Archive for January, 2009

French government snubs CSA and confirms allocation of 790-862MHz band to mobile broadband

It looks as though the French government has ignored the pleas of its TV regulator, the CSA, to take its hands off the 790-862MHz frequency band, the lower portion of which the watchdog wanted to reserve for digital TV post analogue switchoff.

Yesterday, prime minister François Fillon held a ministerial summit at which an updated version of France’s digital plan (France numérique 2012) was announced. The press release put out afterwards (NB, a PDF) reveals that Fillon signed a document just before Christmas mandating the allocation of the 790-862MHz sub-band to mobile broadband. As the CSA feared, this chops a sizeable chunk - 40MHz - off the UHF spectrum that was previously to have been reserved for TV-based services, which runs from 470-830MHz.

It’s possible that the CSA (and any other opponents) could have one more bite at the cherry. Fillon has asked ARCEP (the telecoms regulator) to put out to public consultation by the end of February “the conditions and the modalities of a joint request for proposals for the 780-862 MHz and 2.6GHz bands”, with the objective of attributing the frequencies by the end of this year (2.6GHz is another frequency destined for mobile broadband use).

Opponents of the measure probably wouldn’t be able to reverse that decision, but they could in their consultation responses request that bidders for the 780-862MHz slot be forced to take appropriate measures to protect TV services in adjacent UHF frequencies from interference, something UK regulator Ofcom has proposed in its own consultations about the Digital Dividend. This could be expensive to carry out in practice and could act as a possible ‘spoiler’ for new entrants.

Other measures announced yesterday by Fillon include the creation of a new government working-party on mobile TV, tasked to establish in concert with stakeholders, between now and the end of March, “a viable economic model for mobile TV, with a view to a rapid rollout of the corresponding infrastructures.”

The announcement represents a tacit admission by the government that the French DVB-H project has so far been a failure. ConnectedTV thought the original plans were a recipe for disaster because of their failure to require mobile TV players to meet any targets for comprehensive coverage or indoor reception. The government, however, seems to think that it’s the business model which is at fault - something ConnectedTV has also been banging on about for some time. Either way, it ain’t working.

CES Wrap: Connected TVs Offer Hope Amidst Market Gloom

Just back from Vegas, and as the security guy said to me on the way through a deserted terminal - “one of the survivors of CES”; yes, and one of the few. I will be very surprised if attendee numbers are not down significantly. OK, I did arrive in plenty of time for the Virgin flight, the only direct flight to the UK, but there were actually empty seats on the plane, just as there was room to move around the vast LVCC without literally rubbing shoulders with every passer-by, and just as the hotels had slashed rates last November and were still offering great deals throughout the event.

So we would be forgiven for writing off CES 2009 as a non-event in the midst of what is clearly a severe downturn in the industry. Off record major exhibitors were clearly very nervous about sales prospects over the coming months, and some commentators have even suggested this was the CES swan-song and that it will collapse under its own, admittedly much reduced, weight.

But while we are clearly heading through very difficult times, I find this latter scenario extremely unlikely. In fact, having reported to our clients last year that CES was losing any sign of a wow factor, if anything there was more excitement this year than for some time. The fact that the rival Macworld was clearly more subdued than usual only helped to emphasise that CES is still the one place to go to see all the major consumer technology innovations.

That’s not to say that there was a lot that was genuinely new; there is, as they say, nothing new under the sun. But I did get the sense that, spurred on by the reality of declining sales from existing technologies, exhibitors had put more effort into demonstrating that the next wave of innovations is not just R&D fodder: these are products that will catch consumers’ imagination and, more importantly, win their hard-earned dollars, as and when the next upturn begins, which it surely will.

It will not be news to readers of this blog, but the subject of connected TV was clearly at centre stage at the 2009 CES. Since the first stumbling attempts by the likes of Sony with its add-on Internet Video Link, all the major TV vendors now have product rollout plans for integrated connectivity and associated internet applications and services. The biggest splash was made by Yahoo, which, in alliance with Intel, is finally making progress on the digital home strategy it has been talking about for perhaps too long. Yahoo and others are focusing on giving TV viewers access to “widgets”, allowing them to customise, to a certain degree, the information they see on their big screens.

