Reiter's Mobile TV Report

Crave U.K. disparages European mobile TV quality, praises FLO TV

Crave U.K. doesn’t like the progress and quality of mobile television in Europe, but has nice things to say about Qualcomm’s FLO TV when the writer visited the United States.

Crave writes: 

“Is TV on our mobile phones destined to suck?

“We were leaning towards yes, after failed attempts by BT and Virgin which went down quicker than a brick Titanic, and the EU-favoured DVB-H system, which is going nowhere fast.  TV on the Web has exploded, but we tried BBC iPlayer on the Nokia N96, and it was a jerky reminder that TV over 3G doesn't really work yet — and the networks are none too happy to be providing the pipe that gets clogged up with our daily fix of the boob tube.

“But on our recent trip over the pond, Qualcomm showed us how it can be done...if you've got a few years and the budget of a small oil-rich kingdom.”

FLO TV shows the way

Crave says that with an investment of about $800 million, transmitters across the U.S., an advanced control center and a satellite, FLO TV is showing “the rest of the world how it’s done.”  The article notes that Qualcomm wants to offer mobile TV to the U.K. and other countries in Europe, and owns a significant amount of spectrum in the U.K.

I wouldn’t think many European would be pleased with Crave’s reaction, even though, arguably, FLO is technologically superior to DVB-H.

As I’ve written previously, FLO TV has an uphill battle trying to provide mobile TV in Europe, where Qualcomm isn’t especially liked, to put it kindly.  European countries aren’t thrilled with further lining the pockets of the company that for many years has been exacting licensing fees for its cellular patents.

Also, the European Commission has blessed the DVB-H standard, although not every EU nation wants to march in lock-step.

PrimeTime2Go available for BlackBerrys, with some onerous restrictions

QuickPlay Media has just officially launched PrimeTime2Go (see below), its mobile television service for select BlackBerrys for the United States.  I haven’t tried it, but I will, despite some restrictions I don’t like.

As I previously wrote, PrimeTime2Go works, so far, with the BlackBerry Bold 9000 and Curve 8900 [courtesy of Research in Motion (RIM), I have both].  Programs are downloaded, not streamed, over Wi-Fi to a microSD card.  You can use cellular to browse the selection of programs, but not download them.

QuickPlay recommends a microSD card with a minimum of 512MB, which it says will store about 2.5 hours.  That’s two, one-hour shows and one, half-hour show, show (duh!), which isn’t much.  I have cards with up to 8GB, so I don’t have to worry too much….if I delete all the photos, music and podcasts!

By the way, QuickPlay says it only allows Wi-Fi downloads “to ensure you do not incur large data charges from your operator.”  Well, that might be somewhat true, and it certainly is much faster via Wi-Fi than pokey EDGE or even AT&T’s 3G (no 3G Bold or 8900 for T-Mobile). 

However, it’s also true that cellular operators don’t want users to “strain” their networks with large downloads.  So QuickPlay and RIM want to “play nice” with the operators.

Crummy expiration deadlines

Now that PrimeTime2Go is live, there are more details about the service.  In my previous article, I had some questions, and some have been answered.

For example, QuickPlay says the expiration period for programs is, typically, two or three weeks.  However, that time could be different depending on the program.  QuickPlay says, “In some cases, episodes may be removed from your SD Card due to a 28 hour availability.”  What?!

Frankly, if I’m paying for the service, I would not be pleased if the show I downloaded couldn’t be played, but that, apparently, is indeed the case — especially if it’s available for 28 hours!

PayPal or nothing

The mobile TV service costs $7.99 per month.  It’s available only by downloading the software (including the proprietary video player) from RIM’s BlackBerry App World.  Payment is only through PayPal. which is the only way to pay for App World software. 

I’d much prefer PrimeTime2Go — and other BlackBerry apps — would be available through the developer’s Web site.  Also, although I have a PayPal account, I’ve used it only once because I don’t know if I trust PayPal’s security; perhaps I’m too cautious.

To cancel the PrimeTime2Go subscription, you must log onto your PayPal account and cancel the service from PayPal’s “transactions” section.  PrimeTime2Go will continue to work for the remainder of the month for which you’ve previously been billed.

Types of programs

As I’m sure you expect, watching videos doesn’t help your battery life!  QuickPlay says watching a half hour show will decrease battery life by about ten percent.

