[opendtv] Re: Mobile DTV test
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:59:37 -0700
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:
