Entertainment Services

Broadband wireless, at least in the United States, began as a purveyor of entertainment fare,
principally video programming, and at least one broadband wireless commercial service,
Digital Video Broadcast (DVB), is still striving to compete with cable and direct satellite in this
market, though scarcely at all in North America as yet. I wish them luck, but the prior history of
broadband wireless operators in this marketplace is not encouraging.
For the lower microwave operator to attempt to provide the same type of video programming
emanating from the cable networks and satellite broadcasters is generally a mistake.
Even with digital compression, the network will have difficulty supporting even 100 channels
in most instances and is likely to have to content itself with far fewer. Remember, cable operators
have potentially several gigahertz with which to work, of which most systems today utilize
at least 750MHz. The broadband wireless operator is lucky to have 200MHz and is more likely
to have 100MHz or less. If the network operator is committed to the notion of converged
services, which is probably the only business model that will succeed in the long run, then that
100MHz or less must be divided among several other services—basic access, VPNs, LAN extension,
telephony, conferencing, telemetry, and so on—and the decision to do video will leave
little bandwidth for anything else. To date, few subscribers to broadband services have signed
on primarily to get video, and very high bit rate DSL (VDSL), the one new two-way access
technology specifically designed to support video, has enjoyed at best limited success in the
marketplace.
At the same time, VDSL could provide a model for a video service with the potential for
success, one that would avoid the inherent constraints in the old MMDS model.
All broadband wireless video networks to date have resembled cable networks to the
extent that all channels were sent to all viewers simultaneously in just the same manner as traditional
over-the-air UHF and VHF television broadcasts, and, in a strictly one-way network
where the viewer cannot signal back to the studio, that is practically the only way to distribute
the content. But in a two-way network where each user is assigned some portion of the spectrum
for exclusive use, then the viewer need not tune up and down the spectrum at the
premises in order to select a program, and the program itself need not be assigned to any
particular channel. Instead, the tuning function could occur at the base station, and the
selected program would then be sent down a channel assigned to the subscriber rather than
to the program itself. In a sense this constitutes a form of video on demand (VOD) inasmuch as an individual
program is being sent to an individual subscriber, and indeed such a system could support
VOD in the strictest sense where a viewer selects from a library of prerecorded materials stored
on a video server. But it would also support the transmission of regularly scheduled programming
that would play continuously in studio and would then be accessed by individual
subscriber tuners located not on the subscriber premises but in the studio itself.
This discussion focuses on the mechanics of distribution and not the full business case for
doing video, and it must be noted that video incumbents, chiefly the cable operators and
secondarily the satellite broadcasters, enjoy advantages other than simply possessing very
wideband distribution pipes. Equally important are the mature relationships they enjoy with
content producers, a term that is generally synonymous with the studios. Major studios are
increasingly picky as to whom they choose to distribute their wares, in large part because of the
mounting incidence of piracy and unauthorized distribution, and independent broadband
operators have difficulty forging the same close relationships that the cable operators have
maintained for decades and the satellite operators have had for a single decade. Independents
can obtain popular content in a reseller arrangement through mPhase, a video-delivery platform
developer serving independent rural telcos seeking to get into the television business
with video over DSL, but they still have to meet certain criteria relating to network security, and
they are apt to pay considerably more than the big cable multiple service operators (MSOs) do
for the same content relative to the number of subscribers served. Another source of content is
the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), a trade organization for
independent telcos and cable companies.
In addition to the more familiar video programming consisting of episodic television
programming and feature films, many newer types of entertainment service offerings exist,
including multiplayer gaming, music on demand, Internet radio, and interactive television
shows. All of these have excited the interest of the telecom carrier community to varying
degrees, but none has proved to be a highly profitable business as yet. Wireless broadband
service providers should monitor the progress of new entertainment service offerings in the
marketplace and should strive to achieve first-mover advantages when such offerings appear
to be market ready. At the same time they should be cautious about entering a market too soon
or embracing highly speculative formats for which there is yet no demonstrated subscriber
demand.