV reception, the fact that most cell phone users replace their handsets 
every 24 months could foretell a rapid ramp-up in mobile TV capable devices.

In addition to the $2 billion in ad revenues, it is expected that other 
business models such as conditional access subscriptions could bring in 
other monies. Once the service is up and running, it was suggested that 
services not even thought of today will begin to evolve.

Burgess called for broadcasters to become involved in the OMVC activities, 
pointing out that by becoming members they can have a say in the outcome. 
C2008 NAB
 



 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: