Wired.com biased Mobile DTV Article

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#1
Me thinks wired.com writes headlines to sensationalize their stories and create biases

Americans Don’t Care About Mobile TV | Epicenter | Wired.com

A few quotes from, "Americans Don't Care About Mobile DTV",

So why, especially now that every broadcaster in the country is finally serving up free, digital, over-the-air television signals, aren’t cellphone manufacturers taking advantage of those free signals by incorporating DTV tuners into our phones?

Cellphones don’t even have TiVo. We’d watch every ad — especially during major sporting events, which don’t always keep until we get home to our big screens.
Although free digital television signals are omnipresent, the small percentage of Americans who want to watch mobile television are going to have to pay for it.

“Studies suggest that $15 per month is acceptable to a majority of the target audience, to avoid advertising and maintain quality of service [while] others argue that it needs to be free and ad-supported to really gain traction,” said Pulskamp. “Regardless, free-over air [broadcasts] will likely have a very slow uptake, and the very limited number of phones with tuners will make it even slower.”
So a few analysts are predicting that ota mobile dtv isn't going to go far...but I just don't get the reasoning behind the title of the article. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I saw the link for it on wired.com, clicked on it, and expected to see some polls and key research for consumers. Nothing. Just a bunch of analysts making assumptions.
 

Thomas G

Contributor
#2
you're just being picky. ;) if you think about it, we're all guilty of titling threads, posts, etc for getting people to click and read what we wrote. atleast wired used a few real analysts than asking some joe schmoe on the street like my local news stations do with absolutely no background on the subject their talking about.
 

O-O

DTVUSA Member
#3
Kind of agree with HT on this one. If the 3 of us keep posting in this area too, everyone's going to think we're fanboys. ;)
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#4
He eluded to one thing I have been saying. With cell companies in cohort with companies like FloTV just spent a bloody fortune to buy what was public resource to private hands. After all a lot of the content for TV on cell phones is being moved all the cell frequencies to our old ch 55, may she rest in pieces.

They are not going to put MPH receivers in cell phones, they are going to sell their Flo TV stuff for $10 a month or more.

I don't think the new generation wants a second device on their hip for MPH, if they already have a cell with Flo.

If there were a public out cry like for qwerty keyboards on phone that are really not PDAs but cells with "enhanced" texting, they would appear. I don't see or expect most of the population to even know MPH exists.

I am not predicting it, but I would not be surprised for it die on the vine either.

I think there should actually be a mandate for every market to have at least one station also transmitting MPH. It would be a untold benefit in a disaster scenario over just radio.

Actually here in FL we took a huge step back. Before, D Cells and a small portable you had TV. Now to get TV you need an inverter, DTV converter, antenna (built in ant won't work like we watched low band analog during hurricanes). Heck the antenna might blow over!

So we are back to using radios for emergencies.

The shear greed driving this country is now beyond control.

You can sell of frequencies to private corporations as the air waves are national resources. The same scenario would be to let companies clear cut national forests on a bid.

Don't get me started, wrong area of the forum..........
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#5
great points Piggie.

I guess I'm kind of old school when it comes to seeing things as they are. In reality, the article should have really been titled something different, like "Analysts predict that Mobile DTV will fail", or something along those lines.
 
Top