Cingular cell phone service - AT&T's Cingular to use Qualcomm MediaFLO for cell phone TV (KXAN 36 Austin)

Author

AT&T's Cingular to use Qualcomm MediaFLO for cell phone TV (KXAN 36 Austin)

admin@ng2000.com

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

SAN DIEGO A-T-and-T's Cingular Wireless will use Qualcomm new MediaFlo wireless network to deliver broadcast television to mobile phones by the year's end.

===
Just one of Today's Top 10 Consumer News Stories: http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php? tp=ce...cingular

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:27:34 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <WB7Ah.876$tD2.766@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

>admin@ng2000.com wrote:
>
>Failed model.

Yep.

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...o_to_mobile_tv/>:

Users turn their noses up at mobile TV
Turn on, tune in, turn off again

It's not just the slow uptake of video services that should worry
network operators, it seems that more than half of European users
who've tried TV on the move decided it wasn't worth the effort. This
data comes from a survey of 22,000 European users, commissioned by
Tellabs and carried out by M:Metrics.

Cost is the biggest issue turning off users. Forty-five per cent of
disconnections came down to money, but 24 per cent dropped the
service because of quality and reliability issues.

Price and quality generally go hand-in-hand, so it's safe to assume
that better quality would have reduced concerns about price.

Nearly 30 per cent of UK users cited quality as the reason they
wanted out.

The study didn't establish what technology was being used, so
unfortunately there's no opportunity to compare broadcast with
narrowcast solutions. But overall it seems that users aren't enjoying
the experience of video on the move and, once they've shown it off to
their mates, seem to have little time for it.

This does not bode well for the industry, which is betting a great
deal on consumers wanting video on the go and being prepared to pay
for it.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Karl

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:47:45 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:27:34 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
>wrote in <WB7Ah.876$tD2.766@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
>Yep.
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...o_to_mobile_tv/>:
>
> Users turn their noses up at mobile TV
> Turn on, tune in, turn off again
>

TV on a 2 " screen on a cell phone is Squintavision; and thats
assuming you could deliver 24 fps.

Todd Allcock

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

At 12 Feb 2007 19:08:25 -0600 Karl wrote:

> TV on a 2 " screen on a cell phone is Squintavision; and thats
> assuming you could deliver 24 fps.

Why in god's name would you have to get 24fps on a cellphone? I've used
my PPC for years to watch favorite sitcom episodes or catch a show I've
missed. On a 3" screen, 15fps is more than adequate- I used to do 8fps
on my older PPCs (the slow processor couldn't always keep up with 15!) A
sitcom or talk show works fine at 8fps.

The mobile TV model certainly isn't taking off with any speed, but it'll
get there when the right content comes along.

The same "squintavision" comment could be made about mobile gaming, and
people are adopting that model, because there are games that work on the
small screen- no one is trying to play Age of Empires III on their Razr-
if we apply the same logic to mobile TV, we shouldn't be surprised no one
wants to watch ESPN on it either!.

For example, despite the low adoption rate, there are a few minor
successes- John Stewart's "The Daily Show" is the most watched program on
mobile TV. (RCR News, 1/16/07) It's "talking heads" format works on
tiny screens, and it's irreverence works for the younger set who are the
most common adopters of the platform.

The right content, edited specifically for the small screen, could do
well if priced reasonably enough- for example, getting last night's David
Letterman's Top Ten list on demand each morning, or Leno or Conan's
monologue. Tack a 30-second ad you can't fast forward through in the
middle and a free distribution model is possible.

Lots of content would work for mobile TV- a 5 minute recap of _last_
week's Desperate Housewives/Grey's Anatomy/Lost/whatever on the day of
this week's show to catch you up, maybe the day's top three You Tube
videos based on number of hits- the possibilities are endless IF the
content is tailored for the format. What won't work is if the providers
bill this as some sort of mobile satellite TV for your phone, and think
we'll use it to watch a football game on Sunday, or an HBO movie.

But never underestimate the capability of a wireless provider to make a
stupid idea profitable! These are, after all, the same guys who've
convinced us to pay $2.00 for a 30-second clip of a 99-cent song we
already own by calling it a "ringtone!" ;-)

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:28:08 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d192ba$0$27201$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>One analyst estimates that the ringtone revenue will be close to $1
>billion this year, with an average of six ringtones per subscriber that
>downloads (34%).
>
>I find that having different ringtones for different callers is useful,
>but I upload clips to my phone using Motorola Phone tools, at no cost.

