Mobile TV at World Handset Forum 2006, San Diego
Snow will be the new screen candy on mobile phones, since there are few options for broadcasting content to phones: place shifting, one-to-one, one-to-many, and RF broadcast. RF broadcast, good old TV without cable, appears to be the most likely distribution mechanism, since with the digital broadcast, only a few simultaneous streams per cell can be transmitted. And with such a tiny device, there's not much of an antenna. Ergo, snow. Presentations from Informa Telecoms, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments informed this entry.
Mark Burk, a Research Analyst at Informa Telecoms, suggested that handsets for mobile TV will cost $150 more than existing 3G handsets. He said that 43% of the cost to consumers for mobile TV will be the handset for the 18-month period of the typical contract. He also said that consumers were willing to spend $10-15 per month for these services. I ask, what’s Mark been smoking?
Place shifting is the technical name for video podcasting, as users would choose what programs to watch and simply download them to their phones. This choice is a bandwidth constraint that will ultimately fail, unless it’s done through a USB cable or Bluetooth/WiFi to the home or work broadband connection.
One-to-one and one-to-many are cellular transmission of mobile content. This strategy could fail, since cellular sites can at most handle three or four simultaneous broadcasts, even with EVDO Rev. A and HSDPA deployments.
Broadcast using radio frequency (RF) technology will turn mobile phones into television receivers, giving them two radios. This concept makes the most sense, as it doesn’t impact the cellular network in any way. The challenge here is broadcast quality and spectrum allocation, both of which will be tremendous issues. The program guide and other content will stream via the cellular network. I see snow on screens in the future—isn’t that a step backward?
The program guide can also combine the three broadcast methods, not necessarily even indicating which is in use. The biggest usability challenge stated by all of the speakers is the channel change time, which is longer than three seconds.

Paul Scanlan, COO & Co-Founder of MobiTV spoke about the future of mobile TV.
2004: <1 FPS with MJPEG, then 5-7 FPS with MJPEG, GPRS & 1X-RTT
2005: 12-17 FPS, MPEG, GPRS/EDGE/EVDO
2006: 15-30 FPS, MPEG, UMTS/EVDO
I’m looking forward to 2007. MobiTV has a new, sexy program guide (EPG), which has up-sell area above the programming content, which they showed on the Sprint service. While watching content, they scroll up-sell opportunities for ring tones, voting (using premium SMS), and what appears to be sponsorship banner ads.
MobiTV monitors the broadcast traffic, down to each cell site. The Michael Jackson verdict was the most popular day in their history.
MobiTV believes in WiMAX as the future.
Cost Implications of Mobile TV & Video
David Carey, President and CTO of Portelligent gave a fascinating presentation about the cost implications of mobile TV and video on handsets. It seems to be about $60 for the Bill of Materials, though Mark Burk earlier said $150 to the end user. Portelligent creates "tear down" studies of handsets, where they "kill them gently," taking them apart and lovingly photographing every aspect of the design. The biggest costs didn't appear to be the chips, but the complicated double hinging mechanisms for the displays.
| Permalink | Comments (0)
World Handset Forum 2006
I spent a few days in San Diego for the Informa World Handset Forum conference, a great opportunity to learn about what's happening in the world of mobile technology.
The first day's chair was Mark Steele, Chairman of the CommNexus trade group in San Diego, as well as VP of OEM for Symbol Technoogies (acquired by Motorola). He spoke about cooperation between carriers, manufacturers, and service providers. He used a brick and mortar analogy, referencing the Egyptian pyramids. They used no mortar, and are standing thousands of years later, while other building technologies that use a lot of mortar relative to “bricks” are less durable. OK, what about the newest building concepts, such as concrete reinforced by rebar? In this building method, the mortar is the brick. IMS and MMD services are closer to this model, enabling direct access to the consumer through IP technologies, without the complex relationships required between services. Maybe IMS and MMD are the rebar?
David Owens, Sprint’s Director of Product Marketing, Devices and Applications spoke about “Understanding Carrier Strategy for Today’s US Handset Market.” Sprint considers the “total customer brand.” He stated that Sprint’s proprietary research indicates coverage and call quality/reliability as the most important consideration. Pricing comes in second, and third is the price of the phone. Low on the list is the selection of phones, prior experience, and last was wireless data. He spoke about Sprint’s having more than 2,000 legacy rate plans still being serviced—he said the “total brand” matters, but what about the “total user experience”?
Sprint will launch 19 devices in the fourth quarter of 2006. He reported Telephia’s Q2 research, the top 3 prioritization of why people bought their current handset: price was 60%, size/weight was 35%, and 34% was Design/style, but Ease of use was 31%, and brand/previous experience hit at 24%. Since storage capacity hit at 3% and MP3 hit 3% also, it’s no wonder that phones are coming out that have these capabilities, but they SUCK and memory chips aren’t even included on many phones.
David spoke a lot about brand. He indicated that Sprint’s phones going forward are all going to have iconic names, chasing the promise of the RAZR brand. He took pot shots at Mobile ESPN, blaming their weakness at branding, as they’re not a service provider (Hello! What about Virgin Mobile?), but also due to their lack of handset diversity.
Christy Wyatt, VP of Ecosystem and Market Development at Motorola, spoke about 2007: The year of Mobile Linux. Christy was articulate, intelligent, and yet her talk didn’t inspire me. Was Motorola sending a message to Symbian, Microsoft, and other OS vendors, saying “We don’t need you”? She talked about creating an “ecosystem” for developers. What kind of line is that—how can developers get their content onto Motorola phones, when the carriers control the point of entry? It was a curious presentation.
Erick Eidus of MobilEidus hypothesized that operators will trade location for presence. The idea is that the operators make money on communication, so by offering presence, they’re creating an incentive to customers to communicate more, in more ways. If someone’s online, the sender can use Push To Talk, IM, etc. If they’re off-line, the sender can send voicemail, email, or an SMS. An interesting debate ensued, with all the speakers disagreeing with him. It appears that the predominant model is simply revenue share: presence and location spark communication services, and the IM vendors (Microsoft, Yahoo, OZ) simply provide the means to make that communication happen—so they get some of the communication revenue back. Good deal.
| Permalink | Comments (0)
October 10, 2006
Attend Mobile 2.0 on 6 November in San Francisco
![]()
Attend the Mobile 2.0 event in San Francisco on 6 November 2006 to learn about the future of mobile. It's only $45 to attend, and features the following speakers:
* Steve Bratt - CEO of W3C
* Judy Breck - Goldenswamp.com
* Tony Fish - Author of Mobile Web 2.0
* Kelly Goto - Principal, gotomedia LLC
* Aron Holzman - Windows Live Mobile
* Rhys Lewis - Chief Scientist at Volantis
* Charles McCathieNevile - Opera Software
* Hetal Patel - Web 2.0 Evangelist at Symbian
* Arun Ranganathan - AOL
* Oliver Starr - Blogger at MobileCrunch.com
* Andy Tiller - CTO of Cognima
With additional speakers from Google, Mozilla.org, Sun and Widsets.
And featuring Mobile Launch Pad by Peter Vesterbacka, showcasing cutting edge start-ups in the mobile space.
From the web site: A One-Day Event on November 6th, 2006 Focusing on the Mobile Web and Disruptive Mobile Innovation.


