Fans Must Pay $3.99 to Watch NCAA Hoops via Mobile Devices

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and now there’s no such thing as free access to the NCAA Men’s basketball tournament for mobile devices. According to an extremely unclear press release and FAQ released today, it appears you will have to pay $3.99 for access to the games via the March Madness application, whether you are using it on a PC or on a mobile platform, including Apple iPhones and iPads as well as Android-based devices.

Since it’s early and we haven’t had coffee yet this post might have later corrections but for right now here’s how it apparently breaks down: If you want to watch the games for free you have to go to the broadcasters websites. According to the press release you won’t be charged for the Turner-broadcast games if you can validate that you have a cable TV plan that includes the Turner Networks TBS, TNT and truTV. We are guessing that most people with a standards sports cable package will be covered, but you might need to check your plan. And right now there is no info on how that validation will happen. CBS says it will show all its broadcast games on CBSSports.com for free.

But if you want to use a mobile device to watch games online via the March Madness application, which includes a lot of bracket info and other goodies, the free lunch is over. It’ll cost you a one-time fee of $3.99, after which you will get a logon to use over any other device or platform you want. Apparently there is some messiness involved with using Android devices, and I am sure this won’t be the last post we do on the subject since the press release and FAQ look like they were also written without coffee or at least a decent proofreader.

If you want to try to avoid the $3.99 fee there is apparently some promotion coming next week involving Coke Zero where they will grant some folks free access, probably for surrendering your email address and your first-born child. Our quick prediction is that this news will cause howls of pain from the general hoops-loving public, who will start to wonder about government inquiries into the NCAA and its business practices. Maybe it’s time for coffee. And a search through the couch cushions for $3.99.

Apple has Sold 55 Million iPads

Company believes that they will soon outpace PC sales
The pace at which new technology gets adopted seems to be faster than ever, or it might be more accurate to say that once it is popularized it gets adopted faster than ever, as Apple showed when it revealed the sales numbers of its popular iPad tablets.

The iPad is not the first, or even the second tablet to hit the market, attempts have been ongoing for more than a few decades including Alan Kay’s Dynabook computer concept, Motion Computing’s Tablet PCs, and the Microsoft PC Tablet to name just a few.

There are a number of failed attempts over the past years, in part because the technology was just not there in terms of enabling developers to create fully functional devices that were lightweight, tough and yet could rival a computer.

However that issue is a thing of the past and tablet sales have been growing at a tremendous rate- according to a recent report from market analyst firm BI Intelligence, tablet sales are expected to hit 500 million units a year by 2015. The firm estimates that tablets will be a $100 billion market and surpass PC sales by a good percentage- it believes PC sales will be approximately 360 million units. No wonder Intel is working so hard to enter this space.

So how is Apple doing in this space you wonder? Well according to Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO the number is around 55 million units. He revealed the number during a presentation at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference.

He attributed the healthy ecosystem for the iPad platform as being very important for the growth and said that there were 170,000 apps that have been optimized for the platform as well as peoples previous experience with the iPhone.

He said that since its introduction he and others at Apple have believed that in the long run tablets would outsell PCs. As a user he said that he now spends between 80-90% of his time on an iPad. He said that it is cannibalizing Mac sales but if someone is going to do that he prefers it be Apple.

To put the sales figures in prospective with other Apple products Slashgear points out that it took Apple three years to sell that many iPhones and 22 years to sell that many Macintosh computers.

LTE iPads, More Mobile Data: Who’s Going to Pay for All This?

Two stories in the news today — the potential of LTE-enabled iPads and new projections for mobile data growth — seemed to me to be closely related and both lacking a final explanation: Who’s gonna pay for all the new toys and bandwidth?

As sports fans know, the Apple iPad and its imitators are great devices for watching sports on the go. The screen is big enough to approximate a TV experience, and the device is light enough to not be a bother. And the 4G LTE networks from Verizon Wireless, AT&T and soon from Sprint will make mobile video better thanks to faster download speeds and overall better behind-the-scenes technology.

But my question again — who’s going to pay for all this? At what point do we decide we’ve got enough devices, and that we’re not going to pay premiums just to get content whenever we want it? Are the devices and services so alluring that consumers will simply find a way to budget for them, or are they giving other things up from their disposable income buckets? Or will we see a backlash soon?

