TMP 360. Selection of a Technology Standard for Mobile Broadcast Networks. A Draft White Paper proposed by TDF discussing the

Transcription

1 TMP 360 A Draft White Paper proposed by TDF discussing the Selection of a Technology Standard for Mobile Broadcast Networks * Imaginer des solutions pour un monde numérique TDF SAS au capital de EUR. SIREN RCS Nanterre Siège social : 106, avenue Marx Dormoy Montrouge cedex France Tél. 33 (0) Fax 33 (0)

2 TMP 360 TDF 106, avenue Marx Dormoy Montrouge Cedex - France Winnove (Groupe Grandir) 24 rue Jean Duplessis Le Chesnay phone + 33 (0) White Paper for Discussion October 18, Content 1 Introduction: rationale and objectives 3 2 Mobile Broadcast technology business needs Business requirements Technology selection criteria 6 3 TDF preliminary evaluation of technologies Mobile Broadcast technologies not considered by TDF Technologies representing key adjacent ecosystems Reviewed Candidate Mobile Broadcast candidate technologies 11 4 Evaluation summary Overview Short-term: FLO Rev A, FLO EV and DVB-SH Mid-term: DVB-T2 and DVB-NGH Summary technology grid 20 5 Discussion topics questions Business Vision Evaluation criteria related questions Technology assessment IP rights and standards Questions specific to Content editor Questions specific to Service / Content Distributor Questions specific to Device and / or Infrastructure Manufacturer Business Support Questions 24 6 Conclusion & next steps 25 TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 2 / 26

3 1 Introduction: rationale and objectives The need for broadcast mobile networks The convergent Media/Telecom world is facing massive demand for portable or nomadic digital multimedia content consumption, which includes mobile TV (MTV), both linear and non linear, and a large variety of other usage types (press, etc.). Consumer demand for mobile TV is already there; this rapid growth is fueled by the rapid proliferation of new types of devices with higher screen resolution, sophisticated video, computing and memory capabilities like smart devices (tablets and phones) that can connect to a growing number of video downloading or streaming services increasingly complemented by press / written content. This trend already shows some signs of evidence through potential network saturation due to increasing mobile data, and particularly video, consumption. According to several studies ( 1 ), video is number one usage worldwide in 3G networks, representing 35% of data traffic generated and is the one with the highest growth rate (92% over first half of 2010) versus an average growth rate of worldwide mobile data of 68% during first half of 2010: it will multiply by more than a factor of ten within the next five years. In France, 13% of mobile users declare that they are using mobile TV/video, and Orange only had 3M active mobile users at the end of And 12,1M Europeans watch video on their mobile device, among which 3,4M (28%) watch live television. This new fast growing situation creates significant changes and opportunities for the media and entertainment industry as well as critical challenges for unicast-based telecommunication networks: they might well want to count in the future on broadcast-related resources as an integral part of the wireless Internet to solve this challenge. TDF has the ambition of supporting media players and telecom network operators who need to distribute digital content, by providing them with the innovative network delivery solutions that they need to face these market evolutions. In this context, TDF will build upon its historical leadership to serve customers willing to efficiently bring new high quality mobile rich media services to their end-consumers. TDF believe that the notion of a Mobile Broadcast Network, serving multiple usage types, multiple customers/service providers and a large range of popular digital devices to deliver digital content in a cost effective manner is highly relevant and is willing to contribute to the emergence of such mass digital delivery network. The need to carefully select a technology for Mobile Broadcast networks In this objective or creating a mass digital mobile delivery platform, the technology that will be used for Mobile Broadcast needs to be carefully analyzed, since past experiences in Mobile TV were often non-conclusive: first, countries which had introduced digital terrestrial television-based systems to implement mobile related video services did not show tremendous success. Second, the technology (DVB-H) that was foreseen in the past by both French and European Regulation Authorities as well as, to a certain extent, industry players, is no more considered optimal for mobile television and mobile broadcast services. Also, the markets have changed since the early days of MTV:, there is a profound change from linear mono-content consumption to a range of on-demand rich media content consumption. 1 Allot Communications, Arthur D. Little, Exane BNP Paribas, ComScore, BCG TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 3 / 26

4 This White Paper summarizes TDF s on going preliminary internal assessments on mobile broadcast technologies; it is proposed by TDF to the industry as a starting point to initiate broad and open discussions with all interested parties during Q on the topic of Mobile Broadcast Technologies; TDF will take the result of this discussion into account, amongst other considerations, to guide its selection of technology for its ongoing and future projects By proposing this white paper through the project TMP 360, TDF is willing to engage a dialogue with the key industry participants on the selection of a technology standard for innovative and optimized mobile broadcast networks that would at the best suit the needs of all players. Present and future direct or indirect partners of TDF (e.g. for the TDF MobMux project in France) are of course the primary parties with whom TDF wants to engage this dialogue, but not only: the active participation of all industry players in Europe who may be engaged at some stage in using or serving future mobile broadcast networks is also encouraged. TDF is now under the strong belief that a condition for success would be to take into account requirements such as: performance, multi services and multi networks environments compatibility, and to integrate use of highly capable smart devices. (Note: Recognizing that the topic considered, mobile content distribution, has a scope not just limited by national geography boundaries, TDF made the choice of writing this paper in English as a way to maximize interactions with European/ global industry. As a matter of fact, TDF is willing to position the subject at the international level with its direct or indirect partners and also because TDF s Mobile Broadcast deployment will potentially apply to several countries in Europe). TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 4 / 26

5 2 Mobile Broadcast technology business needs In this section, TDF describes the business requirements that should be met by the technology used by a mobile broadcast network. 2.1 Business requirements TDF envisages mobile broadcast not just a vertical mobile TV service ( DTT for mobile phones ), but rather positioned as providing a generic mobile or wireless data broadcasting capability, serving the needs of all content owners or service providers that want to massively deliver content to mobile users; TV and video, in many different forms, will be part of rich media applications that will be carried on such platform, including also press, music, radio, etc, and will include increasing interactions with the end-users. Therefore, the keywords for a candidate technology for Mobile Broadcast Network are convergence and flexibility, which are further developed through the following business requirements: Contents o Classical live TV or Live audio programs o New / non Linear TV formats (push VoD, catch-up TV) o Non TV content ; Magazines, Newspapers, Books, Music, Kiosk, press, predictive push Consumer Service Quality / Integration o Individual service scalability regarding format (e.g. video, slideshow, audio only) and quality (e.g. video resolution, bit rate, robustness) o Allow state-of-the-art user experience (e.g. service access delay / zapping time) o Support content security/ rights management, o Support value added services / interactive services ( eg: location specific services), o Support instant alert messaging services o Smooth integration with major unicast networks ( eg: support transparent MNO offload) Devices / user interface o Effective implementation into a range of consumer devices including smartphones and tablets o Ability to potentially address the variety of terminals available (handhelds, Smart tablets such as ipad, laptop computers,, up to 7-10 inches screens such as ipad: home TV grade or HDTV grade image o Provide a really seamless experience at using services supported by unicast / broadcast networks o Support both connected ( managed ) and non connected ( non managed, possibly unidirectional) terminals o Enable extended duration of use (low battery usage). Network / system architecture o Open, neutral pipe, suitable to deliver all sorts of applications beyond linear TV, o Leverage TV frequencies (primary / secondary usage, ), taking into consideration that the central requirement is to transport high quality live TV o Enable a cost-efficient indoor coverage o Enable a wide or full territory coverage, still efficient and affordable to build (e.g. by combining several networks like hybrid terrestrial / satellite) o Enable a dynamically configurable co-operation with unicast systems (WiFi, 3G, 4G, ) o Ability to co-exist on the same infrastructure and terminals and to reuse all or part of the existing telecom / broadcast infrastructures, o Address mobile reception at most common speeds (cars, regional trains, high speed trains) TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 5 / 26

6 These business requirements allow TDF to support the following industry players: Mobile network operators and / or MVNOs that deliver service to end users Live TV broadcasters / editors Other TV content distributors ( linear and non linear) Radio stations Non TV digital content editors (press, books, etc.) Media content distributors (music, films,...) 2.2 Technology selection criteria Criteria used to analyze technologies In assessing the various technologies, TDF proposes to use following criteria that are grouped by main categories: Category 1: Technical performance o Spectral efficiency ; net bit rate and related link budgets according to different use cases (especially mobile and indoor reception) o Frequency flexibility (frequency range, bandwidth, allowable cell size) o Channel switching time, power-saving features, services discovery o Combination of several network components (e.g. satellite/ terrestrial), and flexibility o System flexibility regarding national / local services o Total cost of ownership ( / MByte/ User) for a given coverage / service Category 2: Ecosystem and service potential o Ease of integration into terminals and relevance o Global industrial take up / vendors support (especially terminal vendors) o Ability to support multiple services / applications; richness of existing / potential applications o Capacity to reuse existing networks (e.g. in-band mobile broadcast) o Coexistence and interactions with adjacent technologies/ networks o Perspectives and ease of technology evolutions / migration scenarios to future technologies. o Worldwide audience (visible/ likely) Category 3: Standards/ IP rights situation o Providing a clear Specifications standardizing process & status o Be authorized(able) in several key European market o Offering clear, affordable licensing conditions (FRAND) Category 4: Business support to service launch o Clear Identification of an owner of the technology, with the ability to negotiate business deals o Abilities of owner to co-invest in actual deployment projects o Abilities of owner or partners to take robust commercial commitment (e.g.: devices, applications, services...) TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 6 / 26

7 2.2.2 Additional comments on these criteria Standards compliance The short-term necessity to bring a true service to market in 2011 includes a mandatory path toward: Open standard as required by regulation authorities, including the European Community. Highly performing RF technology according to new consumer trends (pervasive and ubiquitous access) Satellite complementarity Wireless terrestrial networks have a natural economic advantage in cities, due to the significant population density and receiving conditions. On the other hand, satellite networks address lower density geographical areas where terrestrial infrastructure investment would be too high in relation to the number of potential users addressed. TDF is of the opinion that a natural complementarity exists and will exist more and more between terrestrial and satellite. It is therefore necessary to consider a terrestrial technology that will show good cooperation potential with satellite networks. Interactions with unicast networks There is a strong need for the end-user to be able to navigate between several networks, whether broadcast or unicast, depending on the location, network capacities, and the particular application at any given moment; such versatility being more and more common on multi standard devices (e.g.; smart phones that navigate between 3G and WiFi). It is very important that the selected Broadcast technology is able to interact in an effective manner with major unicast technologies (3G, LTE, WiFi). The goal is that the selected Broadcast technology will be technically and economically worth being integrated into managed connected terminals, and transparently to the user. It seems that a convergence of the unicast and broadcast technologies at the physical level would pave the way to a single unicast / broadcast chipset. Capacity to reuse part - or all of - existing networks In-band mobile TV solutions consist in transmitting mobile broadcast services in the same RF channel as other services (e.g. fixed TV), hence to share and reuse the same network infrastructure. Only head-end site needs additional network equipment. Existing network infrastructure can also be shared at various levels, even for a stand-alone system: the network sites (utilities, backhaul network), mast, and antennas, part of the RF or baseband equipment. Focus on UHF/VHF Frequencies TDF is primarily looking at using UHF solutions, which is related to its core business, and usually supports TV/Video which will be a central service in Mobile Broadcast services. However, it is considered as an advantage that the technology can use other bands, either because working on other bands may be considered or because it should allow for a better terminal availability and global technology acceptance. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 7 / 26

8 3 TDF preliminary evaluation of technologies 3.1 Mobile Broadcast technologies not considered by TDF The following technologies, all currently commercially available, will not be presented in details in the rest of the document based on TDF s analysis that their intrinsic performances do not qualify them enough for an innovative and adaptive mobile broadcast service: DVB-T DVB-T does not have optimal properties to be used for mobile reception, which indeed led to develop DVB-H. Moreover, despite DVB-T has the advantage to be widely used for fixed TV, the network requirements for mobile broadcast are so different than for fixed TV with the exception of Germany that it could provide a very limited mobile coverage. ISDB-T ISDB-T (commercially operational in Japan) has been designed at the same time as DVB-T, but is one of the most comprehensive Mobile TV system as it addresses fixed TV and mobile TV in an in-band fashion (1Seg mode) or as a dedicated network (ISDB-Tmm version, to be deployed in Japan). Since ISDB-T is not deployed in Europe for fixed TV, only ISDB-Tmm will be considered. T-DMB (T-DAB) T-DMB (commercially operational in Korea) relies on the DAB standard originally designed for digital radio, even before DVB-T. T-DMB is planned to be used in France for radio only. It does not appear as a relevant technology for a multimedia broadcast mobile network due to its limited capacity (set by a 1.7 MHz bandwidth) in comparison with the upcoming huge capacity required. ATSC-M/H ATSC Mobile DTV (operational free to air in USA) is an in-band solution, compatible with current broadcast emitters. It is promoted by the Open Mobile Video Coalition (for free to air), and competes with FLO TV in the US (pay service) which Qualcomm very recently announced turning down. It will not be considered since it appears to be significantly less spectrum efficient than the latest generation technologies. Moreover, ATSC-M/H is not attractive for in-band mobile TV in Europe since ATSC is not deployed in Europe. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 8 / 26

9 3.2 Technologies representing key adjacent ecosystems The technologies in this section are contributing to the global objective of mass digital delivery framework. However, TDF has not conducted to date an in depth analysis of these technologies as being potentially the one to be used in a mobile broadcast network, for the reasons developed hereafter and which, in TDF s view, limit these technologies ability to fully address the need on their own WiFi WiFi has a lot of advantages: it is low cost, has a high bitrate throughput, is flexible and usage agnostic. But its main drawbacks for the purpose of this White Paper are its limited outdoor coverage geographic zone and its lack of predictable / manageable quality of service (no frequency planned). Additionally, WiFi power consumption is relatively high, which limits terminal autonomy. For these reasons, WiFi remains a key MTV adjacent ecosystem, especially when considering its pervasive presence on all smart handheld devices. But most likely limited to the at home usage, which although important is not the only one to be addressed Unicast related technologies A number of broadcast technologies that are or will be used in the future by MNOs and MVNOs, although not analyzed as candidates for mobile multimedia, are an integrant part of the ecosystem that will integrate a mobile multimedia system. The question asked being whether a broadcast technology supported network can cooperate with a mobile phone network system or not. This is why the following technologies are considered, as a reminder of their main characteristics (and not for detailed evaluation): MBMS MBMS (Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service) is an add-on to 3G technologies based on UMTS FDD unicast and TDD multicast. It needs additional hardware/ software on sites. UMTS-FDD/ TDD handover seems relatively easy to manage. MBMS is not further considered as FDD networks are already under pressure regarding the capacity. On the TDD side, imb is more spectrum efficient. imb imb is a 3GPP Multicast / Broadcast capable telecom system aiming at unifying the broadcast mode of MBMS 3GPP WCDMA (Europe & Japan) and TD-SCDMA (China). It is promoted by several MNOs and chiefly Orange (Cf. imminent trial in the UK). It targets the currently unused UMTS TDD bands, which makes it immediately available for service launch, but it has strong bandwidth allocation issues due to interferences with UMTS FDD voice signals, which lead to spectrum pooling between MNOs. Intellectual property is mainly owned by IP Wireless. As a 3G standard, imb aims at offering potential network cost savings by using the same sites as 3G telecom networks, like DVB-SH (S-Band) possibly with a higher integration with 3G equipment. From past trials, it TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 9 / 26

