HDTV Almanac

In a press release, The Diffusion Group (TDG) announced its new report, “The Possibilities and Challenges for Mobile TV”. In the release, TDG states that mobile TV subscription services are forecast to double their subscriber base by 2013. This sounds exciting until you find out that this means increasing from 1.6 million this year to 3.3 million subscribers in 2013. That number pales in comparison to other services; for example, Comcast is estimated to have 23.5 million cable TV subscribers.

The press release indicates that demand for the service is lower than originally expected, partly because it is an additional fee on top of other subscription services. Also, few mobile phones are equipped to receive the over-the-air Mobile TV signals.

I agree that the cost may be part of the problem, but the real barrier to growth for these offerings is that users have good alternatives already. Most of the people who would be willing to pay for a mobile TV service already have smart phones with data plans. And this allows them to access streaming content from the Internet at no additional fee beyond their existing data plan. (And if they’re paying for the data plan, they may as well use it.)

TDG suggests that the solution may be to bundle Mobile TV service in with other subscription TV services such as cable or satellite. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Cable and satellite are already struggling to stop the bleeding of lost customers, and are working feverishly to make their own content available to subscribers over the Internet, through TV Everywhere initiatives.

Mobile TV is a cool idea that would have been a lot cooler 15 years ago. Unfortunately, in today’s crowded market of free, pay-as-you-go, and subscribtion services on the Internet, there really is not room — or need – for another entertainment distribution system.

I long for the old days, when things were simpler. Back when a computer monitor was a computer monitor, and a TV was a TV. It’s not that way anymore. Almost all TVs now have a way that lets you connect it to a laptop or desktop computer: either a VGA connector, or an HDMI connector that can hook up to a DVI port. But we still have computer monitors that don’t have TV tuners, so you can’t watch television programming on them (unless you stream it over the Internet or something like that).

Well, not so fast. Samsung has announced their 30 series of “computer monitors” that are available now, and a new 90 series of monitors that will ship in September. The 24″ FX2490HD has an LED backlight, 1080p resolution, two HDMI connectors in addition to VGA and component video connectors, and a USB port that lets you play content stored on a thumb drive. And it includes tuners and a coax connection for cable or over-the-air signals. It even can do picture-in-picture.

Hey, I don’t know about you, but this waddles and quacks like a familiar waterfowl. I really don’t get why it’s not an HDTV. I do get that it’s a compact display, and if I were sending a kid off to college, this would be just the sort of space-saving convenience that I’d want to send along. But why this would do the job better than some other 24″ display that is called an HDTV escapes me at this point.

Last spring, I wrote about Netflix demo’ing its streaming service on a Windows Phone 7 operating system. Now comes word that Netflix is releasing free applications for the Apple iPhone and iPod Touch that will let subscribers access streaming content on these portable devices.

The free apps can access the streaming service across either a WiFi or 3G data connection. You can even stop in the middle of a movie or TV episode, and then when you come back, it will pick up right where you left off. This works even if you restart on another device, such as your home computer. You can download the free apps from the Apple iTunes store.

This announcement is particularly interesting in the light of recent news reports that Apple is negotiating to rent TV episodes for $.99 each. The all-you-can-eat Netflix service is available to any subscriber with an $8.99 monthly subscription or higher, so the break-even point is just 10 shows a month, no matter whether you watch on your phone, media player, computer, notebook, video game console, or Internet-connected TV or Blu-ray player. Netflix is expanding its footprint across the entertainment landscape, and Apple’s pay-as-you-go model may be a difficult sell.

I know I’m not the only one who gets peeved about this; you’re watching a show, then a commercial comes on and blasts you out of your seat with a high volume setting. It’s not just broadcast video; I’ve also noticed this (with dismay) on streaming sites such as Hulu. I’ve written about this problem before, including a mention of a product from SRS Labs that uses the company’s technology that is also built into many current HDTV models.

Now comes the announcement of another device, this time from Gefen.