For all the heat the two stories have generated in the tech news world, my guess is that both are slightly overrated. Since LTE data contracts still remain fairly expensive — right now Verizon is charging $80 a month for 10 GB of data, its highest plan for tablets — I think folks might buy an LTE-enabled iPad for the convenience but will probably go for the lower-priced plans and use Wi-Fi whenever they can, especially when watching things like sports. Some smart guy already reported that Verizon’s 4G LTE phones aren’t big sellers because there isn’t anything compelling enough to make people pay a premium for the service. I think the LTE iPads will follow a similar lukewarm adoption curve.

On the mobile-data projections there are already some signs that Cisco’s predictions have shot past reality; AT&T, for example, said that its most recent figures showed data use growing more slowly than previously predicted. With cellular services prices expected to remain constant or rise even higher, my guess is that people may want to consume mobile data at the rate Cisco predicts but budgetary pressure will keep it from happening until lower-cost Wi-Fi networks reach out to more places than coffee shops and airport waiting lounges.

What will be really interesting to see is what happens if the LTE iPads fly off the shelves and crowd the networks, bringing back the original iPhone network jams. Think that won’t happen? Want to bet on it?

AT&T: Super Bowl Crowd Breaks Wireless Data-Sending Records

It was expected to be one of the biggest wireless-data events ever, and according to AT&T the folks attending Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis Sunday didn’t disappoint, with AT&T’s customers breaking company records for wireless communications from the big game.

According to statistics provided by AT&T, customers using AT&T smartphones, tablets and other devices inside Lucas Oil Stadium accounted for a total of 215 GB of wireless data traffic, an increase of almost 40 GB from Super Bowl XLV, even though there were almost 35,000 fewer fans at the game this year. Customers also uploaded more data to the network than they downloaded by a wide margin Sunday, 125 GB to 90 GB, likely signifying that AT&T users were busy sending photos, videos and messages out from the stadium to Internet sites or to friends who weren’t in attendance.

The surge in data traffic doesn’t even include any data sent over the Wi-Fi or DAS networks AT&T put in place in downtown Indy outside the stadium to ensure that fans had access to a good connection no matter where they were in the vicinty of the game. According to AT&T’s math the data represent an 82 percent increase in data use per person in attendance, a staggering amount of growth for a practice that even just a couple years ago was basically unheard of.

Given the data surge it’s perhaps no surprise that voice calls, voice minutes and text message totals all dropped from the previous year’s game, perhaps also due to the fact that Cowboys Stadium had 103,219 in attendance for Super Bowl XLV while there were just 68,658 in attendance at the smaller Lucas Oil Stadium Sunday. According to AT&T there were only 722,296 text messages sent by its customers Sunday, down from 2,090,099 sent the previous year. Voice calls and voice minutes were down 59 percent and 57 percent respectively, from 183,216 calls to 75,204 calls and 181,606 minutes to 78,133 minutes. The stats here are only for AT&T’s 2G, 3G and LTE networks inside the stadium itself, over a 7-hour window around the actual game.

In addition to the wide array of technical enhancements AT&T made in and around the stadium over the past year AT&T said it also had an on-site “command center” as well as street-team employees helping customers find the best way to connect. Verizon Wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile also beefed up their cellular operations in and around the stadium, and so far no reports of bad service have surfaced so all the preparations must have been enough to handle the game-day wireless crush, which was probably at least three times AT&T’s total if not more. AT&T’s Super Bowl enhancements are just part of a wide-ranging strategy from Ma Bell to cover stadiums with additional wireless assets.

AT&T’s stats from the game, however, should give pause to stadium operators, teams, schools and other big-event area hosts, because it’s almost guaranteed that wireless tsunamis of demand are coming your way next. As AT&T senior executive vice president of technology and network operations John Donovan notes in a blog post, mobile devices have become “integral to our lives,” and even more so for special sporting activities that we will want to share with friends not present via the Internet. Provided the wireless network allows it.

While the Super Bowl is a special case where providers will send extra resources to ensure performance, not every event can expect such an influx of assets. The question for game hosts then becomes how will you ensure that your customers get the wireless coverage they expect? For the answers, keep following Mobile Sports Report as we cover the news and provide the business analysis for this interesting intersection of mobile, social and sport.

Super Bowl’s Social/Mobile Angles Don’t Move the Needle

My quick post-game take on the whole “social Super Bowl” angle is that I don’t think any of the ad campaigns really moved the social-networking needle. Though I missed part of the first quarter I didn’t see any ads that asked for an online audience interaction, which might have been fun. And the mobile game platforms, both NBC’s website broadcast and Verizon’s NFL Mobile app, were so far behind the live action they were useless as a “second screen” for viewers also watching the television.

