IF THERE'S ONE

thing Americans don't do enough of, it's watching TV. Sure, obesity is at epidemic proportions and your average viewer spends more than four hours a day vegging out in front of the tube, but what about all those hours spent away from the couch?

Fortunately AT&T's AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone, and chip maker Qualcomm have come to the rescue.

Last month AT&T Wireless rolled out its mobile TV service based on Qualcomm's MediaFlo technology. That followed Verizon's introduction of its own MediaFlo-based "V Cast" mobile TV service about a year ago.

The services have their differences, but essentially for anywhere from $15 to $30 a month you get eight or 10 channels of live or time-shifted TV programming from the likes of ESPN, part of Walt Disney; NBC, a General Electric property; and Viacom's Nickelodeon. The services can also include things like video clips, music and web browsing, among other features.

It's easy to see the allure of such services for the wireless carriers. For one, the cellphone market is pretty saturated carriers aren't so much as signing up new customers as trying to steal their competitors'. And pricing power is tough to come by when everyone is offering some sort of all-you-can-eat voice and data plan. So any way you can differentiate your service and add a revenue stream is welcome.

And yet so far mobile TV has been a dud. The number of Americans who watch any kind of broadcast TV programming on their cellphones is growing, but still stands at just about 1% of all wireless subscribers, according to M:Metrics, a market researcher.

Near as we can tell the problem isn't with the technology. MediaFlo works. It starts up right away and channel changing is instantaneous just like watching real TV, albeit on a very tiny, low-resolution screen with a paucity of channels.

Part of the problem may be that AT&T and Verizon are still in the process of rolling out their services. In each case it's available in only about 60 markets. Another hitch is that there's a limited number of phones that will work with the service, and they tend to be pricey. For example, AT&T recently launched the LG Vu. It's a nice phone, but it'll cost you about 300 bucks after rebate with a two-year contract.

And then there's the subscription cost. The AT&T Mobile TV basic package adds $15 a month to your bill for just 10 channels. It's just not a good deal.

True, those obstacles can be overcome, but mobile TV will likely still be a non-starter, and for a pretty simple reason: We have a hard time believing there's a big demand for full-length broadcast TV shows on cellphones. Short clips or YouTube videos make some sense because they're quick hits, where screen size and resolution are less of an issue.

But when are people supposed to kick back and watch TV when they're on the go? Maybe while they're stuck at the airport or in a dentist's waiting room, but certainly not while driving. Downloading a movie or TV show to an Apple iPod makes more sense since the program can be watched at a time and place of your choosing.

At a time when Americans want more and more channels on ever-bigger high-def screens, 10 channels on a cellphone just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. The technology is indeed impressive, and it's neat that it can be done, but that doesn't make it a marketable (or profitable) idea.

Also See:

• Dell Steps in Right Direction With Profit Beat

• Microsoft Looks to Apple for OS Ideas

• Yahoo's Ad Biz May Spark Bidding War