I'll be closer to believing this is a viable game when a handset manufacturer starts showing interest. ESA have their own agenda to promote.

In the real world, why would a handheld DVB receiver need a substantially smaller aerial (dish?) than a fixed (domestic) one? The Yanks are trying digital audio via satellite (but it's struggling commercially) as the article mentions. That service needs truck (or car) mount size aerials. Half decent video, even for a phone-sized screen with low refresh rates, needs more bandwidth than audio, so probably needs a bigger aerial. To improve received signal quality you could have higher power transmitters on the satellites, or same power over a smaller footprint, but both of those are economically unattractive, and anyway ye canna change the laws of physics.

If people want transportable DVB-S systems you can get it today for less than the unsubsidised cost of a mobile handset, but the DVB-S doesn't fit in your pocket.

Next...

Does anyone actually want TV on their phone, or at least, do enough people want it to make it worth doing?

This still looks like a solution is search of a problem.

Bill Ray, the Americans already have portable receivers for Sirius. At the high powers and lower frequencies used for DVB-SH, a smaller antenna is required, and you can even get away with a unidirectional antenna, especially in combination with the ground-based repeaters required in urban areas. The Eutelsat satellite (actually being built in an unprecedented joint venture with Astra) has a very large antenna and very high power, suggesting it will also use spot beams to concentrate its power.

The technical challenges aren't really that great, but as the author says, is there a market?