CONTENT & COMMUNICATIONS WORLD EXPO

Unresolved Issues Hinder Mobile DTV

While most agree that the new technology is vital to over-the-air TV’s success in the future, differences over copyrights, affiliate-network rights and relations still need to be worked out.

Although there has been movement toward launching mobile DTV, broadcasters, government leaders and technology manufacturers still need to resolve lingering issues — from network-affiliate relationships to industry unity — before it becomes reality.

“The industry concurrence is that mobile is a good thing,” said Mark Aitken, Sinclair Broadcast Group VP, advanced technology, and a Mobile 500 leader.

“Now the primary bottleneck is not technology, but issues such as rights issues; how those rights get conveyed through network affiliation relations; what is the role of network versus affiliate on deployment strategy,” he said. “It’s sort of like saying how do we solve the bottleneck in Washington?”

Speaking on the subject at the Content & Communications World expo in New York Wednesday, individuals working on the initiative shared their vision of how mobile DTV could work, but did not have concrete answers when it came to questions of creating a united front, ironing out copyright issues and technology.

If there is any movement regarding the merging of the two broadcast groups working on getting mobile DTV off the ground — Mobile Content Venture, which includes the Fox, NBC, Ion Media and nine major stations groups, and the Mobile 500, which comprises most other TV station groups — no one on either side was saying so.

“I don’t think there’s a fundamental oppositional force of work here. There’s just been a focus on two different elements of mobile TV deployment,” Aiken said.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

Aitken said he sees Mobile 500 working more on the “content side of the equation, starting with consumers first and revenue second.” MCV’s focus is more on implementing a mobile DTV system and the development of devices that can receive the content.

Nor was there any talk of CBS and ABC joining Mobile Content Venture.

“You’ll have to read it in the press release,” said Eric Marino, who, as co-general manager of Mobile Content Venture and SVP, corporate development, Fox Networks Group, would not say if, or when, such a press release might be issued. However, the framework exists for other networks or station groups to join the organization.

In addressing another controversial topic — whether affiliates will be able to broadcast sports and primetime content and, if so, under what circumstances — Marino said he believes that issue, too, can be resolved, though it is up to each individual network and station to do so.

“From our perspective, there is no difference between the network and the affiliate because we ultimately believe …  we have to work together to get service in a DMA,” he said.

Fox, the network, has presented affiliates with proposed frameworks for working together, which affiliates are now evaluating, he said.

But mobile DTV cannot move forward without all segments of the television business working together, he said.

“Ultimately economic incentives should drive investment and decisions about how a station makes use of its spectrum and services they want to provide,” Marino said. “The ability for us to have a ubiquitous and nationwide service requires absolute cooperation and participation from our affiliates.”

Referencing ongoing disputes between Fox and its affiliates, Aitken said it is not that simple. “When Fox is willing to have discussions of mobile rights within the context of larger affiliate rights, then we’ll have that discussion,” he said.

Nonetheless, all the panelists — Mark Richer, president of ATSC, which developed standards for mobile TV, and Joseph Igoe, VP-CTO of WGBH Boston — agreed that mobile DTV is essential for securing broadcasting’s future.

“If it doesn’t happen that broadcasting is going to go away,” Richer said. “I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he said, adding that broadcasters do, however, need to change their outlook of the industry. “I think focus will change to these un-tethered devices.”


Comments (5)

Leave a Reply

Christina Perez says:

October 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm

There are absolutely NO impediments to stations offering viewers what they’ve always expected from broadcast TV — free, live, over the air reception of existing broadcast station TV signals. Once stations offer and promote mobile TV, the primacy of broadcast TV as the most efficient mass medium will be assured. Then the industry can work out the issues revolving around mobile pay TV optional services. The unstated truth is that the delay in rolling out mobile TV simulcasting is motivated by GREED — and by a successful lobbying campaign on the part of the broadband/cable/satellite cabal to force broadcast stations to cease to be broadcasters by giving up their spectrum — and giving up on free, over the air commercial TV broadcasting. Don’t be tempted to throw the baby out with the bath water, broadcasters — roll out mobile TV simulcasting NOW.

Teri Green says:

October 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm

The solution is simple. TV stations were given a license for ONE TV station. Not ONE TV station and 5 subchannels. SImply make all over the air TV standard def. If one wants HDTV let them pay extra for it. High Def is a luxury, SDTV is good enough for every day people who just want to see. After all is “The Big Bang Theory” any funnier if it’s in High Def? No. Is the local news or national news any better if you can see David Muir’s pores on this face? No. it’s not. Only sports and nature shows benefit from high def. If you make everything SDTV and give each TV station ONE CHANNEL, like their license says they should have, this frees up enough spectrum for everyone and would allow every station to move to UHF.

len Kubas says:

October 12, 2011 at 6:22 pm

there is nothing particularly new about these non-technical impediments; they’ve been discussed for at least three years. Progress in overcoming them would be nice. Some station groups are being hinted that they are solved for that group or groups. As for Eric’s non-sense; stations are GRANTED 6 Mhz to use as they see fit. it’s always been that way, and most likely always will. The FCC has no jurisdiction on content, for the most part, so how the 6Mhz is limited only by the technology the FCC permits.

Eugene Thompson says:

October 13, 2011 at 2:39 am

Simulcast free, live, over the air reception of existing broadcast station TV signals. Audio from this programming should be made available through a variety of devices and available ‘everywhere’ in real time before CES 2012. This will help grease the wheels for all those ‘troublesome’ rights issues for optional mobile pay packages.

Mel Frerking says:

October 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm

If it were simply a standart ATSC TV tuner installed in a laptop, cell phone, etc. the point would be moot. Everyone would simply call it another TV. So, whay all the fuss about a different type of TV chip? In the end, it’s stil just a TV subject to reception within the station’s coverage area.