A quick kudo to Twitter for not crashing in what was probably the most-active day ever on Twitter (which is kind of a meaningless stat since every big event for the foreseeable future will become “the biggest” as Twitter becomes more mainstream and adds more users). But I have to give a conditional “fail” to NBC’s online broadcast of the game, which was anywhere from three to four plays behind the live action, even showing commercials while the “real” game was live.

Though I understand why technically the online show might be slower, the wide gap made it impossible to keep the laptop (or tablet) open while watching the game on TV, eliminating the whole “second screen” thing that the online broadcast was supposed to enable. Plus I was underwhelmed by NBC’s multiple-choice camera views — they were uninteresting and pretty much blah compared to the rapid-fire screen switching you get from watching professional broadcasters produce a game live. So maybe that whole viewer-choosing-the-camera thing is overrated.

And Verizon’s NFL Mobile app, while glitch-free over in-house Wi-Fi and a 4G cellular signal, was still anywhere from 23 to 28 seconds behind the live action, also rendering it useless except maybe for trips to the bathroom. But with all the commercial breaks that’s hardly a concern during the Super Bowl. Maybe these alternative platforms will be more important for events with multiple things happening at once, like the Olympics or a golf tournament like the Masters. And maybe advertisers will become more bold and try more live interactive ads in the future. But for right now the “Social Super Bowl” didn’t live up to its advance billing.

UPDATE: As we thought, the Twitterers were out in force:

In the final three minutes of the Super Bowl tonight, there were an average of 10,000 Tweets per second.

@twitter

Twitter

Who’s Going to Get the Tablet Rights for NFL Games?

We all know by now that the Super Bowl is going to be streamed live by NBC, and also to Verizon Wireless smartphones via Verizon’s NFL Mobile app. It will be interesting to see what the viewer metrics are after the fact. But the bigger item on the horizon is who will snag the tablet, aka iPad rights for NFL broadcasts going forward?

I was thinking about this potential conflict earlier today when I read a report from my ex-GigaOM collegue Liz Gannes who was covering a talk with ESPN president John Skipper at the D: Dive Into Media conference. Skipper’s crew seems like it has clear vision on what the Worldwide Leader needs to do with mobile, which as we heard yesterday is the prime platform ESPN develops for.

Inside the industry ESPN is unique since it not only is a network, it is also a content creator as well as a clearinghouse for overall information. The latter is mainly SportsCenter, its enormously popular highlights show that dominates the sports world. But more recently ESPN has become a content creator/provider by bidding for broadcast rights to games themselves, across all major sports and a lot of minor ones too.

While finding broadcasts on TV is fairly easy — you just look up to see which network is broadcasting the game — on digital devices the access has been murky. Verizon does have an exclusive deal to show live games on phones, but that’s only covered Monday Night Football, Thursday night NFL Network games and the Sunday NBC games. ESPN, meanwhile, retains MNF rights for tablets but won’t show the games on phones because of Verizon’s deal. DirecTV Sunday Ticket customers this year could opt for a package that gave them access to the Sunday Ticket via mobile — an interesting twist but as a subset of a subset not really a mass-market solution.

The big question still out there is who will get tablet rights for NFL broadcasts going forward? Right now Verizon can’t offer NFL Mobile on an iPad, which would seem to be a bit of a no-brainer except it isn’t. The tablet market, aka iPad, is getting bigger every moment and it will be interesting to see how the tablet rights get broken out, or whether they are bundled into the overall broadcast rights for a hefty increase in fees. According to Liz’s report, ESPN won’t buy rights without all platforms included:

Since 2005, ESPN has made sure that all its content deals include rights for every device. As Skipper put it, “We don’t cannibalize ourself, we use those platforms to cross-promote.”

After several digital stops and starts ESPN seems to have crystalized its mobile thinking behind the WatchESPN idea, where you download an app and have access to all ESPN programming — so long as you also have a contract with a qualifying cable provider. This is a smart move because it keeps the people paying ESPN the big bucks happy, while giving the cable customers the kind of access that is commonplace for all other kinds of media.

Maybe sometime in the future ESPN will offer a non-cable-customer price to access all its content digitally, but for now it seems content to keep its window open only to those customers willing to pay.

Here’s the link to Liz’s story again. Good stuff, wish I was at that conference.