Soap Operas? Yes, I think so. NBC Launches Mobile TV Channel with Unilever

If you remember your broadcasting history, the term "soap opera" came about because soap manufacturers produced the dramas that aired on the radio during the day... the time that housewives -- the target demographic -- were home listening to the programs and the soap commercials.

In that grand old tradition, NBC and Unilever are setting up a one-year mobile video "channel" called "Dove Good2Go. Accessible by cellphone, the channel will provide clips from 30 Rock, America's Got Talent, Friday Night Lights, Parks and Recreation, and the traditional soap opera, Days of our Lives.

Does history repeat itself?  In this case, if you point your mobile phone browser to m.nbc.com/good2go you will be stepping back to the 1920s, just like the radio listeners of yesteryear.

The most important thing about this is that it is clear that the brand-name companies such as Unilever, are jumping on board the TV bandwagon, just the same as the soap companies did years ago.

It has always been my contention that mobile TV would take off when its business model matched the one that has been working quite well for the past 70 years or so. It's tough to make it work when you demand consumers pay for individual programs or spend a high percentage of their monthly bill on limited program options.  However, when you offer ad-supported content at no charge to the audience, things will start to take off.

The Other Mobile Video Network

I erroneously left out an important mobile video delivery network not only in my blog posts but in my thinking as well: Wi-Fi.  A recent report from Rhythm New Media (.pdf), a firm that provides mobile video advertising to smartphones, finds that, overall, 53% of video delivered to phones was over the 3G network, with the remainder via Wi-Fi.  It's significant that nearly half the high-bandwidth streaming content does not come over the wide area public networks but, rather over smaller, faster, and (most likely) more reliable systems.

Rhythm New Media also indicates there is a spike in Wi-Fi usage at about 10pm, so I think it's fairly safe to assume people are using these devices at home rather than at coffee shop hotspots.

In some ways, this is almost identical to households having both a cellular and landline telephone.  There's a great deal of value in the convenience in mobility, but there are also times when the lower cost, more reliable, better quality connection is preferable when mobility isn't required

(Yes, yes, I know many people in the mobile world would argue vehemently with the suggestion that landlines are better quality and more reliable than cellular... I wouldn't disagree with them, either. Let's not consider this from the perspective of the mature cellular networks of 2010 but, perhaps, those of 1995, when mobile voice networks were just getting established and traffic was starting to build.  That's probably a better analogy to the heavy data loads on 3G networks today and, from that perspective, the landline vs. cellular analogy makes more sense)

If there's a single message that can be gleaned from Rhythm New Media's data on Wi-Fi it is that consumers prefer a clean, uninterrupted video stream, which today's 3G networks can't necessarily provide at peak hours.  It also suggests consumers know the value of offloading their data traffic from 3G to an alternative, which could also bode well for in-home femtocells.

Finally! Mobile Video Becoming Important

During the controversial runup to deploying third-generation (3G) networks, several infrastructure vendors were touting mobile video as the reason to upgrade from GPRS to UMTS. You have to remember, this was 1999, and the Palm Treo was almost two years away.  I was pretty astounded by the projections that subscribers -- particularly those in Europe -- would be willing to increase their monthly spending by US$12 for the privilege of watching video on their phones.  That was an increase, by the way, of about 50%. Pretty ambitious, huh?

Today, Microsoft rolled out several new Windows 7 models with AT&T, T-Mobile and others.

The HTC HD7 was rolled out by T-Mobile (along with several other Windows 7 handsets).  As with other recent HTC phones, this one is oriented toward video with an extra-large screen and the kickstand that premiered on Sprint's 4G EVO (also a product of HTC)

What we're really seeing here is -- finally -- all the pieces coming together. No, it's not 1999 or even 2005, but by 2010, we're finally seeing phones and networks that are ready for video. But are people paying $12 for mobile video?  No, not in most cases.  But here in the US at least, they are paying for access to a number of mobile data applications, including video. And, ultimately, it's more than $12/month.

Maybe those projections weren't so wild after all. Just premature.

RIP MediaFLO? One Man's Experience

Having been a part of the mobile research and advisory industry for more than 10 years, I was lucky enough to get some cellphones to test when they were announced by the mobile operators.  AT&T was the most generous and I had the chance to use both a LG VU and a Samsung Eternity, both of which were equipped with MediaFLO receivers. These were both great phones (the Eternity is still in loving use) and the mobile TV function was something I needed to try out so I could have a clear understanding of how it worked from the consumer's perspective.

The relatively low frequencies used by the MediaFLO TV signal (UHF 52-54) gave it pretty good range and building penetration, so I could watch good TV even inside the house.

But the real test came when I was taking a train to my old family home in Michigan. Snow on the tracks had delayed the Amtrak Wolverine Express for several hours (Snow? In Michigan? In December? How could Amtrak have anticipated that?!) So I whipped out my LG VU to start watching TV programming.

And I watched.... er... well. Nothing that I really wanted to. I'm bored out of my mind, I have THE best technology to chase my boredom away and there's nothing. Deep inside Chicago's Union Station, the signal was weak. Once we started clickety-clacking through the Chicago suburbs, though, the signal was strong.