As Barry reported Strategy Analytics recently carried out research with Oregan Networks focusing on user interest in media browsers. When asked about the perceived value of various browser applications, we came up with the following ranking in order of importance:

1. Access Video on Demand without a PC
2. Searching the home network for video content
3. Access user-generated content such as Youtube
4. Play media from a USB drive
5. Share television experience using messaging services
6. Make video conference or voice calls via the TV
7. Download widgets
8. Give the TV different colour schemes or skins

This may not be good news to the likes of Yahoo and a number of other firms that have focused on using the Internet to bring information and data to the TV screen. But it should not be surprising that what consumers want to see on their “TV” screen is… TV. Many of them are now fully aware that a vast video content library is available on the internet, and they would like to see that content on the TV set.

From a technical point of view, we know that this is not a straightforward exercise. The challenges of competing codec and other technology standards, as well as the uncertainty and unreliability of broadband connectivity, mean that there is very little any player in the value chain can do to guarantee how internet video will appear on the big screen in a real-world situation, if, indeed, it does actually appear. It is understandable that few players are willing to commit to internet video as the primary capability of connected TVs when they have historically put so much effort into guaranteeing the best possible video quality and reliability from “managed” TV services such as broadcast and cable.

The conclusion is that we will likely go through a period of a few years as TV buyers become more accepting of the variability in quality of internet-based video and television services. The evidence suggests that they will be prepared to put up with the weaknesses of internet video in return for the increased choice and control it gives them.

Apart from connected TV, we saw new developments around 3D, user interface and control, and more powerful portable devices. You can read more feedback from CES at my Strategy Analytics blog.

Strategy Analytics: TV media browsing demand to rise with Internet video as default TV feature

Right on the heels of our post about LG Electronics adding Netflix Watch Instantly capability to its HDTV ranges, comes brand-new research commissioned by Internet TV software company Oregan Networks and semiconductor company Micronas, about consumer expectations of HDTV purchase drivers.

The study was carried out by Strategy Analytics, home of occasional Connected TV blogger David Mercer, so it’s worth taking note of its findings, which relate to the issue of ‘TV media browsing’ via the Internet.

Bearing out what we suggested in our LG/Netflix post, it turns out that the ability to access Video on Demand services without the need for a PC or any other equipment was considered to be the most valuable feature of a TV media browser, for all user segments. The second most valuable feature was considered to be the ability to search the home network for media and content stored on other devices. Ability to access user-generated content such as YouTube videos was ranked third on average overall.

In addition, 87% of respondents said they would select a TV with a media browser (if the option were available) because it would offer them more entertainment choices, while 71% of all respondents said they would prefer a default media browser to be installed.

Another interesting finding (which relates to our post on online video advertising) is that 51% of all respondents would prefer to watch movies for free with advertising. Of the remaining 49%, half (25%) would only pay to watch movies if they were still in theatres (this is pretty much a deal-breaker at present, it should be said - the studios are nowhere near releasing movies for VOD, on the Internet or otherwise, while they’re still showing in cinemas!). The other half (24%) were prepared to pay for movies with no ads.

Finally, the study also investigated key consumer concerns about browsing Internet media on TV, and found that the largest proportion of comments related to the perceived ability to download or stream media at a sufficiently high speed to provide an acceptable quality of audiovisual experience. 17% of respondents also had concerns about how user-friendly the browser would be, while 12% had concerns about the TV being more expensive to fix if it were to break. Only 6% of respondents were concerned how much the television would cost to buy - which is just as well considering LG’s reported $200-300 premium!

Implicit in the use of a term ‘browser’ is the ability to access different services, although the research did find that gated services such as Netflix were amongst those perceived as “adding most value to the regular TV feature set” (others included You Tube and Hulu). Nevertheless, insofar as the study provides evidence about consumer willingness to use their TVs to access Internet media material, it is clear that their enthusiasm relates to an open Internet model, rather than a walled garden. The jury is out on how much adding, say, only Netflix ‘browsing’ capability, would depress these findings.

