• by Steve Smith , Staff Writer @popeyesm, August 11, 2010

I can't imagine how much Qualcomm invested in the massive build out of its FLO TV mobile TV broadcast system. Originally aimed at the phone handset market several years ago, it promised to offload mobile video from the carriers' bandwidth-challenged data channels and deliver to phones broadcast-quality reception and resolution for live shows. In order to pull this off, FLO TV engaged in a costly acquisition of spectrum and placing radio devices on cell towers in major urban areas. Handsets from AT&T and Verizon hit the market essentially armed with TV tuners that could pull in pristine signals that allowed for much faster channel switching and better images than the existing mobile TV alternatives.

And it flopped. Even Qualcomm admits now that the results have been disappointing. And it was not for lack of trying or problems in the product. While coverage was catch as catch can, the actual responsiveness and video quality was good when the signal was strong. Live TV over mobile has some inherent weaknesses, in that the user often is dropping into a broadcast on the fly, and it is frustrating to fire up the tuner only to find yourself stuck in an ad pod. Mobile TV is also the kind of feature it is easy to forget you have. In the years I tested FLO TV units from AT&T and Verizon it never integrated with my daily mobile usage.

And so in order to retrieve some of that investment, Qualcomm is now trying to partner with other kinds of portable devices as platforms for mobile TV. A new Audiovox 7-inch portable DVD player will include the chipset and be able to receive a grid that included CNN Mobile, Fox News, Disney, Nick. The unit sells for $199 and comes with a free three-month trial of the TV service.

Theoretically putting a mobile TV chipset into portable media players and in-car video makes a lot of sense. On a practical level, however, the FLO TV model has the same problem on larger screens that it had on the handheld. It comes at a $14.99 a month premium. I think consumers generally shrink from the prospect of having to pay twice for a service they already get elsewhere. Even before the recession hit, there was evidence of "subscription fatigue" when it comes to content. With a cable bill, phone data plan, premium and pay-per-view charges, perhaps a premium movie channel or two, that Netflix account and now the prospect of even more online paid services like Hulu Plus there is only so much a consumer will stand.

For those who are old enough to recall over-air broadcast TV it feels scandalous to pay for the same kind of sparse collection of channels that once came through the ether when you turned on the old TV set. For the younger generation, the obvious question becomes, didn't I already pay CNN and Nick for their content on my cable bill? The business models still haven' caught up with consumers' basic common sense.