PrimeTime2Go offers, as of today, 48 programs from 17 networks.  There are a variety of categories, including drama, comedy, news, children and nature.

I can see where this might be useful for some people who are on the road, working long hours, and want to watch, for example, ABC “World News,” “ABC Nightline” or other programs late at night or early in the morning.  You can configure the PrimeTime2Go app to download programs automatically.

I’ll have to check it out.  Too bad there’s not even a minimum free trial period for, say, one to three days.

Update (5/6/09):  Very early this morning I tried to download the PrimeTime2Go client on my Bold over T-Mobile (with Wi-Fi enabled), but it wasn’t in the BlackBerry App World online store.  It wasn’t in the “Music & Video” section — where the PrimeTime2Go Web site said it would be — and I couldn’t find “PrimeTime2Go” by using the App World’s search function.  So, my first try was a fail.

Yes, I have the latest version of App World.

Ovum sees greater use of mobile TV, but still small numbers

Market research firm Ovum says compared to its survey in June 2008, its most recent survey shows more people are using and interested in mobile television, although those numbers are still small.

“We believe that some of this renewed or new interest is being drive by high-speed, flat-rate data plans, an open-garden approach and the availability of free content,” Ovum says.  “But mobile players still face substantial barriers in taking mobile video to the mass market.”

Ovum says 74 percent of people surveyed said they never watch online videos or television on their cellular phones, but 18 percent said they watched at least once a month and 12 percent said they watched once a week or more.  “In itself, this is not a bad result for the mobile phone industry,” the research firm says.  In the June survey, only four percent of respondents said they used their phones to watch online videos or TV.

More encouraging stats

The firm’s survey reports 37 percent wouldn’t want to watch videos on the move.  However, Ovum says the implication is 63 percent would be interested.  Obviously, there are many levels of interest.

Ovum says the good news 63 percent is “surprisingly high” for indicating some level of interest.  “Therefore, get the content, business model and form factor right, and the demand will follow.”

I believe Ovum is correct.  But it’s easier said than done.

Free is good, paid is a problem

I’ve always believed — contrary to most analysts — that people want to use their cellular phones for the same functions as on their computers, in addition to mobile-specific functions.  I’ve never thought it was a question of desire, but, rather, a question of either not being able to accomplish a task at all or not being able to accomplish it with sufficient ease on a phone.

Interestingly, Ovum says about video that “users want to replicate their fixed Internet experience on the mobile Internet.”  The survey notes that 73 percent of respondents say the main appeal of Internet video is it’s free.

“We believe that this is also a growing trend on mobile as well.  Users will, of course, pay the traffic or data fee, but not for the content itself.  Mobile players will need to segment their offerings and encourage access to free sites to generate mobile broadband traffic, offering some advertising-supported content and providing premium content packages where possible.

“The former will target the mass market, while the latter will appeal to a smaller segment of users,” Ovum says.

No surprises

I certainly don’t find this reaction surprising.  Whether you like it or not — and many businesses certainly do not — people are used to receiving a huge amount of free content on the Internet, and they rebel against paying for the same content on their phones.  This isn’t always the case, of course, but it’s certainly a problem for cellular operators, content providers, etc.

Many mobile TV content providers/aggregators offer at least some free content.  MobiTV and FLO TV (formerly MediaFLO) offer free channels with some cellular operators, that are available on mobile TV-compatible phones.  I’ve always thought cellular operators should have offered some free TV and videos from the start of their services.  They’re learning <g>!

It’s also no surprise that the top reason consumers don’t like to watch videos on the phones is the size of the screen.  Duh!  Ovum says 69 percent of people surveyed said it was a deciding factor.

“Short term” problem

Ovum says, “There are now more phones optimised for viewing video and mobile TV on the market than ever before, but naturally there will always be limitations on the mobile screen size in comparison to the PC or laptop, which will ultimately limit the mobile phone’s role in video consumption — at least in the short term.”

I’m glad Ovum wrote “short term” because I believe technology will be able to solve — for many situations — the problem of screen size.  As I’ve written in my InternetEvolution column, which often examines the future of wireless Internet, technological developments, such as microprojectors incorporated into phones and eyeglass displays (see below), will eventually ameliorate the problem of small screens.

Also, I expect that once the “formula” for mobile TV use is discovered (free TV?), many consumers will accept larger, higher resolution screens.  We’ve already seen this with the Apple iPhone.

Dutch computer/mobile expert replies to my comments about his mobile TV article

Dutch computer/wireless entrepreneur Dennis Hattema has replied to my comment about his dislike of mobile television — and he both agrees and disagrees with me.

A few days ago Dennis wrote that he doesn’t like mobile TV for a variety of reasons — tiny screen, poor content, commercials, etc.

I agreed with some of his comments (I don’t always take my phone’s headphones either), but generally promoted the value of mobile TV.  I also noted that perhaps “mobile TV” should be called “mobile video” because traditional television might not be the future of cellular television.

Also, I didn’t understand what Dennis meant when he said he couldn’t see text on his parents’ 13 inch TV, let alone see it on a tiny cellular phone screen.  In his reply to my comments Dennis explains that as a Dutchman currently living in Sweden, many programs in English are subtitled and he can’t read subtitles on a phone.

Viewing text

Hey, Dennis, if you don’t know the language, don’t blame mobile TV! 

(Actually, Dennis knows many more languages than I.  I learned ancient Greek — so I could speak to people who are 3,000 years old [and don’t remember any of it], Latin — so I could speak to people 2,000 years old [and don’t remember any of that, either], and “modern” French — that would indeed be useful….if I remembered more than six minutes of my six years of classes.  Dennis certainly knows Dutch [duh!] and English and probably another language or two.  I barely know, uh, one language well enough not to be completely embarrassed by speaking and writing it.)

I have actually be able to read some subtitles on mobile TV, even on small cellular screens, such as when news scrolls across Fox News.  However, I certainly do not recommend the experience (either trying to puzzle out the tiny scrolling text or Fox News’ right wing blather) to anyone.

Rotten programs, commercials

Dennis also disparages regular TV programs — and, by association, mobile TV — because he notes, “I find 99% of current TV programming boring.”  I completely agree.  In fact, I find 99 percent too low a percentage!

However, I find some programs I like — either on the Web or on mobile TV — often on-demand.

He also doesn’t like the commercials.  Neither do I, especially since there are more and more commercials and crummier and crummier programs.  I guess the good news is you don’t have to watch so much of the awful programs because there are more commercials!

I do think, though, as I have previously written, that many people will suffer through commercials on mobile TV if they aren’t so long as to become onerous.  A ten-second commercial for a 90–second video might be acceptable; a 30–second commercial for the same 90 second is too long.

Commercials’ problems

U.S. news programs offer many news clips on the Web but, unfortunately, the commercials sometimes are too long in relation to the length of the clip.  So far, mobile TV-specific commercials aren’t too long, although if you’re watching live TV you also have to watch the regular commercials.

That last point — watching regular commercials on live mobile TV programs — could be a problem.  Yes, we are conditioned to watching, accepting (or at least tolerating to some extent) commercials on TV (Tivo notwithstanding).

But it’s different when you’re watching live streaming mobile TV — typically in a “mobile” (duh) environment — where having to watch two, three, four or even more minutes of commercials at a time is a pain.  If you’ve got ten minutes to watch mobile TV news, will you spend (i.e., waste) 30 percent, 40 percent of that time watching commercials?

Mobile TV versus mobile video

Dennis does agree with my comment about human beings enjoying information in video format and also that the success of mobile TV is, possibly, dependent upon providing a different experience than today’s traditional TV programs.  He writes, “ Not talking about mobile TV but about mobile video might create an opening for this exciting market.”

Dennis says video on the Web is typically based upon the on-demand model with fewer or no commercials and is highly targeted.  For mobile TV (or whatever you want to call it) to succeed, Dennis says the format has to be different than traditional TV.

I think that makes a lot of sense, but I also think traditional TV, such as live news from CNN, MSNBC (and I’d love live BBC World News and other similar news programs for mobile TV in the U.S.) and live sporting events might be successful even with commercials.

Dutch computer/mobile entrepreneur writes why he doesn't like mobile TV

Dennis Hettema, a Dutch computer/mobile entrepreneur writes in his weblog about “The only true reason why mobile TV doesn’t make sense.”

Unlike some analysts and journalists who disparage mobile television without knowing much about what they’re saying, Hettema’s opinion shouldn’t be dismissed.  He’s established a few technology companies, including the barcode-type firm OP3 (see above left) and an international collaborative outsourcing company gnomic, and even written a few times for my camera phone weblog here, here and here.

Sparked to write about mobile TV by a Swedish promotion offering about six free months of mobile TV, Dennis first lists what he says are obvious reasons why he doesn’t like mobile TV:

“*  My TV needs to be bigger, not smaller
“*  My parents have a 13” TV in the kitchen and I can’t read any text for the life of me
“*  I usually forget my headphones
“*  The TV programming schedule never-ever suits my travel schedule….”

In reply to Dennis…

Yes, Dennis, I’d like a bigger TV, too.  I’d also like many of my cellular phone conversations to be better quality, but that’s not a reason for me to discount the value of mobile voice. 

One of my TVs also happens to be 13 inches, but when I watch it I look at the programs, not much text.  I have no problem reading text on my phones with large screens, such as BlackBerrys and Nokia Nseries products.

I admit that I, too, sometimes forget to take my headphones/earphones and that can be a problem when you don’t want to use the speaker in public. 

As for the mobile TV schedule not suiting your travel schedule, well, perhaps there’s not too much that can be done about that.  But there is video on demand mobile TV. 

Dennis’ last argument

However, I’m not sure I understand Dennis’ last argument against mobile TV.  His concluding argument:  “Which brings me to this last point, it is so blatantly obvious, its obviousness seems to defy the possibility of putting it into words.  There is simply no way I can do it justice so I’ll just use a random quote I found describing the point.”

He uses a quote from Wired magazine about advertisers willing to do anything to target 18 year olds to 34 year olds “that are abandoning television in droves….” 

Is Dennis saying that the target market is watching TV less and less and, therefore, mobile TV is based upon a dying medium and doomed to fail?  Perhaps fewer people are watching TV in favor of surfing the Web (I certainly am), but if that’s what he’s saying, there’s still lots of life left in TV — especially if you redefine “TV.”

What’s “TV”?

“TV” isn’t “TV” any more.

The young(er) adult market isn’t abandoning videos and many other TV programs.  Hit shows are still hit shows.

Also, if they’re leaving TV for the Web, it’s not just to read text.  The market is watching video — lots of video — whether it’s user-generated YouTube-type stuff or TV shows streamed on the network Web sites.

Overlooking human nature

The television programs of today don’t have to be the television (and mobile television) programs of tomorrow. 

Mobile TV naysayers just don’t seem to understand an “obvious” fact:  Human beings obtain information and entertainment by, in great part, watching moving images combined with audio.  That’s not changing. 

We are watching even more “moving pictures” than just a few years ago.

What’s in a name?

Those 18 to 34 year olds are just watching TV and videos in more locations and on more types of hardware, whether it’s on a computer screen, a portable music/video player or a wide screen TV connected to a Tivo. 

Could a three-minute video interview on a cellular phone be considered “TV”?  Of course it could be.

Perhaps we shouldn’t use the term “mobile TV.”  Perhaps we should use the more encompassing phrase of “mobile video.”

But regardless of what we use, human nature will win out.  We will use use cellular phones to watch an enormous amount of video.  It’s what we want to do.

Mirics says poor handset was main reason for Virgin Mobile's mobile TV demise

In late July Virgin Mobile announced it was ending its mobile television service and I wrote that according to some articles a main reason for its demise was the sole, clunky phone available for the service.  A recent article in Electronics Weekly reports that Mirics Semiconductor also says the main — but not only — reason was the phone.

Another reason was Virgin used Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB-IP) because spectrum for other protocols, such as DVB-H or MediaFLO, isn’t yet available in the U.K.

Ralph Weir, the vice president of sales and marketing at U.K.-based Mirics, says in the article, “There's actually nothing wrong with DAB-IP, but they were restricted to only 30 per cent of a DAB multiplex.  But the real problem is down to the handset — the Lobster is very uncool.”

Ungainly handset

There’s no doubt that the style of cellular phones is a huge reason consumers pick one handset over another with the same features.  Even relatively large phones can generate lots of good buzz and cult followings — such as Palm’s Treo and Apple’s iPhone — if they’re great products.  Virgin’s Lobster was, unfortunately, as unattractive to consumers as its name.

Mirics recently received $12 million in financing and develops multi-protocol (e.g., DMB, DVB-H, ISDB, AM/FM) product modules (such as receivers) for broadcast and mobile TV and radio.

U.K. soccer player Frank Lampard gets mobile TV channel on Orange

Frank Lampard, a Britisher who spends his vocational time in short pants while he runs back and forth across a field trying to kick a ball into a net (yawn), has gotten his own mobile television channel from U.K. cellular operator Orange, according to an article in The Guardian.

Lampard is a famous soccer player for the Chelsea Football Club and the article describes the exciting “Frank TV” content thusly:  “The footage includes banter between players in the Chelsea dressing room and follows Lampard chatting to Ronaldhino as he collects his runner-up prize at the World Player of the Year awards.

“At home, he is depicted putting wrapped presents under the tree for his daughter on Christmas Day, playing with his dogs and cooking brussels sprouts.  In one clip he admits how much he loves his food, but hurriedly adds that he plans to run it off the following day.”

Phone-averse?

Other Frank TV clips include interviews with his father, his cousin (a former soccer player), a “fan” and the Chelsea masseur.  “In a scene that will go down less well with his sponsors, Lampard's father and Redknapp both reveal that his worst failing is his inability to return either calls or text messages,” The Guardian says.

Lampard has a “six figure” contract with Orange for the mobile TV videos and personal appearances.  He has a blog, of sorts (see below), on Orange’s “football” Web page.

Whether cellular subscribers will find Frank TV to be compelling, I can’t say.  But much as I consider watching sporting events or listening to athletes to be an indication of the low I.Q. of the human race, there’s little doubt that sports is one of the most popular mobile TV categories. 

Sports as mobile TV savior?

It certainly makes sense that avid sports fans would want to view sports videos, especially live events.  More’s the pity.

The Guardian, one of my favorite newspapers for mobile communications articles, a few days ago, published a story with the headline:  “Can football save mobile tv?”  Writing about the broadcasting of the Barclays Premier League on Sky Mobile TV, that I discussed a week ago, The Guardian says that mobile TV sports package is a good deal for five pounds per month ($10.16).

“But mobile television is likely to remain a niche pursuit.  Watching a live football match on a mobile phone will always be a last resort.  The fear of racking up big data bills, a problem that the networks are only now addressing with ‘all you can eat’ monthly data packages, has also acted as a drag on take-up,” the article says.

Some optimism

However, the article doesn’t paint a completely dismal picture.  It notes that advertising could be a major stimulus because subscribers might not care too much about the poor video quality if mobile TV is free.

Also, the article says Italy, Japan and South Korea have shown there is a market for mobile TV.  The Guardian says a key enabler is better quality video that could be accomplished with, for example, DVB-H or WiFi.

“In the meantime mobile TV will remain a minority interest.  The demise of BT Movio and the lack of available spectrum are liable to hamper take-up for some time to come, but the mobile networks have enough cash, and enough determination, to make it a mainstream pursuit as handsets and picture quality improve — even if it is not the must-have cash cow they once envisaged.”

Coping with sound, aspect ratio, cost of producing mobile TV programs

MoCo.News posted an interesting article about techniques for creating programs for mobile television, including the types of programs that are easiest to display as well as problems with such parameters as aspect ratio, sound and cost.

The information, from an article from Mad.co.uk (requiring a subscription to read), notes that game shows and talent contests are relatively easy to port and display on cellular while dramas are much more difficult.

The article, according to MoCo.News' summary, focuses on the BBC's efforts at mobile TV, including developing cellular mobisodes (or "tardisodes"; see "tardis") from the new Dr. Who series.  One problem is the aspect ratio, that's 4:3 for a cellular phone screen and 16:9 for a television.

Jo Pearce, the BBC interactive producer, says, "So for Doctor Who’s 'Attack of the Graske' and Tardisodes, we shot everything 16:9 but made it all 4:3 safe."

Sound and drama

Another difficulty is the poor sound sound quality on mobile television.  It's not just the quality of speech -- that isn't necessarily a problem -- but also the way sound creates an atmosphere in a production.

Also, some scenes that work well, visually, for a regular television, look awful on cellular, and those scenes have to be dealt with, such as reshot.  That, of course, requires more money.

Drama is the most expensive to shoot, according to the article.  The BBC notes the cost can be offset by using the same sets, for example, for both the TV and mobile videos.

As Pearce notes about producing the tardisodes, "It’s crucial to piggyback off the main production as much as we can."

Writing isn't the stumbling block

Interestingly, the talent for writing for mobile TV could be the same as for regular TV.  Lee Hardman, the head of Conker Media (that offers cellular videos), says, "Storytelling skills are transferable, as is an understanding of narrative."