Nielsen: mobile video usage highest in the USA, but still only 5% of subs

Back to that perennial source of interest, mobile video.

Nielsen has just published a consumer insight piece about its growth prospects, itself extracted from a new white paper by its telecoms practice (here, note large PDF file).

The overall message is, as we have reported before, that consumer take-up of mobile video remains low, even where lots of handsets have access to it (note that Nielsen is not talking here about mobile broadcast TV, but the one-to-one 3G variety).Nielsen found that in 2008, the overall use of mobile video in the US stood at just 5% of all subscribers - low compared to other mobile media such as Internet access, ringtones and games. In fact, this is high by international standards, Nielsen reckons, with the UK on only 3%, for instance (see table below).

Figure 1: International Mobile Video Penetration (Q3 2008)

Market Mobile Video Use Amongst Mobile Subscribers
USA 5%
France 4%
Italy 4%
Germany 3%
Spain 3%
Sweden* 3%
UK 3%
China 2%
India 1%
Russia 1%
Brazil 0.2%

Source: The Nielsen CompanyNB Sweden estimate is Q1 2008, US figure is for subs aged 13+, all other markets 15+

Other notable findings:

  • 42% of mobile users in the US access video via a subscription
  • The top occasion for mobile video use is ‘while waiting for someone or something’ (59% of mobile video users); followed by ‘while travelling away from home’ (51%); and ‘while at home’ (37%) - a result which has been widely replicated in studies of mobile broadcast TV usage
  • Comedy is most popular form of mobile video content today
  • In Q3 2008, 54% of mobile video viewers reported average session lengths of 15 minutes-plus
  • The typical mobile video viewers tunes into their phone for an average of 3hrs 37mins per month

Note that the last figure equates to just 13 minutes or so per day - given the small user base, not really the basis for a mass-market advertising proposition, as yet, particularly given its fragmentation across different mobile video platforms.Nielsen, while realistic about mobile video’s prospects, believes (like Videonuze) that mobile video could take off in 2009, but only on three conditions:

  1. The expanded use of mobile Web and mobile Web video (e.g. You Tube)
  2. The rollout of mobile broadcast TV
  3. An improved advertising subsidization of subscription-based streaming mobile video services

While agreeing on the first point, Connected TV does not see many indications at present that conditions 2) and 3) are likely to be satisfied to the extent that they will lead to a turnaround any time soon. Mobile broadcast TV seems to be moribund, at least in Europe (but see here re analogue variants), and we have a chicken-and-egg situation with the advertisers. They won’t take it seriously as a medium until it becomes much bigger, but it seems it can’t become much bigger without advertising.

Online video advertising - does it work or doesn’t it?

Two sharply differing views about how advertising might help online video take off:

  • Over at VideoNuze, Will Richmond is arguing that JP Morgan’s recently released Internet Investment Guide for 2009 is too pessimistic about the prospects for online video, in part because it underestimates brands’ interest in shifting their ad dollars to the new medium. He concludes: “Far from being the uninteresting medium that the Morgan report depicts, online video has already become a bright spot for many established content providers whose traditional models are under pressure. It is also opening up new opportunities for new ad-supported entrants. And it is threatening to completely up-end the paid part of the market through improvements in “over-the-top” technologies and consumer services.”
  • On the other hand, according to Advanced-Television.com, “a survey of 2,023 people for Deloitte’s Media Democracy report suggests TV advertising is twice as effective as online ads”. Apparently, 84% of consumers said TV ads would influence them to buy a product - against just 45% for online. Indeed, around 64% of respondents said any kind of Internet ad was more intrusive than newspaper ads and 26% said they would be prepared to pay for Web content just to avoid online ads.

Of course, the alleged disadvantage online ads suffer versus the TV-based variety might be outweighed by cost-cutting advertisers seeking more accurately to measure the performance of their adspend. Faced with allocating a million dollars to a conventional broadcast TV campaign with questionable impact instead of a tenth that amount against an online video equivalent with poor conversion rates (but feedback on every view and click), who’s to say today’s hard-pressed media buyer wouldn’t choose the latter over the former?