Virgin Mobile, the well known mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) in the U.K., is ending its mobile television business and its mobile TV platform partner, BT Movio, is closing its operation, according to an article in The Guardian. The Guardian had reported that fewer than 10,000 people had subscribed to Virgin’s mobile TV service.
In addition, BT Movio — that had hoped to expand its mobile TV business to other European countries — has canceled its contract with GCap Media, the company that owns the mobile TV spectrum. The mobile TV service could be ended early in 2008, according to the article.
So is this the end of mobile TV in Europe? Hardly. Certainly it isn’t good news, but it’s just the end of one service, and mobile TV will continue to expand on other technology platforms.
Why the end?
The Guardian discusses a few reasons why Virgin’s mobile TV service failed. One reason is the MVNO offered only one mobile TV phone — and a large one at that. Its name was as ungainly, apparently, as the phone: The Lobster 700TV (see left).
Also, the European Commission recently endorsed the Nokia-backed DVB-H standard — that isn’t used by Virgin Mobile. Virgin uses DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting), in great part because the spectrum was available in the U.K. Spectrum for DVB-H isn’t yet available in the country.
Cellular operators hope to be able to use spectrum that is currently used for analogue broadcast television, but is scheduled to be available in a few years when only digital TV will be allowed (see below).
(Television spectrum in the United States, 700 MHz, also is slated to be auctioned and there has been a huge amount of controversy over the proposed licensing requirements and interest by Google.)
3G spectrum now, TV spectrum later
As The Guardian notes, and as I’ve certainly written about, U.K. cellular operators already offer a variety of mobile TV services via their regular 3G channels. The article says, “Companies such as Vodafone, 3 and Orange have been using their existing 3G mobile networks to transmit video to individual handsets.
“Ultimately, however, the industry wants to broadcast a pared-down version of traditional TV through one nationwide network that any handset with the right kit can access. Such a service would be much cheaper to offer than streaming TV over existing mobile phone networks.”
Unrealistic expectations
Bruce Renny, the marketing director at the mobile TV content company ROK Entertainment Group, says the wireless industry’s expectations of mobile TV sales were too optimistic and the death of Virgin’s mobile TV is a reflection of that.
Renny says, “After all, why pay a subscription fee to receive the same TV content on your mobile that you already get at home? Particularly when people don't watch TV on mobiles for more than a few minutes at a time.
"Most mobile TV viewing is for just a few minutes. To be commercially successful, you have to provide a combination of live news, sports updates and video-on-demand made-for-mobile content which is instantly engaging.
“Simply broadcasting linear TV to mobiles is not the answer.”
Renny’s comments
I agree — in part — with Renny’s comments. Yes, many people watch mobile TV for just a few minutes. And, yes, I believe success will be dependent upon offering a variety of programs.
However, I also believe that mobile TV’s success will require a combination of short, on-demand videos and longer programs, such as live streaming offerings. Verizon Wireless, for example, offers both on-demand short video clips as well as its live, streaming V CAST Mobile TV service — and I think that’s a better mix of options than one or the other.
One of the reasons cellular subscribers often prefer shorter videos is the screen is small and the resolution is poor so the viewing experience is poor. That could change if subscribers begin to demand handsets with larger, higher resolutions screens rather than usually picking the smallest or cheapest phones.
As I’ve written, the Apple iPhone with its 3.5–inch higher resolution screen makes viewing downloaded videos, TV programs and movies via iTunes (no over-the-air mobile TV offered, though) a dramatically better experience than with typical phone LCDs.
Paying once, twice, thrice
As for not wanting to pay for the same programs you can watch for “free” on mobile TV, well, people in the U.K. pay for cable TV and they also have to pay a yearly government TV fee for a color television (135.50 pounds/$275.31). Furthermore, people pay for lots of the same or similar services on cellular.
For example, many cellular users pay for e-mail services even though they get free e-mail access at work and “free” e-mail at home (for which they also have to pay through a landline or broadband connection).
Comments