JESSELL AT LARGE

Broadcasting’s Future Is All About Mobile

The demand for mobility has been with us since the dawn of electronic mass media. Makers of receivers have been trying to pack more and more capabilities into smaller packages ever since crystal radios were the rage. And it will be the largest part of television’s future. Smart phones will gradually replace all the dumb phones and everybody with have a TV receiver in their pocket or purse. Broadcasters are in a perfect position to feed these personal TV sets — but only if they hang on to their spectrum.

I had an epiphany while reading our story a couple of weeks ago about how stations in the Southeast reacted to the tornadoes that tore through the region: the future of broadcasting is personal, mobile devices — smart phones and tablets.

Here’s the quote from WTVC Chattanooga News Director Tom Henderson that triggered the revelation: “We had people tell us stories about hiding in the bathtub, the power off, watching us on their iPhones, hearing the reports and warnings. They saw it as a lifeline.”

These stories of disaster coverage by TV stations are routine. I been writing or editing them since I first went to work for Broadcasting magazine in 1978. But this is the first one is which broadcasters were stressing the importance of pushing out their coverage on social media and mobile apps so that viewers could follow the action on the devices they took with them as they fled from the storms and that worked even when the power went off.

All the great technology and expertise that broadcasters can bring together to cover storms mean nothing, if they can’t deliver it to people where and when they need it.

Television on the big screens in living rooms and bedrooms isn’t going anywhere. Broadcasters will continue to serve those sets either directly with their over-the-air signals or indirectly through carriage on cable, satellite and the new OTT platforms. As I have argued here before, maintaining that OTA segment is vital since it gives broadcasting its ubiquity and its edge over the wired media.

But broadcasting’s real future is mobile. Smart phones will gradually replace all the dumb phones and everybody with have a TV receiver in their pocket or purse. And tablets with screens that offer a better TV experience look as if they are here to stay, too, even if they never leave the house.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

The good news is that broadcasters are in a perfect position to feed these personal TV sets.

Today, stations can reach the smartphone via the wireless telco’s broadband networks as WTVC and others did in the tornado zone. It takes some work. Programming has to be reformatted for the small screen and apps must be created for each of the proliferating mobile platforms.

Coming up later this year or early next is mobile DTV. Using a portion of their own digital channels, stations can broadcast linear channels, perhaps simulcasts of their over-the-air service. Later on, they’ll be able to offer a pay tier and VOD.

The Advanced Television Systems Committee is developing a standard for near-real time mobile DTV, which will allow broadcast content to be received and stored on devices for recall at the user’s convenience. It’s not exactly interactive, but it will seem like it.

And for the long term, the ATSC has also begun work on the next-generation of digital TV broadcasting, which could be ready within five years. The next-gen system will close the gap between wireless broadband and broadcast, allowing station to offer far more programming with a far more rugged and reliable signal.

To be part of this mobile future, and possibly be a dominant force in it, broadcasters have to keep investing in the work of the ATSC and, above all, hang on to their spectrum. Without it, broadcasters will lose control of their own destiny. They will be just another content provider queuing up outside the doors of Verizon and AT&T.

So, if the FCC asks you to voluntarily give up your spectrum, just say, “No thanks. I have better things in mind than selling it for 10 cents on the dollar.”

On the wall of my office, I have a picture of my mother in 1938 when she was just 18. It’s one of my favorites. She’s sitting on a beach with her legs tucked under her and wearing a modest, but daring (for the time) two-piece bathing suit — the first two-piece in her hometown of Wilkinsburg, Pa., she always claimed. Next to her blanket is a portable radio with a dial, three knobs and a speaker grill. It’s big, about the size of my ink-jet printer set on end, and I’m sure heavy due to the tubes, metal chassis and oversized dry cells needed to power it. Because of its size and weight, you would say the radio was more portable than it was mobile.

But in 1938, this was the Apple iPad2 — totally cutting edge. You could take your favorite music, radio show or baseball team with you to the front porch or picnic or beach.

The point is, the demand for mobility has been with us since the dawn of electronic mass media. Makers of receivers have been trying to pack more and more capabilities into smaller, more portable packages ever since crystal radios were the rage. Transistors and car radios gave radio a second life in the 1950s after the advent of TV threatened to snuff it out. Before stadiums had giant TV screens, fans would bring portable TVs to games to catch the replays. I remember boom boxes in the 1980s with five-inch, black-and-white screens.

