JESSELL AT LARGE

TV Poised For New Golden Age With Mobile

The announcement by the Mobile Content Venture that at least 40 NBC and Fox O&Os and affiliates will start broadcasting ad-supported mobile DTV service next year is the first step in moving broadcast TV into what promises to be a revolutionary and profitable future. Now what's needed is for the networks to work out the  copyright issues so that all stations can take all their network programing mobile. And perhaps now, the FCC will start to realize that there are more better ways to serve consumers and more efficient uses for TV spectrum than just handing it all over to broadband.

With political advertising going into its biennial hibernation, next year will be a relatively lean one for TV broadcasters. Best case scenario is for revenue to be flat.

But they will have at least one thing to look forward to, mobile DTV.

Today, Mobile Content Venture, led by NBC and Fox, announced that in 2011 at least 40 O&Os and affiliates of the two networks would launch ad-supported mobile services in 20 markets, including 13 of the top 15.

It’s a big commitment, especially given that there will be no revenue to support it for a good long while. But, as MCV co-GMs Salil Dalvi and Erik Moreno point out in our story, it’s needed to convince mobile device makers that mobile DTV is real, that there will be programming to justify putting mobile DTV chip sets in every gizmo that moves.

And it was a good idea making the service free. What better way to get people to sample a product?

Dalvi and Moreno didn’t want to talk about what the stations will broadcast, but from what I hear it will be simulcasts of the stations’ conventional broadcasts or something close to it.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

That’s the announcement that MCV should have made if it really wanted to get all the mobile DTV pieces to start falling into place.

In the end, it’s all about programming. That’s what people want. And what they want from broadcasters is what they are accustomed to, the whole wonderful national and local broadcast mix — American Idol, House, The Office, 30 Rock, NFL football and, of course, the local news.

But NBC and Fox just can’t let the stations air all their programming because they don’t own it. In a lot of cases, they just license it from others. They have to clear those copyrights, which is not so easy.

If NBC and Fox were to do that and green-light all their affiliate to air network programming on the mobile platforms, the affiliates would jump all over the opportunity. We would not be talking 40 stations next year. We would be talking 400.

The hundreds of smaller-market network affiliates that make up the Mobile500 are eager to get simulcast permission from the networks, although they remain wary of MCV and its my-way-or-the-highway attitude. It will be interesting to see how relationship between Mobile500 and MCV evolves.

And there is one major sticking point: Even if Fox were to clear the copyrights, I’m betting that it would not grant wholesale mobile simulcast rights to its affiliates.

Right now, Fox and many of its affiliates are battling over retrans revenue. Fox is demanding more fees than its affiliates are now getting from cable and satellite, and Fox will undoubtedly use the mobile rights as a chip in their negotiations. The situation is already ugly.

The MCV’s 20-market announcement had another target: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The head of the agency that nurtured TV broadcasting through its first 60 years has now concluded that the medium’s day has past, that it is an “obstacle” to the fabulous wireless broadband future he envisions.

In a speech this week in Atlanta, Genachowski once again made the case for stripping spectrum from broadcasting so that it can be made available for the higher purpose of broadband.

Wireless broadband is more deserving of the spectrum because it’s going to improve health care and education and generate countless new job, he said in essence.

Maybe so. But what the chairman fails to realize (or chooses to ignore) is that a large hunk of wireless broadband traffic will be devoted not to the high purposes he talks about, but simply to people trying to amuse themselves with TV on the way to work, in the checkout line or just hanging out.

Regular folks are going to spend a lot more time on their smart phones watching The Simpsons than they are downloading their medical records or researching term papers.

And when it comes to that kind of content, one-to-many broadcasting is the far more efficient use of spectrum.

As the MVC’s Moreno says: “If you wanted to deliver very popular content in a scalable fashion, you would be building a broadcast-based network.

“There is broad consensus … that the broadcast solution is the only way to be able to make content available on mobile devices,” he said. “IP-based networks won’t scale; it will never happen.”

Amen.

The MCV broadcasters still have a lot of work to do. They have to come up with a conditional access system that will give them the option to put some or all of their programming behind a pay wall at some point and they need a solid system for measuring who’s watching.

And they have to get the programming rights square away.

But I think they made their point loud and clear today: Mobile DTV is coming in 2011.

To borrow from Ted Turner: lead, follow or get out of the way.


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


Comments (16)

Leave a Reply

Christina Perez says:

November 19, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Has any broadcast TV executive considered a crash engineering project to make ATSC backwardly compatible with mobile applications? Why not use technological ingenuity to restore full mobility to broadcast TV? And don’t tell me a retrofit is not technically possible. If engineers could squeeze color TV into the old NTSC, they can use digital compression/buffering to make ATSC work with mobile devices. No one has tried, because the greedsters thought they’d get away with killing off OTA television. That will never happen.

Doug Smith says:

November 19, 2010 at 4:21 pm

As usual Harry’s right on mixing bright future with cold hard facts, I think the programming rights issue going to a big one that not easily fix. Maybe broadcasters should look at more short form and unique content to provide to consumers. It’s not a given consumers are going to watch 30 min to hour TV shows on a mobile phone . So again it’s time to not just repurpose existing content but look at new options.

    Christina Perez says:

    November 19, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Chip: Isn’t that the concept behind digichannels such as “NBC Nonstop? Stations already have the programming, and the channels to repurpose for shorter viewing times (and attention spans). The problem is that programming copyright holders don’t want the repurposed product to be available free of charge — isn’t that it? Tell me where I’ve got it wrong…

    Shirley Putnam says:

    November 20, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Philly,
    I thought the whole idea of the new media was “Free and on Demand.”

