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

  • From: "Albert Manfredi" <bert22306@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:05:02 -0400

Craig Birkmaier wrote:


Guess you haven't noticed that the Telcos have lost control over the
features that go into today's smart phones. Something to do with some
upstart company from Cupertino that conned them into supporting phones
that run independent third party apps...
Apps are programs. And yes, perhaps that's a start at telcos "losing control," but I have yet to see an "app" that will allow an iPhone or any other phones to run on a competitor's cell network. Or that will permit reception of TV broadcasts OTA, for that matter.
(But the really funny part about this is, you seemed opposed to people unshackling iPads from the restrictions imposed by Apple, e.g. the Flash player nonsense, and yet when telcos use these tactics, suddenly they're the bad guys. Interesting ...) 


Thus an LTE enabled iPAd sold in the U.S. works with Verizon and
AT&T, but does not support the frequencies being used for LTE in
Europe and Australia.
That's an example of how something as simple as the frequency band can be used to deny a certain type of service, if the cellcos find it to their advantage. The OPPOSITE is also true. There is no similarity between, say, the old analog AMPS and 2G, and yet most 2G cell phones (if not all) supported both standards. There's no similarity between the GSM 2G and the GSM 3G modulation, and yet I think all GSM 3G also support 2G. Same goes with GPS. Some cell phones incorporate GPS receivers.
So *if* the cellcos saw any reason to do so, they could certainly "allow" the Samsungs and the LGs of the world to build in ATSC M/H. 


To support ATSC MH, a phone would require a very complex chip in
addition to the RF chip used to support multiple generations of Telco
networks.
Forgive me if I don’t take your word for this. GPS receiver and WCDMA chips are at the very least as complex as ATSC M/H, and yet cell phones manage to pack these in and more. And room left over from having gotten rid of AMPS. 


And the ATSC MH chip would be a major power hog
Nope. You continue to forget how it works, and also, when not in use, it would go into sleep mode. How does DVB-H avoid being a power hog, Craig? Think along those lines, please. This is the tired old saw that ATSC opponents have been drumming up since the 1st gen. As always, stuck back in 1999. 


The government is not likely to allow one broadcaster to buy
up all of the spectrum in a market.
They won't have a choice, if TV really goes to LTE. Even large markets like this one (DC) get less than 80 MHz of TV spectrum, and the 4G LTE channel widths are going to be that wide or wider. So the government will have to think of local OTA TV as it thinks of any other single cell service provider. 


There is precious little broadcaster-exclusive content in any of this,
aside from the local news.


Exactly. A spectrum utility will not change this much.
Except that now, you don't have the multiple competing multiplexes. I know you think these multiplexes "didn't really compete," but then, if this is true, you should not have objected to any notion of removing the FCC local ownership caps? 


Oh, I forgot another point. Can you calculate how many towers will be
required, with 2 Km spacing needed for 3.1 b/s/Hz, to provide coverage to
a market like DC, NY, LA? It's a simple geometry problem.


The infrastructure already exists.
You mean, the 3G infrastructure that doesn't give me any 3G coverage while I'm at home? 


What is more relevant, is that in the areas  outside of major markets, the
Broadcast LTE network can use higher power levels and taller towers to reduce 
the density of the mesh.
Words words words. Vague words. Larger markets provide "local broadcaster" coverage that may have a radius of up to 60 miles and sometimes more. If you are saying that in the city and the close-in suburbs you can use one arrangement, and then in the exurbs you can use a different arrangement, I might even agree. *BUT*, confound it, that's what makes arguing with vague generalities so frustrating. To do this, you will need more frequencies.
We have ALREADY agreed that this TV-related LTE network sill be 2-way, yes? So we have ALREADY agreed that the 84 MHz requirement of the IEEE article was bogus (it would be that for just one cell). Now you have added a high powered exurbs network that cannot be allowed to interfere with the dense closer in network. 

*That's* how the supposed 84 MHz becomes 300 MHz or more.

Bert



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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