The programming, however, was weak. A movie that was halfway over. Spongebob Squarepants. Something about football. I kept flipping the channels, thinking "15 channels and nothing to watch." I finally settled on a news documentary about some woman who had killed her child (not my customary viewing).

Luckily, or not, once we got outside Chicago and neared Gary, Indiana, the signal sputtered and vanished. No more FLOTV for me for the rest of the trip.

I was deeply unsatisfied and, not only that, I was getting the signals for free! Because I was an industry analyst with a test unit, I wasn't even paying the $15/month charge.

I felt let down. And I remembered my visit to the huge, elaborate network operations center QUALCOMM had built in San Diego. They said proudly that they had the most advanced NOC anywhere... even the major networks didn't have operations like this.

15 channels and nothing to watch.

It was pretty clear MediaFLO was about to die a slow death.  There's no doubt that the technology worked, and worked really well. But the programming and the cost doomed US operations of MediaFLO from the start. Good try, great proof-of-technology. Business case? Not so much...

The failure of one business plan does not represent the failure of the industry

The website Paid Content and others are shoveling dirt onto Qualcomm's MediaFLO grave after employees were apparently told the operation would be shutting down by the end of the year.

What's important to understand is that the failure of MediaFLO's business plan in the US does NOT represent a failure of mobile video, particularly Mobile DTV.  I count myself among those who foresaw the demise of MediaFLO years ago because of its awkward business model:

• It had  to be on a cellphone
• It had to cost $15 per month so MediaFLO USA, the mobile operator and content owner could make enough money on it
• Consumers had to be  satisfied with 12 channels or so of content you could find anywhere
• Spotty coverage limited the places you could  view MediaFLO. Downtown was fine, but in the suburbs? Not so much.

MediaFLO's ambitious business plan had so many elements that were working at cross purposes that it's sometime amazing that it worked at all.  Handset vendors, MediaFLO, mobile operators, content owners and, of course, consumers, were expected to do their parts. Some did, most didn't. There weren't many compatible handsets, there was very little marketing support from the operators and as far as content goes.... 14 hours a day of Spongebob Squarepants just didn't do it for me. And apparently, consumers didn't do their part, which was to have been rushing out and snapping up handsets and signing up for a service that would increase their monthly cellular bill  by about 25%. 

However, don't use this setback to paint a dismal picture for the entire industry.  In particular, Mobile DTV seems to be ready to fill the place of MediaFLO, without the complex value chain and, more important without the monthly charge.  If consumers can get mobile television in the way they've been receiving commercial broadcasting for the past 80+ years, it's possible there will be some success in the future.

Mobile DTV a step closer as market test concludes

Mobile Digital Television (Mobile DTV) underwent a trial in Washington D.C. for the past six months and consumers seem to really like it.  In fact, a survey by the Open Mobile Video Coalition found that most consumers didn't want to turn their test devices back in.

In a press release (.pdf), the OMVC also found:

• The most popular mobile program is local news. Mobile DTV is primarily watched during the work week, and local news leads viewing by number of episodes and total unique viewers. 
• Viewers reported increased TV watching outside of the home, including while commuting on public transportation, during lunch breaks in the middle of the day, and while waiting at the doctor’s office or supermarket. 
• They also watched at home when others were watching the family big-screen TV 
• Viewers didn’t want to relinquish their Mobile DTV devices when their portion of the trial had come to a close.

Unfortunately, the test was conducted using cellphones equipped with Mobile DTV receivers, which reinforces that (incorrect) assumption that mobile TV is somehow associated with mobile phones... it's not.  The OMVC should start encouraging further testing with dedicated portable TV devices, external receiver "dongles" for notebook computers and automotive devices wherever possible to get a better view of the potential consumer behavior.

Better yet, let's just get this show on the road and start make the deployment of commercial Mobile DTV a priority.

What we're doing here

I've been covering mobile applications, devices and networks for over 15 years and have gotten a pretty good idea about what will work and what won't, particularly in the US.  We've seen plenty of fads, fantastic ideas, and just poor thinking in the name of chasing down the dollars from the pockets of mobile consumers.

One of my favorite topics, though, is mobile video.  At this point, I think it is one of the most misunderstood topics, in part because it's so difficult to define.  All of these things are fit the definition of mobile video and TV.

• MobiTV and GoTV, which stream video content to mobile phones
• MediaFLO and DVB-H, which use a separate broadcast network to send TV shows to mobile phones
• 1-Seg, the extremely popular mobile TV station that works a lot like MediaFLO but it's free. Comes from Japan but gaining a foothold in South America as well.
• Mobile Digital TV which in the US, will soon be available using the ATSC Mobile/Handheld specification

The one I think has the greatest chance in the US right now is Mobile DTV for one primary reason: It uses exactly the same business model that has been since commercial broadcasting started in the 1920s. An advertiser supports the production of original content by paying the broadcaster. The signal is received at no additional charge via a receiver purchased from a consumer electronics store. It will work because it has worked for over 80 years.

The other alternatives rely on so many new connections, new business models, new relationships among the players (and new players) and make the one huge jump that consumers are resisting: paying for something that has been otherwise free.

I'll have a lot more on this, but this is my mobile video manifesto... a lot of things will start from these assumptions.