Comments on: Can LTE-broadcast dam the mobile video deluge?

By: Claude Seyrat

Claude Seyrat — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:38:43 +0000

Traditional broadcast on mobile exists and it works. It should not be considered as a new service per se, it is an extension of the residential TV business. It adds few minutes per day of viewership and is great for local news and sports (if you have the rights). In Japan, NTT Docomo launched recently a new generation of broadcast to mobile (called NOTTV) where all the programs are actually specifically designed for the mobile. This premium content is a mix of 3 live TV channels and some push content: and this really works. MMBI (the service provider) has gathered a great amount of subscribers in the last 9 months at 4$/months, growing fast.

The big benefits of eMBMS, compared to traditional Mobile Broadcast, is that you don’t need an other chipset in the terminal. You can simply use the LTE one. Most recent LTE chipsets can even be upgraded through a firmware update!

Today, as we see it, most of our customers will not use eMBMS for “saving bandwidth”. They will use it for new business models, to reach users they can’t reach today.

I recommend also to have a look at the NOTTV business case, which is really interesting: a new brand is created, with original content for mobile, social media integration and a mix of pushed and live content.

By: Lynnette Luna

Lynnette Luna — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 01:22:17 +0000

The thinking around eMBMS has quickly turned from mitigating video traffic on the network to monetizing it. The monetization ideas are intriguing, but requires a new LTE Broadcast ecosystem consisting of eMBMS infrastructure, capable devices, enabling partners and programming that is significantly differentiated from OTT options from a quality and content perspective. I could see many forms of LTE Broadcast content being zero rated.

By: Derek Kerton

Derek Kerton — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:48:28 +0000

In Korea, my former client SK Telecom made a major investment in 2002 to launch a satellite to beam broadcast TV to millions of their cell phones in S. Korea. Phones had been equipped with a sat receiver. The service launched, called TU media…the flopped.

Turns out, as Kevin wrote, that people don’t prefer to use a personal communication device for watching linear broadcast streams. There are specific exceptions, such as the stadium concept…but there are still another 364 days in the year.

If we move the conversation to batch-sync of programs, turning the phone into a PVR, well, that’s great. But that could be done even more cheaply over WiFi when the user is at home overnight.

The eMBMS solution is OK, and has some possible opportunities as a content upsell, but I don’t see it putting a significant dent in unicast mobile video traffic.

@derekkerton

By: Kevin Fitchard

Kevin Fitchard — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:51:44 +0000

The industry keeps trying that, but so far there doesn’t appear to be much interest in just regular free-to-air programming. It seems to work in other countries, but cab drivers are free to watch TV while driving in Asia and ours are not. :)

By: anon

anon — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:19:31 +0000

why not just put regular over the air TV receivers in cell phones?

By: Nicholas Paredes

Nicholas Paredes — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:29:02 +0000

It is also reminiscent of some of the cheaper cellular alternatives from the late 80s and early 90s. I suggested putting music on some of the these channels back then.

It makes no sense to treat networks as one dimensional channels. They should adapt to usage requirements.