The box can accept and output either analog stereo or digital (TOSLINK or S/PDIF) audio signals. It relies on Dolby Volume leveling technology, which can also enhance the low and high range levels in order to create a more natural-sounding experience, no matter how loud or quiet you have the volume set. And it has a simple bypass button on the front so that you can turn off the effect if you want. The Gefen product is a little pricey at $179 direct, but it has sophisticated modeling technology inside that may well outperform the feature that is built into your TV set (if it has volume leveling).

It’s time to play a little Jeopardy. The answer is “Serbia and Macedonia“. Can you come up with the question? Give up? Here you go: “What two countries rank higher than the United States in terms of average daily time spent viewing television?” Clearly we can do better, folks! You’re just not trying hard enough.

Nielsen is out with a new report: How People Watch. It reports on how people around the world use television and other electronic devices to watch television programming. Now, it’s important to note that the survey was given to 27,000 consumers from 55 different countries. And a key factor is that they were all online users. This makes me suspect that you may not be able to generalize the answers across the entire world population. With that caveat in mind, the results are still interesting.

For example, the fact cited at the start of this piece has the average American consumer watching 5:04 (hours:minutes) of TV each day. Macedonia topped us with 5:18, and Serbia blew us away at 5:39, more than an additional half hour every day. I don’t have an explanation for this, but I will point out that the CIA World Fact Book reports that the Serbian unemployment rate is 16.6% compared with the U.S. 9.3%. And Macedonia unemployment is at 32.2%. Maybe these people just have more time that they can give to television? Oh, and we just edged out Greece for the number 3 spot; they averaged one minute less than us at 5:03 (and an almost-identical unemployment rate).

We went for the Bronze in another category as well. In High-Definition Television Ownership, we tied the United Kingdom for third place with an index score of 157. Hong Kong topped us for second place with an index score of 160, but the Australians finished far out in first with an index of 200. (Fair dinkum? Some might say that the Aussies use a different ruler to measure with; they count 576p as high-def, while the rest of the world seems to agree that 720p marks the minimum spec for HD.)

And you don’t even want to know where we finished on items such as mobile TV or watching over-the-top Internet content on a television set. Cubs fans would be familiar with our position in the pack.

Bottom line: it appears that we’re slacking off here. So let’s plan on a big push this holiday season to get hooked up, tuned in, and zoned out. Let’s see some better numbers if Nielsen decides to update this study next year!

ESPN 3D has announced that it will broadcast about 13 NCAA Division 1 football games this year. The network also has named the first three contests:

- Monday, September 6, 8 PM Eastern: Boise State vs. Virginia Tech
- Saturday, September 11, 3:40 PM Eastern: Ohio State vs. Miami
- Saturday, September 18, 7 PM Eastern: Clemson vs. Auburn

The network also will show the Tostitos BCS National Championship Game on Monday, January 10 at 8:30 PM Eastern. ESPN 3D also plans to broadcast additional live sports programming this year, including the NBA, college basketball, and Winter X Games 15. The network is still developing the skills needed for live 3D broadcasting, which requires different camera angles than standard 2D coverage in order to be most effective. The college football broadcasts are sponsored by Sony, and ESPN 3D will be using Sony equipment to produce their live coverage.

13 football games are probably not enough to warrant getting a new 3DTV for most people, but it may be the nudge that some early adopters will need to push them into making a move. Adding 3D coverage to an event that is already being produced in 2D increases the costs significantly – especially since it appears that you can’t use the same camera angles for both — so it will be a while before more networks will be able to provide a lot of live 3D programming. Still, ESPN is getting out in front and doing the experimenting and learning that will be necessary when 3D becomes commonplace, if not the standard mode.

In case you haven’t been following the story, Comcast wants NBC like a six year old girl wants a real live pony of her very own. Unfortunately, Comcast can’t just walk down to the paddock and plunk down billions of dollars and walk away with a major network. It seems that its competitors, Federal agencies such as the FCC, and Congress all have some strong opinions about the deal, and it’s not clear that it will win final approval.

That’s what makes yesterday’s agreement with CBS so significant. Comcast inked a 10-year deal that gives CBS a lot of money, and means that Comcast won’t have to worry about negotiating new deals all the time with CBS. We’ve seen the dust-ups over fees between networks and cable companies, and that situation is only likely to get worse.

