Mobile video provider MobiTV became the latest in a string of companies to announce plans to go public Wednesday, filing an S-1 registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company hopes to raise million through the initial public offering of its stock.

First, the good news: MobiTV revenues are gradually growing, and its losses are gradually declining. The mobile video company reported full-year 2010 revenues of .8 million, which was up from .5 million a year before. For the first half of this year, MobiTV’s sales grew to .9 million, up from .5 million in the first six months of 2010. Meanwhile, its net loss for the first half declined to .1 million, compared to .4 million a year earlier. The company has million in cash on hand, after raising 5 million over the last decade.

That said, MobiTV suffers a severe lack of diversity in its revenue streams, and faces the distinct possibility that it could lose all of its distribution partners under contract over the next 18 months. From the filing:

“We depend on three customers for most of our revenue and if any of those customers were to limit or terminate their relationship with us, or to replace our service with a competitor’s service or the customer’s own service, it could be difficult or impossible for us to replace that revenue. We depend on our key customers, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile, for the substantial majority of our revenue.”

How much revenue is wrapped up in those three key customers? According to MobiTV, Sprint represented 54 percent of its revenues in 2010, while the combined AT&T and T-Mobile made up 24 percent of its sales in 2010 and 42 percent in the first half of 2011.

Even worse, those contracts are all set to expire over the next 18 months. In September 2012, MobiTV’s deal with Sprint moves to a month-by-month contract. Its T-Mobile agreement will automatically renew for a one-year term in December 2011, and will be subject to T-Mobile’s right to terminate on 30 days notice after that. Meanwhile, its agreement with AT&T ends in January 2013. And as MobiTV writes:

“If any one of these Tier 1 customers chose not to continue to use our services, or limited its use of our services, or if it replaced our services with a service provided by another company or by the customer itself, it would be difficult or impossible for us to replace that revenue because there are a limited number of such Tier 1 customers. Any such development would harm our business, operating results and financial condition.”

At the same time, consumers are increasingly turning to mobile video services from alternative over-the-top providers such as Netflix and Hulu Plus that aren’t dependent on striking deals with major carriers. And operators such as Time Warner Cable and Cablevision, as well as programmers like ESPN, are releasing mobile apps that stream live TV feeds to mobile devices like the iPad. In other words, MobiTV’s customers have more choices than ever for mobile content, at the same time carrier partners have to decide whether or not they want to continue supporting the service. All of which raises the question: Will MobiTV be able to grow — or even maintain — its revenues in an increasingly dynamic market for mobile video?

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Travis Isaacs.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile payments: forecasts, technologies and opportunities
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Earlier this week, Fox shocked many by announcing that it would introduce TV Everywhere–type authentication to broadcast content online that used to be available for free the day after a show aired on TV. We’ve written about the effect Fox’s decision will have on consumers, but what about its distribution partners? After all, they will be the ones working to actually implement the authentication scheme, and as a result they could end up paying a lot more to broadcasters.

Much of the rhetoric being bandied about so far seems to imply that Fox is acting in the interests of its cable and satellite distribution partners: By implementing TV Everywhere–type authentication for broadcast content online, it’s merely eliminating some of the friction that’s cropped up in its negotiation over retransmission fees. No one was happy that Fox was demanding more compensation for content that appeared on cable and satellite when, let’s face it, the network was essentially giving the same shows away for free on Fox.com and Hulu.

But adding authentication could also be a clever negotiating tactic as Fox seeks even higher fees from those distribution partners. Let’s say you’re Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV or any number of other major distributors that haven’t yet signed up for Fox’s mid-August launch of online authentication: Fox comes to you and says that it’s finally implemented a sign-in system that will ensure that only pay-TV or Hulu Plus subscribers will have access to its content the day after it airs online. But now that it has, it would like to get paid a little more in retrans fees, because, after all, it will be providing more value to your subscribers.

Do you pay up? Or do you risk disenfranchising your subscribers, who were once able to watch shows on Hulu the day after they’ve aired but can no longer do so because their cable provider isn’t a part of Fox’s exclusive next-day club?

This is all theoretical, of course, but Fox’s use of Hulu as a negotiating tool is not without precedent. It was Fox, after all, that blocked access to Hulu streams from Cablevision subscribers as part of its bitter dispute over retransmission fees last year. So using next-day access to online content as a way to extort even more retrans dollars wouldn’t be totally out of the question.

And Fox is unlikely to be the only broadcast network to do so. Once it has proven the model that authentication equals more retrans money, you can expect CBS, ABC and NBC to jump on board as well, using next-day access to Hulu and network sites as an incentive to rework their deals with pay-TV providers.

The big loser in all of this will be consumers. They will not only be used as pawns in the next round of retrans fights but as a result will also lose access to a service they’ve been accustomed to getting for free. And as broadcasters use access to online video as a way to squeeze ever-higher retrans fees from distributors, those costs will eventually get passed on to subscribers in the form of higher cable bills.

Fox and other broadcasters might justify the introduction of TV Everywhere–type logins as just extending the existing cable model online. But at the end of the day, it seems “authentication” is just a fancy word for charging users more.

Photo courtesy of (CC BY 2.0) Flickr user pasukaru76

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Ultimate Guide To TV Everywhere
• Connected Consumer Q4: New Platforms and OTT’s Dynamic Duo Dominated
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

Because of so many new technologies altering the way movie reviews and filmmaking are done, the financial environment of independent cinema in Hollywood is changing. It used to be that only a little over 900 production and film financing distribution partners invested in Indie Films through private placement memorandums. Any willing investor could do it today.

Several areas have been influenced: 1) Filmmakers now have online schools where they can get training, learn about filmmaking, and locate a mentor in the industry to work with. 2) Traditional fundraising methods to secure film distribution are becoming outdated, while new funding opportunities for independent filmmakers are emerging.

Internationally, financiers favor big productions. In the past, many of the large studios have used German tax shelters, New Zealand subsidies, and pre-sales to fund big blockbuster film projects. But what about the small independent filmmaker? Where can he get funding for his projects?

Right now, the digital revolution is not only changing the way films are made, but how films are distributed. Independent filmmakers no longer need a large distributor because faster broadband now allows people to watch movies from their computer screens. Anyone can purchase some films from their websites. “The Fall of America and the Western World” is one such film.

Independent filmmakers who are hoping to get their film projects can look forward to the future when these changes increases their opportunities.

There are also online companies that match filmmakers with distributors and/or investor nowadays. Filmmakers from small towns can make use of these kinds of services.

It also helps when an independent filmmaker has good movie reviews from film critics for past film projects. These movie reviews lend credibility to filmmakers when they are seeking investors.

The filmmaker would submit a description of their film for consideration to these online websites. There are many investors registered on the website who can then access the list of projects at their own pace, and review those projects that are in need of funding. They in turn can directly contact the filmmakers, which cuts out any middlemen as was popular for film financing in the past.

Independent filmmakers are also assisted by some non-profit organizations to locate financing and distribution for their projects. They don’t fund filmmakers, but they do offer fiscal sponsorship. Sponsorship allows filmmakers to receive funding from sources that limit their funding to nonprofits.

Independent producers can also post website ads and information abour their projects on other websites that link them to investors.