Helen Brunsdon, a broadcast and development manager at Conker, says, "Whatever works on mobile phones should work on a TV or cinema screen.  A good idea is a good idea regardless of where you see it.

"We’re driven by character and ideas regardless of the output device."

Yes, but...

I can understand that a great story could be great whether it's watched on a giant screen HDTV or cellular.  However, a great story that can be shot for regular TV might not display well on cellular.

So writers for mobile TV will have to understand the limitations of that medium (poor resolution screens, poor contrast, blurring of fast action, etc.) in order to create a high quality video.

Wireless journalist says better interface, not just content, is key to business

Steve Smith, the editor of Wireless Business Forecast, says a better user interface -- not necessarily leading-edge content -- is a key to getting more people to watch mobile television, according to an article he wrote for MobileInsider.

Smith discusses the upcoming mobile TV series, "The Pool," distributed by Fun Little Movies (FLM) on Sprint, that will be advertised by Toyota.  I wrote about that a few days ago.

Smith interviewed Brad Gillingham, FLM's CEO, who says Toyota says "gets" what viewers want:  Male, youth-oriented comedy with not too many Toyota commercial placements.

Gillingham says, "They are a pretty sophisticated audience.  They know when they are being had.  We don't want that to happen."

Content not always king

But will a well produced show do an effective job of promoting mobile TV and capturing subscribers?  Smith says no, in part because people have to change their habits and first be reminded that mobile TV is even available.

"Mobile video is going to have to be more than just good.  It is going to have to be insistent, to find some way to push the stuff we really want to the top of the deck and remind us to watch....

"The phone deck is the worse interface this side of the microwave oven.  Why would I want to navigate it just to tease up the right video from a relentless set of menus?

"What I would prefer is the ability to subscribe to mobisodes and have them float to the top of the deck and present themselves to me much as they do on my iPod after it synchs up, or my TiVo."

Better user control, marketing

I've written before that mobile TV's navigational capabilities are awful and subscribers should have much more control over how they manage their programs. 

Companies creating cellular operating systems, such as Qualcomm (BREW), Nokia (Symbian OS) and Microsoft (Windows Mobile 5.0), spend a huge amount of time and money crafting increasingly sophisticated operating systems. 

These companies necessarily have to provide the user interfaces their cellular operator customers demand.  Unfortunately, the "user" part of the interface often gets short shrift because subscribers aren't given enough navigational flexibility.

Look toward Tivo?

Smith concludes, "My first guess is that mobile video should spend less time worrying about content and more time figuring out delivery.  Impulsively, mobile keeps looking to the Web for precedents.

"I think the medium might do well to look instead at TiVo."

Strategy Analytics says Vodafone mobile TV beats ROK, Three, but needs work

Based on Strategy Analytics U.K.'s Advanced User Panel findings, Vodafone Live! Mobile TV in the U.K. beats ROK TV and Three's MobiTV in all the categories measured, but mobile TV still has a ways to go before consumers are really happy with it, according to the press release on 3G.co.uk.

In the four categories -- audiovisual quality, usability, network performance and content -- Vodafone received an average of 65 points out of 100, compared to 60 for ROK and 56 for Three (see below).  (When I was going to school, 65 percent was the lowest grade you could get and still pass.)

The release says "technical difficulties" made it impossible for the panel's participants to fully evaluate Orange's mobile TV in the U.K.  An article in Pocket-lint says there were problems with video caching of the Nokia 6680 phones used in the test.

The press release notes "participants expressed mixed reactions to the overall concept of Mobile TV.  Many participants were less than impressed with current offerings, citing poor perceived audiovisual quality and device limitations as key barriers to adoption."

Results

Vodafone received 61 for audiovisual quality, 68 for usability, 66 for network performance and 63 for content.  Three had the lowest scores for audiovisual quality, 51, and network performance, 47. 

ROK got the lowest score for usability, 64, and content, 56.  An article on the Inquirer Web site notes that ROK uses 2.5G technology.  "That meant that 3 was actually rated worse for audiovisual quality even though its 3G service is much faster," the article says.

I guess these results have some value judging the U.K. mobile TV services on a relative scale -- and depending upon the expertise of the panel's members.   Pocket-lint says there were 34 participants.

The bottom line is obvious:  Mobile TV requires a lot more work to get it ready for prime time mass market consumption.