10 is expected that approximately 1/3rd of current 3G base stations should be enough to cover low density areas ( 2 ) in UMTS TDD bands. There are IMB trials planned from October 2010 in the London area. In spite of these advantages, according to TDF studies, imb technology appears as having a high cost compared to broadcast technologies, considering the huge number of sites to be upgraded to make it effective; additionally, the fear could exist that it would not have a long enough lifetime expectancy in the context of accelerating LTE adoption to replace 3G networks. As a matter of fact, a very limited number of infrastructure, chipset or devices makers have now announced support for imb technology. Subject to feasibility imb, as a broadcast technology used in broadcast frequency band, could become an attractive hypothesis because it would retain the huge benefits of broadcast technologies and frequencies, while avoiding the significant frequencies and topology drawbacks associated with 3G TDD frequencies. LTE MBSFN / embms LTE is the post 3G telecom standard (3GPP). LTE uses the same modulation principles as DVB-H/-SH/-T2 and FLO (OFDM). However, basic LTE is not broadcast capable. LTE will be able to operate in telecom frequency bands (e.g. 1,6-2,1 GHz) and digital dividend UHF bands ( MHz). This band reveals interference problems with existing equipment, mainly cable TV systems. It is already deployed in Northern Europe and supported by Nokia and many other actors. LTE MBSFN / embms (evolved Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Service) is the broadcast mode of LTE. It is an add-on to LTE, allowing seamless transition between cellular unicast / multicast / broadcast services like MBMS. LTE MBSFN / embms uses SFN, like other broadcast technologies, and integrates MIMO. The LTE MBSFN / embms broadcast mode is still under standardization in 3GPP. There is also a doubt that the amount of LTE frequencies will be sufficient to use some of these resources for broadcast in comparison with the rising unicast capacity demand. Still, since LTE is the upcoming unicast telecom system and that frequency capacity is available from the digital dividend, a convergence of LTE with broadcast systems appears desirable, e.g. DVB-T2 / DVB-NGH. TDF views that such a convergence would make sense with respect to integration into terminals, rapid deployment, and adoption by MNOs for a global, efficient and futureproof mobile multimedia delivery. 2 Situation in high density areas is unknown to TDF at this stage TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 10 / 26

11 3.3 Reviewed Candidate Mobile Broadcast candidate technologies The following technologies are considered as candidates for mobile broadcast, meeting several requirements and criteria listed in previous sections: DVB-H (as a reference only, not as candidate for a choice) DVB-SH, DVB-T2 for mobility, DVB-NGH, MediaFLO family, CMMB, ISDB-T-mm Since it was still recently the choice for MTV by European and French regulations authorities, DVB-H is still kept as just a reference in the evaluation list developed in following sections. In the following assessments, ratings are proposed from 5 (maximum value/interest) to 1 (lower value/ interest) DVB-H Description Strengths Weaknesses DVB-H - Mobility enhancement to DVB-T, the standard for fixed TV (signal robustness, Doppler effect management, etc). - Designed around Main sponsor: Nokia, and DVB ecosystem - Mostly based on DVB-T network equipment, widely available - Enables value added services in addition to mobile TV (though not yet really developed) - Full ETSI standard - Patent pool formed, no particular IPR issue expected. About 1 per terminal as full licensing cost - In-band DVB-T mobile services is not usable due to the robustness gap between fixed roof-top and mobile handheld, and network architectures differences. - Limited to terrestrial deployment, in VHF UHF L-bands, no satellite option - A few million terminals sold in the market (mainly from Nokia) but very few recent models currently available. - Commercial service stopped (Switzerland), or is limited / declining (Italy, Austria, Finland, Netherlands) - Not state of the art performance - Promising ecosystem, but never materialized and is loosing its credibility Assessment - Performance 1 (low reference) - Services 3 (potential for rich services) - Ecosystem 3 (Promising but never materialized, now vanishing) - Standardization 5 (Fully ETSI standardized) - IPR 5 (License costs known) - Business support 1 (None) Conclusions - DVB-H is getting outdated and is being abandoned by Samsung, Nokia. - DVB-H window of opportunity is closing. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 11 / 26

12 DVB-SH Description Strengths Weaknesses DVB-SH (in UHF band only) - Dedicated to mobile TV. - DVB-SH builds on DVB-H assets by changing mainly the RF layer by a state of the art one: DVB-SH is directly compatible with DVB-H streams. - Also addresses mobile TV by satellite (most useful for vehicular services), using S-band. - Designed around Main sponsor: Alcatel Lucent ( but current presence unsure) - Same services layer as DVB-H: enables value added services in addition to mobile TV - Fully ETSI standard - Performance: about 3.5 db better than DVB-H (at comparable net bit rate) - Designed to be easily co-located with 3G in S-band, but high power broadcast sites are possible in UHF and S-band. In practice, independent terrestrial UHF (for handhelds) and possibly S-band satellite (for vehicular) seem most relevant. - Additionally, DVB-SH includes S-band synchronization mechanism between terrestrial and satellite, enabling continuous coverage at least in vehicular reception cases. - Same service layer as DVB-H: not very efficient. Though, the upside is to build on the DVB-H head-end equipment and ecosystem. - No patent pool. IPR issues need to be clarified. Royalties on 3GPP2 Turbo-codes. - Most trials were carried out in S-band in Europe (Italy, France, Spain), India, USA to use the satellite or co-locate DVB-SH transmitters with 3G/4G telecom sites. - Not deployed. - No Ecosystem visible Assessment - Performance 4 (3.5 db better than DVB-H, or about -20% network costs) - Services 3 (Same as DVB-H) - Ecosystem 1 (Very few stakeholders) - Standardization 5 (Fully ETSI standardized) - IPR 3 (needs clarification) - Business support 1 (None) Conclusions - A challenger. Interesting features, but no ecosystem, mainly satellite based. No real gain in S-band sizing. DVB-SH builds on DVB-H architecture and service platform by changing only the lower RF layers for a state of the art one. Hence, DVB-SH is directly compatible with DVB-H service streams. DVB-SH has extended the frequency range from VHF, UHF and L-bands to S-band ( MHz band, where two 15 MHz sub-bands are identified). The motivation for supporting S-band is to co-locate DVB-SH transmitters with 3G/4G telecom sites and potentially save on some network costs. Additionally, DVB-SH addresses mobile TV by satellite which is most useful for vehicular services, and includes synchronization mechanism between terrestrial and satellite, enabling continuous coverage at least in vehicular reception cases. There are two modulation schemes in DVB-SH: OFDM, which is more suited to terrestrial transmission and TDM which is optimal for satellite transmission. In a hybrid terrestrial S-band UHF / Satellite S-band scenario, the most straightforward scenario is to use OFDM in both and combine the two signals by SFN (Single Frequency Network), hence saving spectrum. In a hybrid terrestrial UHF / Satellite S-band scenario, it is possible to use an OFDM 8 MHz scheme for terrestrial UHF and another 5 MHz scheme (OFDM or TDM) for satellite S-band. Advanced synchronization and processing mechanisms should enable combining of the two signals and a smooth handover TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 12 / 26