I simply OBEX push them over Bluetooth, likewise at no cost, but the
point is that most people are willing to pay for ease and convenience,
as long as the cost matches the value.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:50:20 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eqre80$vds$1@aioe.org>:

>At 12 Feb 2007 19:08:25 -0600 Karl wrote:
>
>
>Why in god's name would you have to get 24fps on a cellphone? I've used
>my PPC for years to watch favorite sitcom episodes or catch a show I've
>missed. On a 3" screen, 15fps is more than adequate- I used to do 8fps
>on my older PPCs (the slow processor couldn't always keep up with 15!) A
>sitcom or talk show works fine at 8fps.

That's probably due to screen lag. On fast new displays, I can clearly
see the difference between 15 fps and 24 fps.

>The mobile TV model certainly isn't taking off with any speed, but it'll
>get there when the right content comes along.

Perhaps, but I tend to doubt it -- the tiny TV (e.g., Sony Watchman)
market didn't go much of anywhere.

>The same "squintavision" comment could be made about mobile gaming, ...

I personally think that's quite different.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Todd Allcock

2007-02-15, 10:33 pm

At 15 Feb 2007 18:17:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> That's probably due to screen lag. On fast new displays, I can clearly
> see the difference between 15 fps and 24 fps.

I'm not saying you can't see the difference, I'm just saying given the
current state of technology a full frame rate isn't neccessary to watch
or even enjoy mobile video.

> Perhaps, but I tend to doubt it -- the tiny TV (e.g., Sony Watchman)
> market didn't go much of anywhere.

Again, that was likely a content problem. Going from 100 channels of
cable to 5 channels of ghosty OTA TV that works when your six-segment
steel antenna is pointed just-so was the problem. Lack of quality didn't
slow the adoption of cassette-based audio walkmans, because you
controlled the content and accepted low-quaility as part of the
convenience. A better analogy would be the PMP market- video iPods, MP4
players, etc., or even the portable DVD player market.

> I personally think [mobile gaming]'s quite different.

In what way? The mobile gaming experience is far different, and far more
limiting than a PC or Playstation-based one- we trade gaming "quality"
for the convenience of mobility. The same COULD be true of mobile TV if
the content were worthy of the trade-offs.

I agree the current mobile TV model is certainly lacking- I'm just
suggesting that it's too early to decree the concept a failure.

John Navas

2007-02-15, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:59:14 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <er2lbe$drb$2@aioe.org>:

>At 15 Feb 2007 18:17:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>I'm not saying you can't see the difference, I'm just saying given the
>current state of technology a full frame rate isn't neccessary to watch
>or even enjoy mobile video.

Fair enough, but I personally tend to enjoy it much more at a proper
frame rate -- I find 15 fps to be annoyingly jerky when there is much
motion. (FWIW, my point of reference is video on a video iPod.)

>
>Again, that was likely a content problem. Going from 100 channels of
>cable to 5 channels of ghosty OTA TV that works when your six-segment
>steel antenna is pointed just-so was the problem.

Don't think that was the reason because cable wasn't much of factor back
then, and OTA on a tiny TV actually looked better than most broadcast
receivers (in part due to small screen size). I think the real reason
is that people didn't like watching such small screens. Note how the
market has moved to bigger and bigger screens over time.

>Lack of quality didn't
>slow the adoption of cassette-based audio walkmans, because you
>controlled the content and accepted low-quaility as part of the
>convenience.

That was simply because there was no real alternative -- CD players came
along and pretty much wiped them out, and they are now in turn getting
killed by the iPod.

>A better analogy would be the PMP market- video iPods, MP4
>players, etc., or even the portable DVD player market.

You lost me there.

>
>In what way? The mobile gaming experience is far different, and far more
>limiting than a PC or Playstation-based one- we trade gaming "quality"
>for the convenience of mobility.

Mobile gaming is quite different from gaming on a TV -- portable,
interactive, and personal. I see it as a distinctly different market.

>The same COULD be true of mobile TV if
>the content were worthy of the trade-offs.
>
>I agree the current mobile TV model is certainly lacking- I'm just
>suggesting that it's too early to decree the concept a failure.

I think it's already failed, more than once, and that the issue is form
factor, not content.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

LinkBot