I feel sorry for the folks at the Open Mobile Video Coalition. Their marching orders are to come up with something really cool that uses some of TV broadcasters’ spectrum. As I wrote while discussing its possibly pay-TV cousin Dyle, the side-effect is to make that spectrum appear more valuable when the FCC and wireless internet companies want to buy it back. What the OMVC has failed to create is a need for mobile video, or a compelling case that the public wants to buy specialized devices for watching it.

Maybe someone has heard this lament, because the OMVC released a report yesterday detailing the non-real time applications for its technology. (The PDF of the report is available here; the news release PDF about the report is here.) So what else can mobile TV do? Collect video clips to be stored on the device’s memory, collect software updates, and act as an emergency alert notifier.

“Clipcasting” video for later viewing is almost an acknowledgement of one of my problems with mobile TV: You only need it when you’re moving, but TV reception is always poor in subways and often bad in trains and buses. If that’s a problem, then a solution is to watch stored video. But nowadays, if you want video podcasts or TV programs, there are lots of ways to add to your phone. OMVC’s embrace of video push technology reminds me a lot of PointCast, one of the first internet fads. If your memory stretches back to 1998 or so, you’ll remember how that turned out.

Software updates would be great for any standalone mobile TV viewer, but no one’s going to be interested in a standalone mobile TV viewer. Mobile TV will work only if it’s available on the smartphone that’s already in your pocket. But if it’s a smartphone, then you’re getting updates to all of its apps over the internet, so you won’t need TV-based updates.

The emergency beacon is the best use listed in this set of non-real time uses of mobile TV, but really we’re talking mostly about a real-time signal. As the OMVC report concludes, “Mobile TV played a key role in the safety of millions of people during last year’s Japan earthquakes, with virtually every cell phone in Japan serving as a Mobile TV warning device seconds before the earthquake reached heavily populated areas.” Except most of that functionality could be accomplished adding an inexpensive radio chip to cell phones.

A big reason I complain about this is that I love mobile portable TV. About 30 years ago, I hauled around a 5-inch screen embedded in a suitcase of electronics (including multiple C batteries) that was larger and heavier than any laptop I’ve ever used. As technology progressed, I upgraded to a Sony Watchman, which had a smaller screen but could be held in one hand. Both of these TVs made great friends for me when I’d bring them to sporting events to watch replays, and they were useful for picnics, other occasional outdoor activities, and whenever the electricity went out. Even then, I never tried to watch while in a moving vehicle. These days, my portable is a rechargeable 7-inch RCA model. As long as I hold still as I watch, it should satisfy my portable TV needs for years to come. Sorry OMVC, but you’re still pitching a solution in search of a problem.

Photo by jeff_golden

Bob Garfield wrote a column this week about the withering of the Big 4 broadcast networks. He concludes, “The question, therefore, should not be how the Big 4 can cure what ails them. They cannot cure what ails them.” Go read the whole thing, then come back so we can talk about it.

Most of Garfield’s points are absolutely right. As I mentioned awhile back, viewer fragmentation is keeping broadcast TV alive. As viewers scatter, advertisers can still find them in the largest groups watching broadcast channels.

But I disagree that the Big 4 absolutely cannot create breakout hits like Mad Men or Game of Thrones. At its peak, Lost drew over 20 million viewers but Mad Men has trouble reaching 4 million. What does that make, say, The Mentalist with over 14 million viewers? A hit? Mediocre?

The scale and the stakes are different for cable networks than they are for broadcast. The scale is obvious; Fox swiftly cancelled Firefly (4.5 million viewers), but on FX, The Shield ran for seven years (2-3 million).

The different stakes are not so obvious. Broadcast networks need to get acceptable overall ratings to keep their affiliates and advertisers happy. Cable networks need a big hit or two to ensure that customers subscribe to their channels, but the rest of the lineup can be retreads, reruns and filler.

The kicker is that six corporations own all major broadcast and cable networks. So losing a viewer from broadcast to cable doesn’t subtract money from a corporation’s profit, it just shifts it from one pocket to another.

Considering all this, broadcast network programming choices make a lot more sense. Competition and reality shows are cheap to make, and some of them become hits anyway. There’s no need to try to fill the schedule with high-quality scripted programming. If you go too lax and overall ratings suffer enough to rile the affiliates (see: NBC), then bump up the quality and get back in the ratings pack.

In other words, the Big 4 can cure a lot of what ails them. There’s no reason they can’t spend money and take chances to make the next Lost or 24. But it’s a lot safer for the Big 4 to avoid all that. They simply don’t care that much about finding a new cure.

The past couple of weeks have underlined just how important broadcast TV can be.

First came Sandy, which wreaked havoc in the Northeast. Millions of people were left without electricity, so the internet was pretty much unavailable. Cell phones ran out of juice, and that was when they were near cell towers that were still working. In the middle of all this, people stayed as warm as they could and watched battery-powered TVs and radios for news and entertainment. As Phil Kurz wrote in Broadcast Engineering Blog, “Even as this week’s hurricane should raise serious doubts about the reliability of cellular service in an emergency, television broadcasters continue to transmit lifesaving alerts and information to the public.”

Then came Tuesday’s election, which drowned out most of the discussion of the performance of the internet during the returns. Analytic sites such as Electoral-Vote.com beefed up with extra servers but were still swamped. Long-standing media sites such as CNN saw page loads slow to a crawl, when they worked at all. During all that, the broadcast and cable news channels kept a constant update of the latest information.

The internet and broadcast should complement each other. Nothing matches the drill-down, on-demand information that the internet can provide, and so far, nothing matches the one-to-many outreach that broadcast TV supplies. As the wireless industry works to wrest away chunks of free TV spectrum, we should remember that a lot of times, wireless is cool, but broadcasting is important.