13 between terrestrial and satellite, hence a continuous coverage; though, this scenario is not implemented and at the edge of the standard. DVB-SH has little terminal ecosystem, except in USA with cars: chips are available on the market. It was mainly developed in France through the TVMSL project (financed by AII/OSEO), performances were analyzed through a European collaborative project B21C partly financed by DGCIS. Question marks may exist on ecosystem support, due to the recent public position taken by Eutelsat on the satellite S-band development for mobile TV DVB-T2 for mobility Description Strengths Weaknesses DVB-T2 for mobility - The same system as fixed TV, used in mobile configurations. - Design: Main sponsor: BBC, terminal manufacturers e.g. SONY - Same system as fixed TV - Enables reuse of DVB-T2 fixed TV infrastructure (in-band mobile broadcast) - Frequency flexibility: preferably VHF, UHF but L-band and S-band are possible, though limited to usual broadcast bandwidths - State of the art: system performance should be similar to systems of the same generation (e.g. DVB-SH, FLO EV), needs to be confirmed - DVB-T2 patent pool is formed, royalty rate for TV sets and STBs will not exceed 1 - Could be also an answer to necessary DAB evolutions - No standardized solution to support value added services - A standard update is required for an optimal use of spectrum for in-band mobile TV - No hybrid satellite / terrestrial link - In many cases the fixed DVB-T2 architecture will not be appropriate for mobility: best effort coverage. Assessment - Performance 5 (about 4.5 db better than DVB-H) - Services 2 (potentially similar to DVB-H, but not standard) - Ecosystem 2 (exists for fixed, needs adaptions for mobility) - Standardization 5 (fully ETSI standard) - IPR 3 (Some license costs known) - Business support 1 (None) Conclusions - A low cost first step toward mobile TV DVB-T2 is the next generation of digital terrestrial broadcasting. It was designed for fixed TV, but is fully capable to support mobility, though with a few limitations: the FFT size, guard interval pilot patterns must be identical for the fixed and mobile service. By changing some parameters in DVB-T2, it would be possible to insert optimally a mobile signal inside a DVB-T2 channel, hence reuse the DVB-T2 fixed infrastructure for in-band mobile TV much more efficiently than with DVB-H, and even ATSC-M/H in USA or ISDB-T/1seg in Japan. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 13 / 26

14 3.3.3 DVB-NGH Description Strengths Weaknesses DVB-NGH - The latest generation broadcast standard for mobile TV, official successor of DVB-H. - Should be based on DVB-T2, and should integrate a satellite component like DVB-SH. - Design: (planned). Commercial in 2013? - Main sponsor: none, but terminal manufacturers are the most active (SONY, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Nokia), as well as some broadcasters (BBC, RAI, Teracom) - Enables reuse of DVB-T2 fixed TV infrastructure (in-band mobile broadcast) in an optimal way. E.g. reduce launch time costs - Frequency flexibility: preferably VHF, UHF but L-band and S-band possible, most bandwidths are the same as LTE embms - State of the art: system performance should be similar to systems of the same generation (e.g. DVB-SH, FLO EV), but needs to be confirmed. MIMO could be used as an option, but performance increase is unsure compared to complexity. - DVB-T2 patent pool is formed, DVB-NGH may build on it. - Could be also an answer to necessary DAB evolutions - DVB-NGH fundamentals are similar to LTE embms - Not ready nor standardized yet - MIMO expectations are still unknown Assessment - Performance 5+ (at least DVB-T2 possibly much more with MIMO) - Services 2 (but promising) - Ecosystem 1 (but promising) - Standardization 1 (under development) - IPR 2 (should build on DVB-T2) - Business support 1 (none) Conclusions - Not ready, to be reconsidered in the longer term. DVB-NGH has been effectively under development since March It is officially positioned as the successor of DVB-H, based on DVB-T2, though not limited to mobile TV: it shall enable rich media, i.e. not limited to linear TV/Radio, streaming, downloads, and a low latency option. DVB-NGH should be able to work in VHF, UHF, and S-bands at least. As far as performance is concerned, DVB-NGH focus is on improved robustness for indoor reception. Regarding the architecture, DVB-NGH may integrate a satellite link under the model of DVB-SH. DVB-NGH will rely on all or part of DVB-T2 technology. DVB-NGH should be substantially more performing than LTE broadcast mode. Like DVB-H, DVB-NGH is a candidate to be a broadcast bearer for handhelds in order to offload the 3G/LTE telecom networks, but it is not clear how this would be achieved. It is currently only required that DVB-NGH shall be able to co-exist on the same sites as LTE (regarding interference issues). DVB-NGH is not finalized yet; its final RF specification is currently debated between two possible options: One would be a broadcast system reusing the DVB-T2 site modulation scheme Another would allow for more flexibility, and make DVB-NGH a kind of a system able to federate several existing or future broadcast waveforms including LTE, hence potentially addressing all use cases (dense urban telecom and broadcast, satellite,...) TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 14 / 26

