According to a study conducted by Ericsson and CNN, 34% of respondents ranked TV as the most in-demand application for their phones. About 44% said they are ready to adopt mobile TV in the next two years. I guess it’s time mobile operators start giving consumers what they want. Some of the current mobile TV applications out now–MobiTV, Sprint and Verizon’s VCast–leave a lot to be desired.

On my Sprint Mogul phone, I can’t receive Sprint TV at all, which is a crying shame. The Mogul is a Windows Mobile-based smartphone with EVDO and Wi-Fi connectivity. It’s an expensive phone with lots of advanced features. Yet I can’t get Sprint TV on it. Can someone please explain why this is the case? Fortunately, I can tune into videos on the mobile version of YouTube. But even then, I can’t watch just any video–they have to be popular, featured YouTube videos since they have to be converted from YouTube’s Flash-based video into something that can be viewed on my mobile phone.

I would definitely watch more TV on my phone if it was offered. Right now, my best bet is to download video onto my phone manually, store it on my phone and watch it later. That’s a slow, tedious process, when I should be able to watch streaming mobile TV right now.

Anyway, the report also said that 24% of current mobile TV users watch content daily with around half (52%) tuning in on a weekly basis. The most popular type of video was news (77%) followed by scheduled television at 48%. Among other findings were that 57% of consumers use mobile photo to send and receive images on a monthly basis, making it the most popular activity.

Technorati Tags: Ericsson, CNN, mobile TV, mobile video, Sprint TV, Sprint, Sprint Mogul, EVDO, MobiTV, YouTube, VCast

Popularity: 26% [?]

The combination of Internet advertising, Internet TV, mobile ads, game advertising and IPTV advertising will generate $41 billion in revenues by 2011, says research firm MultiMedia Intelligence.

In 2007, new media advertising will generate about $18 billion worldwide, which means ad revenues will more than double in five years.

The company says that three new categories–Internet TV, IPTV and mobile TV–will make up about 20% of media ad dollars in 2011. So far, advertising in these nascent media is pretty low.

Technorati Tags: IPTV, research, advertising, TV, DVR, new media, mobile TV

Popularity: 43% [?]

According to a white paper published by Cisco, global IP traffic will grow 37% every year through 2011.

Cisco said that consumer IP traffic will surpass business IP traffic in 2008, surpassing 17 exabytes per month by 2011. The paper says that delivering “cable and IPTV video-on-demand content” will grow the fastest, surpassing consumer internet traffic.

I’m not sure how Cisco is figuring this since IPTV today is delivered over privately managed networks, not the public Internet. Do they expect IPTV to travel over the Internet in the future? Or are they using IPTV when they mean Internet video?

Just trying to understand what everyone means by IPTV is getting harder every day. The standard definition for IPTV is essentially Telco TV, or broadcast TV delivered over privately, managed networks like DSL or Fiber to the node or Fiber to the home.  Here in the U.S. that means projects like AT&T’s U-Verse and Verizon’s FiOSTV.

Cisco’s report was based on its own estimates, as well as projections from10 market research companies.

Anyway, some other tidbits from the paper:

• Internet video and downloads will grow from 9% of all consumer Internet traffic in 2006 to 30% in 2011.
• Internet traffic is growing fastest in developing markets, followed closely by Asia-Pacific.
• Internet video-to-TV will increase by more than a factor of 10 from 2007 to 2011.
• Internet video-to-PC will increase by a factor of four. Internet video-to-TV will exceed Internet video-to-PC by 2009, the Cisco study forecasts.

Bonus: Download the Cisco White Paper here. (PDF)

Popularity: 44% [?]

In a follow-up to a previous post about Vint Cerf, I wanted to talk a little about a video I found on ValleyWag (and hosted on YouTube, naturally).

In this clip, Cerf talks more about delivering TV via IP (since he is one of the inventors of IP). He says that providers can deliver content delayed, which customers can watch later. Or they can get it faster than real-time.

ValleyWag says:

According to him, it would then be possible to serve content faster than real-time — it would take 16 seconds to download an hour’s worth of video on a 1 gigabit-per-second connection — which would eliminate strain on service providers and placate consumers seeking videos without jagged images and distorted sound. Or we could all just use BitTorrent.

Essentially, Cerf says that the Internet can be used as a distribution method or channel to deliver TV, much like Telecom operators are using closed IP networks to deliver networks around the world. And why not? I agree with Vint Cerf. Delivering TV via traditional networks just isn’t flexible enough nor can you get the interactivity that’s possible with IP delivery.

Since IPTV is more popular in Europe and Asia, people outside the U.S. are seeing the value to IP delivery. But most customers don’t even understand the difference. And that’s the way it should be. The delivery mechanism can be transparent, while providing added interactivity, new ways of watching and navigating TV and optimizing advertising. That’s what the dream of IPTV is all about.

Popularity: 16% [?]

A story from the AP called “New Web sites aim for TV experience” gives a rundown of some of the major companies looking to compete with TV. It’s a pretty basic article targeted at those who are new to Internet video, but I just wanted to pull out some tidbits. Like slogans of three new companies, Joost, Babelgum and Veoh:

• Joost: “The new way of watching TV”
• Babelgum: “TV experience, Internet substance.”
• Veoh: “VeohTV makes watching Internet as simple as watching television”

The article talks about how people are not ready to watch long-form video online. But it fails to note the “lean forward” aspect of watching TV over the Internet. That’s why PCs are better suited for short form video.

And people are getting accustomed to interacting with their computers differently, like doing work or checking e-mail. Watching videos isn’t something people sit down in front of their computers and expect to do for two hours.

Another good tidbit:

A poll conducted last September by The Associated Press and Time Warner Inc.’s AOL found that only one in five online video viewers have watched or downloaded a full-length movie or TV show.

Popularity: 21% [?]