To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39153102,00.htm

Radioactive: Mobile television on trial
It's coming... but will we watch it?

By Futurity Media

Published: Thursday 06 October 2005

Predictions always come back to haunt. This time last year Futurity Media's Stewart Baines said the must-have gadget for Christmas 2005 would be a mobile television. Now it looks like he may have been off the mark by five years or so.

Don't get me wrong, mobile television is progressing well, and prototypes are already impressive, but it could be the next decade before the average early adopter can get their mitts on one. Spectrum allocation is the cause of the delay and it is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. But more on that later.

If you live in or around Oxford, you could have been one of the early-early adopters. Nokia, O2 and Arqiva, the television transmission business formerly known as NTL Broadcast, are running a lengthy trial in the varsity town.

From the end of September to March 2006, 400 O2 customers will be given a Nokia 7710 handset that has an embedded receiver which picks up modified television signals from one of Arqiva's masts, and a large screen in the same format as widescreen televisions. Sixteen channels of mainstream television - such as BBC1, Channel 4, CNN, Discovery, ITV and MTV, as well as some new content specifically for mobile devices - will be available at bus stops, in libraries and in the hallowed halls of Oxford's colleges and throughout the town.

The trial will investigate viewing patterns, how much people are prepared to pay, and device and service capabilities. For example, will the receiver work at 70mph cruising around Oxford's outer arteries? Can the screen be viewed in bright daylight - something that can't be said of most digital cameras? Are standard TV adverts too long, particularly when the viewer is holding the device and is a hair's trigger from flipping channels? Will people watch it most when they're travelling, or because someone else is using the main television in the home or as a replacement for Schott's Miscellany in the throne room?

O2 has magnanimously offered to share much of the trial data with anyone who cares to ask, even arch rivals. Data from this and 11 other independent trials around the world will help build a better picture of the potential of this latest form of convergence.

What makes the Oxford trial interesting is that Nokia has committed to one broadcast technology, DVB-H. The main stumbling block for DVB-H, the superior broadcast technology, is that it requires a new tranche of spectrum to be allocated to it, and Ofcom has so far not recognised the need, or urgency, for doing so. By gathering consensus from all players, including competitors, O2 hopes to give Ofcom more than a little nudge that the demand is tangible. Currently, there's a feeling within the industry that Ofcom might issue spectrum as early as 2008 but even that is pending the outcome of the World Radio Conference in 2006 when mobile television spectrum (and standards) will be debated.

There are barriers to mobile TV other than spectrum allocation too. Battery life is, as ever, a limiting factor. Will the devices stand up to all the gaming, music downloading and television viewing that operators will want us doing? Japanese operator KDDI recently announced it would launch fuel cell handsets next year, which would give up to three times the operational duration. Another question: can mobile device screens keep pace with the improved expectations we have from watching TV at home on huge plasma screens in Dolby surround? Given the delays from spectrum allocation, it's likely the majority of handset and content issues will be resolved in the meantime.

It may seem hard to imagine what the mobile operator can get out of mobile TV. After all, the majority of the content delivery will not be over its proprietary cellular network. 3G networks have sufficient speed to offer video streaming and downloading; Orange and Vodafone can already list some impressive content within their portals. But video streaming does not equal mobile television. Even if the streaming is of a 'live' event.

There simply isn't enough capacity in each 3G cell for mass streaming or downloading, particularly if operators also want music and gaming to be popular activities on handsets. O2 estimates that if it streamed broadcast quality television over the 3G network, it could only support five or six users at any one point in a given cell. David Williams, O2's CTO, admits: "We aren't going to make much money if that's all the customers we can support over a kilometer-sized cell. We need a cheaper solution for mass market."

So an alternative delivery mechanism is required, hence the interest in DVB-H. By broadcasting TV channels on a one-to-many approach, spectrum is more efficiently handled. 3G could still be used as a backchannel for providing interactivity or payment processing, or even for narrow casting. This may be downloading a specific five-minute clip on a one-time charge.

But why would mobile operators need to be involved if broadcasting could still bypass them entirely?

Firstly, everyone from the TV producers to mobile operators would like to see television be paid-for rather than free to air. Without the mobile operators, television broadcasters would have a weaker relationship with customers and find it more difficult to authenticate and authorise. They would certainly find it hard to sell a portable television handset that is completely independent of the mobile; most people don't want any more stuff to carry with them.

Broadcasters also recognise that mobile operators have a much closer relationship with their customers. Their billing relationship is much more immediate - a new channel could be subscribed to simply be sending an SMS or clicking a link.

And while the mobile phone is increasing in usage, television viewing figures - particularly among the most attractive viewers - is declining. Put all that together and mobile operators hold the aces and picture cards and it's their turn to call.

But that does not mean the free-spending operator can buy the whole market. They will have to share. No broadcaster would be prepared to limit his potential market to 20 per cent of the whole market by signing up with just one operator exclusively. And it's unlikely Ofcom would sanction content monopolies either.

Ofcom will not want mobile operators replicating their cellular network with a wholly owned broadcast network. For one thing, Ofcom is unlikely to distribute sufficient spectrum to allow for it. What is most likely, says O2, and it's a strategy that it broadly agrees with, is that there will be one or possibly two nationwide mobile television broadcast networks. These could be owned by a broadcast infrastructure owner such as Archiva or Crowncastle, or jointly by the mobile operators.

Mobile television may prove insufficient to differentiate one operator from another but it should be a boon to all, adding £7 to £10 every month to those average revenue per user figures. Even if your rival is benefiting from a similar boost, all's well when there's a healthy margin for everyone.

So could mobile television prove a win-win situation for everyone? Mobile operators, broadcasters, content producers and viewers all getting what they want, i.e. more television? I'm not so sure. Despite hundreds of channels of television now available in most homes these days, we're watching less of it than ever. I wonder why...

Stewart Baines is a freelance journalist and director at Futurity Media.