15 3.3.4 MediaFLO (or FLO) Description Strengths Weaknesses MediaFLO (FLO) - End-to-end system developed by Qualcomm - Several versions: FLO rev0, reva, (upward compatible), EV. FLO rev0/a have the same performance, FLO EV has better performance - Designed around 2006 (FLO reva) and 2009 (FLO EV) - Main sponsor: Qualcomm, FLO Forum - FLO rev0/a system performance is about 2 db better than DVB-H - FLO EV system performance is db better than DVB-H, slightly more than DVB-SH - Optimised, more efficient transport compared to DVB-H, service layer also offers better compression - At least the same services as DVB-H: value added services in addition to mobile TV, including interactive - Improved user experience (zapping time) - No patent pool, IPR licenses cost is unknown, probably mainly from Qualcomm. - Good system standardization level in ANSI/TIA (USA), but very limited in ETSI: only FLO rev 0 waveform. - Limited to terrestrial deployment, in UHF but possibly L-bands and S-band too but not in VHF / L-band. - Deployed in the USA, but recently announced shutting down - Ecosystem is limited, Qualcomm is inevitable Assessment - Performance 3 (FLO rev A) 5 (FLO EV) - Services 4 (at least same as DVB-H) - Ecosystem 2 (in question) - Standardization 1 (reva, EV: not in Europe), 3 (rev0: waveform) - IPR 3 ( 3 ) - Business support 3 Conclusions - FLO is backed by Qualcomm, but needs to be more open. - FLO is a good system. FLO rev A is available, but the state-of the art FLO EV should be available only from 2012 (?) MediaFLO is an end-to-end system developed by Qualcomm for. It is designed for terrestrial operation at least in the UHF band, and commercially deployed in the USA, though its commercial success is limited. The FLO waveform exists in several versions: FLO original (rev0) and FLO rev A which have the same robustness performance, and FLO EV which is the state of the art version using long turbocodes similar to DVB-SH. The FLO system brings significant performance improvement over DVB-H in RF performance, transport efficiency, and for the user experience. FLO is significantly standardized in ANSI/TIA, but few in Europe: only FLO Rev0 RF layer is an ETSI standard. 3 MediaFLO, as well as imb and CMMB, is originally a proprietary technology which was later standardized, hence subject to specific licensing conditions. TDF is of the belief that the licensing terms for MediaFLO, imb and CMMB technologies could be potentially royalty free for chipsets or 3G terminals, and at FRAND conditions regarding other terminals and network equipment. Furthermore, it would be particularly paid attention to the fact that the whole system be fully standardized in Europe (ETSI), licensed under FRAND conditions, and that the related information necessary to achieve implementation be available to all companies at a level of detail similar to other standards, e.g. DVB. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 15 / 26

16 Hardware adaptation of US-based equipment to European market is needed (but not at chip level). FLO, as a currently proprietary system is not easily accepted outside the USA CMMB Description Strengths Weaknesses CMMB - A Chinese mobile broadcast system, also motivated to avoid foreign IPR. - Same concepts as DVB-SH (terrestrial and/or satellite) - Designed in Main sponsor: SARFT (State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television), TiMi technologies - High power broadcast sites, 200 cities covered, in UHF, mostly outdoor coverage rather than indoor. The satellite component is not implemented. - Large choice of al terminal types (connected and non-connected), at least one million of terminals, but effective users is low. - Performance might half way between DVB-H and DVB-SH, similar FLO rev A - Not standardized outside China - Not an official standard, pushed by an industrial consortium (SARFT) attempting to make it a de facto standard - No patent pool. Unknown patent holders and licensing terms - China centric ecosystem Assessment - Performance 2 (slightly les than FLO rev A) - Services 2? - Ecosystem 3 ( 200 devices models..) - Standardization 1 (China only) - IPR? - Business support 1 Conclusions - A possible alternative to FLO rev A. But China centric. CMMB is the Chinese de facto standard for mobile TV. Its architecture is the same as DVB SH (terrestrial and/or hybrid satellite), but in practice, only the terrestrial network (for handhelds) is used, in UHF. It is compatible to TD-SCDMA only: not to other Chinese 3G systems like WCDMA/HSPA or EVDO. Terminals include mobile phones, pocket TVs, and PC dongles. CMMB is a hybrid satellite/ terrestrial system, but its satellite version has not been implemented (handover Satellite S/ Terrestrial UHF not clearly defined: a problem was reported toward IC makers; it uses Nagravision CAS from Nagra. Frequencies: satellite uses 2.6 GHz S band ( MHz), Ku band ( GHz) for transponder contribution. Terrestrial uses S band (gap fillers SFN/ Satellite) and UHF. According to BMCO Forum, 120 terminal manufacturers had launched about 200 CMMB-compatible device models on the Chinese market in 2009; installed base could be estimated at around k. Population coverage is around 500 million (approximately 350 cities at 90% coverage). TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 16 / 26

