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

If I have been able to read through the interlineations, we are in general
agreement.

1) two-way is better that one way, and
2) mobile tv will work better if it's not just mobile video and
3) A-VSB seems to use a big overhead.

(my criticisms have ALWAYS been of mobile video, not mobile TV)

I will be getting a big (9 mb paper from a guy I talked to at at NAB (from
R&S).  Might be interesting.

It looks like the Harris/LG MPH proposal involves an overhead and stream of
2.2 mb/sec per virtual channel.  Unless I'm nissing something or somethings,
that's much better than anything else around.  The video is quarter VGA.

Without doing a spreadsheet on it, devoting 11% of your transport stream to
serve mobile audiences seems much better than the hit in going to DVB with
receiver/confusion issues (there being only one ATSC/DVB set on the market
-- at least that I've seen).

While I was at the convention, I asked about HD Radio.  As one example, the
folks at C.Crane -- with two HD radio sets, none on display -- said they had
sold very, very few.  This in the second year of a very aggressive push to
HD Radio units in advertising channels.

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de John Shutt
Enviado el: Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:34 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Mobile TV: $2 Billion in Ad Buys


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


> 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.

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed your missive titled "Boldest Dumb Idea I've Ever 
Seen."

> 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.)

Pardon me for exagerating your position to make a point.  What you have said

repeatidly is that a ubiquitous mobile TV service might bump cume 2-3%.  Is 
that worth $2 Billon in additional ad buys?

> 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.

NASCAR, F-2, and NFL are offering mobile devices you rent at the venue that 
provides in depth real time stats via Kangaroo TV.  That sort of niche 
application is well and good, but I can't see a one way push of data from a 
broadcaster competing with a browser equipped Blackberry or iPhone for easy 
and fast data delivery.  Heck, even Fox News offers local weather via 
browser enabled phones through foxnews.mobi

> 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.

The driver can't.  But drive down the San Deigo freeway at night and count 
the number of fold down LCD screens in vans and SUVs.  Look at the 
subscription video service being offered by Sirius Satellite Radio.  XM 
Radio already offers real time traffic update to Garmin StreePilot GPS 
navigators.

> 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.

Yes, and that's always been my argument against A-VSB and the other ATSC 
centric moblie solutions.   The bandwidth tradeoff is too great.  A 
different system such as COFDM can, has, and does work mobile, if 
imperfectly.  You can already buy portable DVD players with built in DVB-T 
tuners and 6" LCD screens.  A laptop equipped with a DVB-T USB tuner works 
fine in a mobile application.  The loss of bandwidth to the broadcaster is 
close to nil.

> 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.

Sinclair's proposal was shot down by others in the industry because they 
were interested in pursuing new business models directly related to mobile 
reception of a digital bitstream.  Sinclair was lambasted for trying to 
become something "other than a broadcaster."

As Doug Lung put it:

"Sinclair's petition did not focus solely on 8-VSB's deficiencies. It noted 
that COFDM gives broadcasters much more flexibility to provide a variety of 
fixed, mobile, and portable DTV video services. Using COFDM, broadcasters 
could vary data rates from 4 to 24 Mbps "to achieve a wide range of 
operational modes and meet a variety of service goals." "

In 2000, the importance of mobile was dismissed by an industry still focused

on providing HDTV to 50" screens.

> 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.

They acheved their goals by other means.

> 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.

All I can say on that front, John, is don't let them repeat the AM Stereo 
debacle.  Choose one system, not a range of solutions and leave it up to the

marketplace to sort out.

> 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).

I've seen presentations of the first two, but not the Thomson proposal. 
Where is E-VSB?

> $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.

You're being network-centric.  Local broadcasters offer multicasts, too. 
The ABC affiliate in my market has a CW subchannel.  The NBC affiliate runs 
a 24 hour weather service.  I was just asking if these multicasts have 
generated that much additional revenue, and if so would it be as much as a 
mobile TV service would generate?

> 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.

Presumably, any new mobile service won't be carried on cable, either, so if 
it is predicted that mobile ATSC will provide $2 Billion in additional ad 
revenue, it is fair to ask if multicasting has provided anything close to 
that figure thus far.




 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.




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