[opendtv] Re: IEEE Ericsson article on use of LTE for TV

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:02:09 -0400

At 3:32 PM -0500 6/13/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

We can go around and around on this, but the salient points (IMO) are:
1. "Furthermore, the user experience will be greatly improved with the provision of a return channel to the network, allowing operators and broadcasters to benefit from knowledge of user behaviour, and for advertisers to gain direct access to viewers."
This sentence implies the LTE infrastructure is two-way. I know one could weasel this into saying, "But the 'return channel' could be on another LTE network from the one used by TV broadcasters," but that just weaseling. The same could be said for using any other broadcast standard for the TV itself. For example, an ATSC/MH, DVB-H, or MediaFLO device, can *also* be provided with cellular service, to create narrowband two-way channels back to the broadcaster, to taddle on user behavior.
The LTE infrastructure IS two-way. It is NOT weaseling to say that the telco return data path can be used by broadcasters to collect user information or to request that data be pushed through the Broadcast LTE channel. Is is just FACT.
Clearly current Telco data networks can be used in conjunction with any of the broadcast standards you mention. What you continue to avoid is the reality that none of these standards are being supported in the mobile devices consumers are buying by the millions. And it is unlikely that they ever will. With Broadcast LTE the only issue will be the frequency bands that the mobile devices support - as more agile chips are developed, this is likely to come virtually for free.
2. "A further benefit is that LTE network infrastructures are currently being rolled out by several mobile network operators. A reuse of deployed infrastructure can be envisioned which enables a cost-effective transition into a novel TV broadcast network deployment."
Aha. Sure, as long as the LTE network is being run by the cell operator and not the US-style "TV broadcasters." Remember that the European definition of "TV broadcaster" is MUCH more comparable to what in the US is called "TV network." Like NBC, CBS, etc. Not your local ABC affiliate, in other words.
The nature of the broadcast business model is somewhat relevant to this discussion but completely decoupled from what the IEEE article was describing. The article simply points out that it will be possible to piggyback the Broadcast LTE service atop the existing cellular infrastructure.
The reality in the U.S. is that local broadcasters control RF spectrum - the congloms are part of this, especially in larger markets, and they will certainly influence decisions moving forward. But the logical design of future Broadcast LTE networks will necessarily require local spectrum pooling in some for of utility model. Technology is not the issue here - the issue is how broadcasters come together to develop a viable system that will keep them alive.
3. With #2 firmly in mind, i.e. that what they really mean is how much spectrum a cell operator would set aside for TV broadcast, "Our simulations show that MBMS has a spectral efficiency of 3.1b/s/Hz up to a cellular inter-site-distance of 2km. With this, 85MHz of spectrum are sufficient to provide the desired aggregate service rate. Comparing this to the in total 300MHz used by TV services, the potential savings in spectrum are significant."
Leaving aside the overt attempt at hyperbole, TV in the not-so-tiny DC market has 12 multiplexes, or 72 MHz of spectrum. (And 3.3 b/s/Hz without having to rely on 2 Km spacing of towers.) Let's not get back into why US-style broadcast stations want plenty of overlap into adjacent markets, in closely spaced markets. 

The IEEE is correct in these assertions.
4. More importantly, concerning WHO is going to provide that 85 MHz channel, their reasoning is:
"The cellular inter-site-distances we have considered are typically achieved by one cellular network alone. In principle it is possible that several cellular networks that are present in the same market provide MBMS services jointly, at least in geographical areas where cellular sites are sparsely deployed, in order to further enhance the service availability in these areas."
So, one broadcaster, for a market the size of DC or even NYC. Possibly a second LTE network, but only if the AREA covered by the first doesn't span the entire market. Now you might say, what about local news crews? Sure, whatever that one broadcaster thinks he needs to keep.
No single broadcaster is likely to control more than 6 MHz - in a few markets there are broadcast duopolies that may give one company control of 12 MHz. Clearly all of the broadcasters in a market are going to need to pool spectrum to develop the Broadcast LTE infrastructure. What is really important here is that the efficiency achieved via pooling will allow ALL existing broadcasters to continue to deliver the content they do today, whether or not they choose to retain any spectrum rights. And it is likely that there will be many opportunities to lease bits to new services that do not exist today.
As for multiple news crews in a market - consider what has happened to newspapers. Any decrease or increase in this area is being driven by consumer behavior and economic realities, not technology. 

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org 
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2012