17 3.3.6 ISDB-Tmm TDF has limited information regarding ISDB-Tmm; the following table summarizes TDF s current understanding. Description Strengths Weaknesses ISDB-T-mm - The ISDB-T version dedicated to mobile TV with advanced features compared to original standard - Designed in 2008, standardized in Main sponsor: Japanese Government?, ARIB/DiBEG - Will be used to deploy a nation-wide mobile multimedia network in Japan - Better spectrum efficiency and flexibility than original ISDB-T system. However comparison to systems of the same generation (DVB-SH, FLO EV) is not clear. - Support spectrum allocations for 7MHz and 8MHz bands - Good ecosystem in Japan, backward compatible with existing 1 Seg system - Performance might be close to FLO rev A (less than 2 db better than DVB-H) - A patent pool exists and is fully operative: IP conditions are known. - Not standardized in Europe - Tricky radiofrequency cohabitation with other DVB systems (frequency planning) - Licensing terms? - Japan centric ecosystem Assessment - Performance 2+ - Services? - Ecosystem? - Standardization 1 (not in Europe) - IPR 5 - Business support 2 (to be confirmed) Conclusions - ISDB-T-mm is based on a proven and deployed system, but first generation. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 17 / 26

18 4 Evaluation summary 4.1 Overview The following broadcast technologies are of limited interest, due to their limitation in network and service flexibility, or performance: DVB-H DVB-T, ISDB-T/1seg T-DMB (T-DAB) ATSC-M/H In the short term, MediaFLO (Rev A and EV), DVB-SH; CMMB and ISDB-T-mm will be available. ISDB-T may lag behind in terms of performance (to be confirmed), and the benefit of having a single system vanishes since it is not used for fixed TV in Europe. CMMB does not seem to reach satisfactory performances and may develop an ecosystem that is mainly China market focused. In the longer term, DVB-T2 and DVB-NGH are comparable regarding technical performance, unless MIMO provides an interesting improvement to DVB-NGH. DVB-T2 could be a low cost entry solution to a mobile TV or multimedia deployment, especially in an in-band scenario. Question remains to see how unicast related technologies will converge toward broadcast versions, and how broadcast technologies will coexist and interact with unicast-based technologies such as IMB (3G) or LTE (4G). IMB seems technically feasible but expensive compared to broadcast technologies, especially considering its limited lifetime as industry is now progressively shifting toward LTE. Finally, LTE embms performance is probably slightly lower than DVB-T2/ DVB-NGH. 4.2 Short-term: FLO Rev A, FLO EV and DVB-SH Overall, FLO EV and DVB-SH are comparable regarding spectrum efficiency, with a slight advantage to FLO thanks to better transmission and better compression. In terms of industrial ecosystem and business, FLO had a significant advantage until recently, but this is now questionable. Also, local service segmentation is easier with FLO due its TDD system (i.e. logical channels). The use of logical channels (MLC) allows a quick discovery of services and provides a good zapping experience for the user. On the other hand, DVB-SH enables hybrid satellite / terrestrial network coverage in a single system. However, it should be clear that such architecture mostly makes sense for terminals which are embedded inside cars or possibly handheld outdoor, otherwise most of the time only the terrestrial coverage is relevant. In such case of DVB-SH in terrestrial UHF (OFDM), the satellite link would be in S-band using OFDM or TDM modulation. Since the frequencies as well as the bandwidths are different, using a single tuner in the receiver will significantly impact on the handover delay, while two tuners will be more expensive but provide better user experience, should the code combining of the two signals be implemented (this is at the edge of the standard); for this reason, the use of OFDM for DVB-SH in both satellite (S-band) and terrestrial (UHF) gives no real advantage. In the case of FLO in UHF and DVB-SH on the satellite, two independent tuners are required anyway, but in addition two fully independent systems in the terminal. This gives a relative advantage to DVB-SH for terrestrial/ TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 18 / 26

19 satellite deployment, which will be even more clear with code combining implementation (time to market expected: 2 or 3 years minimum/ 2014?). If FLO was used to launch broadcast under a DVB-SH system license with identical services on terrestrial and satellite streams, it would require: Additional complex middleware at the terminal (to unify both FLO and SH UHF interfaces) Duplicated head-ends and a synchronization mechanism between both systems Minimum two tuners at terminal level (FLO CDMA UHF + DVB-SH UHF) 4.3 Mid-term: DVB-T2 and DVB-NGH DVB-T can handle outdoor and car rooftop mobility as well as indoor and in-car mobility at a level that is comparable to DVB-H (with around half of DVB-H coverage radius) when a number of parameters are set to optimize reception quality: modulation constellation scheme, reception diversity, etc. DVB-T2 mobile adaptation capabilities are making in-band mobile broadcast possible, especially for mobile TV. However due to the strong differences in network architecture, DVB-T2 could be limited to a low cost entry solution to a mobile TV or multimedia deployment. TDF views DVB-NGH applicable to a dedicated mobile network. LTE embms could be a solution, but the unicast capacity demands may leapfrog the broadcast LTE usages. In addition, DVB-NGH has the following improvements over DVB-T2 (and LTE): possibly a satellite link and improved performance. In order to foster the adoption of a broadcast bearer and its integration into terminals, a convergence of broadcast systems with LTE appears desirable, e.g. DVB-T2 / DVB-NGH. TDF views that such a convergence would make sense with respect to integration into terminals, rapid deployment, and adoption by MNOs for a global, efficient and futureproof mobile multimedia delivery. imb implies expensive implementation, has limited support from industry and its window of opportunity is closing due to work progress from LTE/4G. TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 19 / 26