But this also signals that Comcast can still play nice with other networks, even if it ends up owning NBC. This could have a positive impact on the FCC and legislators who could stand in the way of the NBC deal. Even so, it’s still too early for Comcast to break out the bubbly.

“Cutting the cord” is the term that analysts have given to the growing movement of consumers who have disconnected themselves from the traditional utilities. At first, it meant users who got rid of landline telephone service and rely instead solely on cell phones. Now it also applies to folks who are now watching so much television content from the Internet that they are turning off their expensive cable and satellite subscription television service.

But what does it mean for a broadcaster to “cut the cord”? In one case, it could mean severing the connection between the production facility and the broadcast transmitter. What’s that? How can you be a television station without transmitting?

Well, a new report entitled “A Future for Public Media in New Jersey” makes a radical solution for public television in New Jersey. Sandwiched between the giant Philadelphia and New York City markets, the New Jersey public television stations exist primarily to provide coverage of state news that does not always get in-depth coverage from stations in the adjacent states. The report suggests selling off the stations’ broadcast licenses (for a lot of money) and just relying on cable and satellite services to carry the programming. In cash-strapped New Jersey, this could create an endowment that could sustain the network for a long time without having to rely on state funds.

The idea is that a huge majority of the audience already subscribes to cable or satellite services already, and the broadcast systems are a reduntant and expensive luxury. One problem is that the local cable companies are not obligated to carry programming from stations that are not broadcast locally, so the New Jersey public television system would have to get some sort of assurance that their shows would be distributed. Still, it’s an intriguing concept, and raises questions about the future of terrestrial broadcasting of televsion program in general. If the content is available online or by subscription service, why bother taking up valuable broadcast spectrum?

I don’t expect terrestrial broadcast to end any time soon, this does open the way to some alternative futures.

Only a handful of early adopters got to see it, but Major League Baseball broadcast some experimental 3DTV early this month around the All-Star Game in Anaheim, California. Earlier in the week, Fox Sports shot two games in 3D from Seattle as the Mariners took on the Yankees. These were sponsored by Panasonic and DirecTV, and were broadcast by DirecTV, Verizon, and major cable operators.

The big game was the All-Star Game, however, which Fox Sports shot using 13 3D cameras, including some Panasonic camcorders. The stereoscopic images apparently enhanced the viewing experience for many viewers, giving a better sense of the distance from pitcher to batter, and making it easier to judge the ball’s position and movement.

While no additional games are scheduled to be televised in 3D for this season at this point, the experiments were deemed a success. The challenge will be to find a way to fund the significantly-greater expense of 3D coverage, especially if it has to be provided in parallel with the existing 2D high definition production. Fortunately, the installed base of 3DTVs won’t represent a significant portion of the viewing public in the U.S. for a couple of years, so the MLB and the networks still have time to work it out.

As I wrote at the end of last month, the new Hulu Plus service for $9.95 a month stands to disrupt television viewing habits. It provides more content that does not expire, and it’s all offered in 720p high definition.

As it turns out, more and more people view this sort of offering as appealing. Some people have the attitude that everything on the Internet should be accessible for free, but that attitude appears to be changing. A new study by The Diffusion Group (TDG) polled broadband users about the new TV Everywhere initiatives from subscription television services such as cable and satellite. The concept is that existing customers will be able to access the same programming that they receive at home, but can get it as streaming video over the Internet. The TDG survey found out that 60% of the users are enthusiastic about the idea, and a total of 34% would be willing to pay at least $5 a month extra for the privilege.

On the one hand, TV Everwhere could be an important new source of revenue for these services, which are faced with increasing costs of maintaining their physical infrastructure. On the other hand, this sort of Internet streaming service could train their subscribers to get video content online. This could have the unintended consequence of users discovering that they can get enough of what they want from other sources that cost a fraction of their cable or satellite subscription fee. With those fees routinely running $100 a month or more just for television, a lot of households might be willing to chop that to $10 a month, and settle for what they can get from Hulu Plus or Netflix.