User preferences will evolve, alternative wireless technologies develop, and Moore’s Law will result in an array of different possible end-user devices.
Most observers of the telecoms industry, as well as many participants in it, consider mobile TV as simply being TV on a mobile phone. Given the widespread acceptance of this viewpoint, most of the current debate around mobile TV focuses on distribution technologies, business models and value chains. The current debate is typically limited to the areas listed below.
- Broadcasting technologies. Currently, mobile TV is mainly streamed over 3G networks, but this is an inefficient use of capacity and so it is likely that dedicated mobile TV broadcast networks will be constructed. The main options are likely to be DVB-H (in Europe and America), DMB (already adopted in South Korea and Japan), MediaFLO (in America) and S-Band satellite broadcasting.
- Business models. Mobile operators might build broadcast networks individually, or operators may choose to build a shared network on a consortium basis. Alternatively, broadcasters or other third parties could build such networks.
- Value chains. Customer relationships might be ‘owned’ by mobile operators, broadcasters or content providers, and funding arrangements have yet to be defined.
However, although there is an increasing body of consumer research that points to a latent demand for mobile TV, what these consumers have in mind when they think of mobile TV might be something quite different from what the telecoms industry has in mind when it thinks of mobile TV.
Consumers do not care about technologies – they just want to be able to watch programmes when they are on the move. Content does not necessarily have to be broadcast in real time: a download-and-cache model (such as video podcasting) would work just as well for a commuter who wants to catch up on the latest instalment of their favourite soap opera. It could be better, even, given that such commuters can watch cached programming whenever they want, and would not have to plan their commuting to fit in with broadcast mobile TV schedules. Furthermore, such viewing would not be interrupted by long rail tunnels or even travelling on those underground rail systems which broadcast signals cannot penetrate.
The increasing popularity of user-generated content does not sit particularly well with the accepted vision of mobile TV, either. The consumption model for such content is more akin to Web surfing: it is typically interactive, and content is unicast (not broadcast). This is almost exactly the type of application for which 3G networks were built, and a mobile TV broadcast network would not be able to support such services as effectively.
So, if mobile TV broadcast networks are not particularly well suited to non-real-time content, and are not particularly well suited to interactive content, then what about real-time services, particularly premium content?
Technically, the broadcast delivery of real-time content is the strong suit of mobile TV technologies, which are designed for a user who wants to view the latest news or other real-time content while on the move. However, if the user receives an update from a real-time sports event, and wants to watch that event in real time, then there are a number of alternative approaches, including:
- using a mobile TV receiver to access content (either premium or non-premium) provided by their network operator
- accessing similar footage provided by a third party, and delivered either over a mobile TV network or over a mobile Internet connection
- connecting to a Slingbox to watch one of the premium sports channels to which the user subscribes at home, or using Orb or similar (for instance Skype-based) technologies to forward similar content.
In short, in the one area where mobile TV networks have a technical advantage, there will also be competing services and competing business models.
There is one other way in which the reality of mobile TV services may diverge from popularly held expectations, and that is in terms of end-user devices and customer ownership. Typically, mobile TV is envisaged as a functionality that will be added to mobile phone handsets, and a user relationship with a mobile network operator is seen as implicit. However, there is no reason why such functionality should not be added to a future development of an MP3 player, a PlayStation Portable or a PDA (or all such devices). In addition, there is no technical reason why mobile TV viewers should be affiliated with any particular mobile network operator, especially considering the growth of alternative wireless technologies (particularly WiFi, and possibly WiMAX) and, potentially, a mobile TV broadcaster that is not aligned with a mobile network.
Barring external influences, it could take some years for mobile TV, as currently envisaged, to reach maturity. In this time, user preferences and needs will have evolved, alternative wireless technologies will have developed and Moore’s Law will have resulted in an array of different possible end-user devices, many of which will potentially be able to access mobile TV content of one kind or another.
Perhaps it is time to think outside the mobile TV box?