This trend will continue, although I’m not sure how the receivers can get any smaller.

Mobile is part of broadcasting’s past and it will be the largest part of its future. It just took me awhile to figure it out.


Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be reached at 973-701-1067 or mailto:[email protected]. You can read his other columns here.


Comments (12)

Leave a Reply

Laurel MacLeod says:

May 20, 2011 at 3:50 pm

great article

mike tomasino says:

May 20, 2011 at 4:50 pm

So, if the FCC asks you to voluntarily give up your spectrum, just say, “No thanks. I have better things in mind than selling it for 10 cents on the dollar.”

Ditto!!!

    Ellen Samrock says:

    May 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    To hear Jay Rockefeller tell it, it could be as high as 30 cents on the dollar. But that’s still a drop in the ocean compared to the future potential for broadcasters with mobile DTV. I liked Harry’s point about ” being just another content provider queuing up outside the doors of Verizon and AT&T.” That is exactly what will happen if we let politicians and bureaucrats with an agenda that has nothing to do with public interest take away our spectrum.

Dave Chumley says:

May 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm

I agree it’s a an excellent article Harry. And we don’t need 5 years to demonstrate and fine tune what is already going on for the next generation DTV worldwide. It’s all about reliable reception for handheld and mobile devices

jean pool says:

May 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm

Harry- Thanks for saying what I am thinking!

    Steve Geiger says:

    May 23, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Tim – if broadcasters can apply their information and entertainment reach honed with their one to many distribution platform to a more intimate one to one distribution – VOD, contextualized distribution, etc. – nobody will beat them in the local video marketplace!

Christina Perez says:

May 20, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Now, Harry, lobby the industry to do coupon and product tie-in deals to drive down the cost of those new hybrid hand held DTVs that receive both standard ATSC and the new mobile standard. The new RCA models retail for about $120. If the price drops to $50-$60, many folks will gladly buy a 3.5″ hand held as a “free TV” complement their smartphone — until cellphone makers wise up and put DTV chips in their products. But it’s clearly an interim product, because consumer demand eventually will force the phone makers to equip their phones with DTV circuitry, assuming broadcasters stand firm and hold onto their allocated public spectrum. I say “public” because the point must be made again and again that it is NOT theirs to “sell,” even to the government; it belongs to the PEOPLE and broadcasters are licensees, and the court will see it that way if and when the issue is litigated.

Shaye Laska says:

May 21, 2011 at 10:02 am

And…for you group heads reading this article remember that Direct Mail often outbills broadcast TV in a city 2:1. That means that your mobile live TV with commercials lets you dip into that second pool of money provided you can generate an advertiser a response from your mobile video TV ads….sound like a business you could own?
We stand waiting to sell this to advertisers.

Grace PARK says:

May 22, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Great piece, Harry. Thanks.

Matthew Castonguay says:

May 23, 2011 at 10:11 am

Right on Harry. One suggestion I have for the broadcasters in this debate though… focus the argument more on the audience. If Genachowski gets his way and the carriers get their way, then we are moving to a 100% pay model for mobile media (and they have no interest in emergency communications so that will become the sole domain of the government…good luck with that). In this one-to-one fee-based world, when the carriers try to deliver the Super Bowl stream to 10m people individually ie; 10m x, it won’t work. Eventually, the carriers will “discover” that broadcasting of popular content (one to unlimited #s) works better. Say, in 5-10 years. 10 years after that, they will build out the broadcast infrastructure needed. So, total of 15-20 years, with 10+ years of lousy service in the middle (at least). Or, they could embrace today’s broadcasters, and we could have it up and running in 18 months.

Bill Greep says:

May 23, 2011 at 2:07 pm

Well said Harry ! Sometimes it takes a disaster to remind us of how important local broadcasters
are to their respective communities.

Dennis Kellogg says:

May 23, 2011 at 8:34 pm

Eleven comments and ONE re: monetizing mobile. Harry, yours IS a great article but it didn’t address the question, “where’s the beef, er, I mean MONEY?”