    Doug Smith says:

    November 21, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Yes PP your right it’s not a business model unless there some fees and besides the real good struff like NFL, MLB, etc are all ready have mobile content deals and NBC Nonstop is repurposed fluff not an new if I wanted content like that that I go to Time Out Magazine or Urban Daddy is better done, has edge, and is highly targeted. I mean content that much more niched not news and weather, movies reviews,etc, which are everywhere.
    Let’s for once collor outside the lines the techy angles are interesting but it comes down to content,creative content!

Peter Grewar says:

November 20, 2010 at 12:02 am

I don’t believe that short form programming for viewers on cell phones is going to turn out to be much of a killer app in and of itself. However, it’s important to remember that mobile TV is far more than just cell phones — it’s viewers watching TV anywhere on cell phones, laptops, pad computers, portable multimedia players, and portable DVD/TV combos, or (simply) portable TVs. In essence, it is television where ever the viewer wants it, on whatever device they want to view it on.

And the way to reach that market (as Harry Jessel notes) is by offering all the programming that is available on a station’s regular channel. That’s convenient for viewers because they already know when their favorite shows are on, and won’t need to learn a new schedule for their portable media devices.

Emily Teaford says:

November 20, 2010 at 2:53 am

I’m all for mobile applications of broadcast TV, but only so much content will “work” on the small mobile screens. Now, if the mobile phone is going to be plugged in to the home “video wall” then we are talking about a new means of distributing broadcast TV that will simply shift programs from traditional towers to a new information highway– in which case nothing is lost.

    Doug Smith says:

    November 21, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    I agree very little broadcast content will work on small screener also rights are and will be an issue

Steve Flatow says:

November 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Hi Philly – The new mobile services are being muxed in with the ATSC signals into an ATSC-MH service. Bothe the mobile and the ATSC will be broadcast using the same Transmission equipment. How you get it will be different. ATSC on TVs and decoders , Mobile on the cell phones. We are retrofitting many TV stations for this technology.

    Christina Perez says:

    November 22, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    What I was saying was that ATSC could have been mobile compliant, same transmission tech for mobile and stationary applications, but that the greedsters made sure it was engineered to work only with stationary units. Broadcasters would have had a huge leg up on “TV everywhere” if the engineers weren’t shackled. As for a business model, the best business model is the one that broadcasters already have — going free mobile will be the force multiplier that ushers in the second golden age. The greedsters are trying to squeeze the life out of ad-supported OTA TV. Thankfully, Harry is here to set the industry straight…

    Wagner Pereira says:

    November 23, 2010 at 1:57 am

    ATSC/MH is essentially MPEG4 while the main programming is MPEG2. Because of a number of transmission issues, the lower resolution as well as the high error correction needed for ATSC/MH, doing the same on the main channel while using MPEG2 and higher resolution would most likely not work as well (and besides, when have you seen monitors that will do 1920×1080 that are less than 21″ ). Programming for specific devices also allows for better targetting. If ASTC/MH did not have the ability to have a large number of channels besides just the local OTA and was free to the end user, there would be no reason for Cellphone Carriers to pay for the chips in their phones as then they would not be included in the revenue stream (as there would not be one). No chips in cellphones = just another major failure.

    Christina Perez says:

    November 23, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Thanks for the tech info, it does help explain why it was done this way. As for ATSC/MH chips in cellphones — if the public demands it, enterprising manufacturers will offer it. The goal should be broadcast TV everywhere, even on the go. That’s the key to the second Golden Age. Repurposing broadcast content and charging for it won’t work — not when I can buy a 7″ or even 3.5″ inch hand-held standard ATSC receiver and watch my local stations out in the field for free — as long as the unit is stationary. And most people do not and should not watch TV while driving or walking near traffic, or even on the sidewalk where they can get bumped (or pickpocketed or purse-snatched while they are distracted by video…)

Ellen Samrock says:

November 22, 2010 at 7:07 pm

It wouldn’t surprise me if Genachowski’s real motive for pushing broadcasters off of their spectrum is to curry favor with the wireless providers in anticipation of the day he is forced out as chairman of the FCC (which may come sooner than later) and needs a job. There is certainly no hard evidence to support his position. As the mobile DTV rollout begins broadcasters should be allowed to develop and grow this new service–which will take time.

Robert Epstein says:

November 22, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Doesn’t the enhanced ATSC standard provide for receiving a more robust signal in fixed and mobile enviroments ?
If that is true why we need ATSC-M/H anyway? Can somebody clarify this?

    Christina Perez says:

    November 23, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Pedro, that’s what I have been arguing all along. See my comment under Randy’s, supra. As long as the unit is relatively motionless, “TV anywhere” works — right now. The Auvio/Innovative DTV Solutions models, with a 3.5″ display, have an exceptionally sensitive tuner capable of picking up most local signals loud and clear. At $80 or less, it should be a hot seller this holiday season, because it’s the only portable set I know of that works on standard double-A batteries. Consumers already are voting with their dollars. They are saying, we will buy these units and we expect our broadcast TV to remain free of charge. It’s the only mass medium left in this country, network and local TV — why is this industry trying to destroy it by charging for mobile TV service??

    Robert Epstein says:

    November 24, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I know of the unit you are writing of , and this little tv has an incredible tuner . But I was writing about the candidate standard LG/ZENITH summited to the ATSC on an enhanced VSB modulation , that makes the signal receivable on rabbit ears and mobile tv devices.. Maybe it isn’t backward compatible. I confess that I have not read the papers yet .
    Pay mobile tv hasn’t work well in Europe , But free mobile tv is doing well in the countries that have adopted this business model , including our neighbors in South America..