20 4.4 Summary technology grid The following draft table (still to be discussed) summarizes the discussed aspects for each technology in light of proposed selection criteria: CRITERIA CATEGORY Technical performance Ecosystem and service potential Standards/ IP rights situation Business support to service launch Sub criteria - Services Ecosystem Standard IPR - Conclusions DVB-H 1 3 (possib. rich services) DVB-SH (UHF only) 4 (3,5dB better than DVB-H) DVB-T2 5 (4,5dB better than DVB-H) DVB-NGH 5+ (> DVB-T2 due to MIMO) MediaFLO reva/ FLO EV 3 (EV= 5) CMMB 2 (~less than FLO reva) 3 (same as DVB-H) 2 (similar to DVB-H but not std) 2 (but promising) 4 (at least ~ DVB-H) 3 (but vanishing) 5 (fully ETSI) 1 5 (fully ETSI) 2 5 (fully ETSI) 1 (but promising) 2 (in question) 2? 3 (200 device models) 1 (under develop.) 1 (rev0= 3) EV not in Europe 1 (China only) ISDB-Tmm 2+?? 1 (is not in Europe) 5 (costs known) 3 (needs clarificati on) 1 Outdated; window of opportunity is closing. 1 A challenger, but no ecosystem. Mainly satellite based. No real gain in S band sizing. 3 1 A low cost first step toward mobile TV 2 (should build on DVB-T2) 1 Not ready, to be reconsidered in the longer term. 3 3 Rev0 in standard is waveform only. Good and backed, but needs to be more open. FLO rev A is available, but state of art FLO EV only available from 2012? 1 A possible alternative to FLO rev A. But China centric. 5 2 (to be confirmed) Tricky RF cohabitation with other DVB or FLO systems, not well suited for use in Europe TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 20 / 26

21 5 Discussion topics questions (Preliminary note: this list is browsing many subjects. It is not assumed that all questions should be answered: organizations willing to contribute are expected to answer to the sub list of questions that make the most sense to them.) 5.1 Business Vision Q1: Do you agree and see interest in broadcast mobile networks? How important will it be for you? (must have/ nice to have/ don t know) Q2: What role do you see for them in the next 3-8 years? Can you provide quantitative guidance on this role? Q3: Do you agree with stakes and goals described in section 1 (introduction)? Q4: Do you agree with the list of business requirements described in section 2.1 above? Q5: What is missing from your point of view? Q6: Which are the three most important requirements to consider? Q7: Frequency usage: is it important that the broadcast technology can operate in various frequencies to adapt to market needs for multimedia broadcasting? 5.2 Evaluation criteria related questions Q8: Do you agree with criteria described in section 2.2 above? Would you see a weighting of these criteria? Q9: Would you want to see more relevant criteria? Which ones? 5.3 Technology assessment Q10: Do you agree with the technology list and segmentation? Q11: Which technologies would be worth adding? Q12: Do you have any comment on the assessment of each techno in section 3.3 above? Q13: Are you in opposition to some of the assessments made for one (or several) specific technology(ies)? Can you say which one(s) and give your assessment corrections? Q15: Would you say that the global assessment seems objective? Q16: Do you agree on the evaluation summary? What summary would you propose on your side? Q17: What are the key missing points that you would want to see in this document? TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 21 / 26

22 5.4 IP rights and standards Q18: What would be to your opinion the minimum specific IPR conditions that would make a technology acceptable and appropriate to enable its broad adoption by the markets? (For example: royalty free/ maximum unit royalty level licensing for ASICs, FRAND conditions for enabled handsets, FRAND conditions for transmitters/ modulators, specific Mobile Broadcast License integrated or separated with 3G/LTE license, no separate royalty-bearing patent license for broadcasters, content providers, editors and distributor, etc.) Q19: Can you elaborate and comment? 5.5 Questions specific to Content editor Q20: as an editor of TV content, what are your key expectations toward a mobile broadcast technology? Q21: more explicitly, what would be your requirements for: Image quality ( if applicable)? What advisable bit rate? Client / device requirements? Services? Conditional access? Q22: Is there any other specific matter that from the content editor point of view would be important to consider? Which ones? 5.6 Questions specific to Service / Content Distributor Q23: Do you agree with the vision that a mobile broadcast network can bring you an additional advantage in massive consumer media distribution services? Q24: What would be your needs with respect to using a broadcast digital delivery network? Key specifications to be met? Device interfacing? Service Interfacing? Network interfacing? Geographical scope? Order of magnitude of number of users? Coverage extension and quality? SLA? Desired pricing point? Time frame? Q25: What would be for you the minimum acceptable performances for the mobile broadcast network to become a relevant solution? Q26: What could be the key decision parameters in your decision to consider making use of a mobile broadcast technology / network? TDF Project TMP 360 White Paper Released for discussion - Oct. 18, 2010 Page 22 / 26