Nokia Networks: Don't hate us, broadcasters – we're testing LTE for TV The Nokia Networking LTE Broadcast trial announced in Germany this week is all about building bridges between broadcasters and mobile operators, because it is about sending TV for televisions through an LTE Network, rather than TV for phones. And for a change the trial was explained clearly in its release, which meant quite a …
Except for public service broadcasters who are obliged to provide free to air signals. In Germany there has been some controversy due to the decision of some private channels to stop using DVB-T because of the apparently negative cost/benefit ratio with most of their punters already using satellite.
DVB-T in Germany is nothing like as healthy as it is in the UK: fewer channels (though it still manages to have a load of shit) and no HD, so LTE might manage to fill a niche. However, the topography is against it: satellite is popular in rural areas where terrestrial propagation (UHF or phone) is poor and most cities have good cable coverage. TV over IP is already offered by all the large ISPs. So while TV over LTE might be an interesting technology it's got a lot of existing investment to compete with. DVB-H demonstrated a distinct lack of demand in being able to watch TV on the move.
Exactly Charlie. I think I only know one person, here in Germany, who uses DVB-T. Everybody else uses either Satellite with FTA channels or Cable with FTA channels.
Paid channels seem to have relatively low take-up as well - one problem being that the Pro7Sat.1 channels are FTA in SD and or per subscription in HD; most people aren't willing to pay extra to watch the same rubbish in HD that they can watch in SD for free.
I have satellite, with around 40 free channels that I watch regularly, from the equivalent of the BBC to DMAX (a lot of American stuff, like Mythbusters), there are dozens of other German channels, but they are mainly regional variations. All of the state TV (ARD, ZDF, Eins...) are FTA in HD. I also get the FTA channels as part of my Internet package from Osnatel. I did try a DVB-T antenna when I moved to my previous flat - I had to wait a week or so until I could organise a new dish. It worked fine on my PC, but was limited to around 10 channels.
Given the abundance of channels on satellite and the relative lack of reception in many areas, terrestrial TV never really got a look-in, once satellite and cable came along.
The other thing is, TV doesn't seem to be so important - or at least the shows themselves aren't - as, say in the UK or USA. Most of the people I know don't seem to rush home to watch specific shows, let alone invest in a DVR to record a show, if they happen to be out and about.
The problem is the cost of DVB-T and its relative lack of coveragein Germany. With so many mountains and valleys, it was never really a good solution. Once satellite and cable came along, terrestrial TV pretty much died a death, outside of major metropolitan areas.
Even there the number of FTA channels has remained relatively small, compared to the FTA on satellite. Even in major cities, most people have a satellite dish, just for the FTA channels. Most of the commercial channels are pulling out, because they just don't get the viewing figures to make the cost of running the antennas, or renting space on antennas, worth while.
I don't see LTE improving the situation, but I could be wrong, if they can come up with a more economic model than DVB-T.
>a more economic model than DVB-T
That's precisely the problem. DVB transmitters ought to be cheaper than mobile base stations because they don't receive and the encoding/transmission is of a similar complexity.
If you have to get a DTV mux to every mobile base station, that's a colossal cost in backhaul. If you only do it from selected mobile base stations, then you might as well put a DVB transmitter on the same mast.
If you can do terrestrial cheaper with LTE, then there is something very broken in the distribution market!
This is about Nokia selling gear to dumb operators.
It's no more efficient than DTT. National transmission coverage would cost more than DTT.
It's duplication unless you are scrapping DTT. (a wet dream for Comreg and Ofcom who want to abolish DTT)
It's a massive number of masts to give current DTT coverage.
Not about LTE or efficiency. About Nokia making money.
Let us use Broadcast spectrum for Broadcasting. We need to stop changing the specs too and have stability. People do not want to buy new TVs and Setboxes every few years.
Use Mobile Spectrum for Mobile. Efficiently. The reality is that there is NO need for 800MHz. If the 900, 1800 and 2100 was single Wholesale operator that would give a x4 improvement in many places. But Regulators want to maximise Licence revenue. Licence the retail resellers and have NO licence fee for spectrum, but single regional, national or pan euro wholesale operators for spectrum efficiency.
DTT is maybe 20x more expensive than Satellite for TV broadcaster, (LTE TV won't save money) but should be mandatory for ever for any TV station with a Broadcast licence in the territory. Nor should a station be allowed to give up FTA Terrestrial unless they are encrypted advert free premium subscription only on Cable and Satellite.
In the US, a 6 MHz RF channel using 8-VSB modulation delivers about 19 Mb/sec data rate. That RF channel has a reach of up to 100 miles or so (terrain permitting) at the highest allowable power of 1000 kw effective for UHF (470 MHz to 698 MHz in the US for channels 14-51)
That's terribly inefficient use of spectrum when you consider what LTE is capable of. There are a lot more towers so the investment is larger, but the towers are mostly already there. They just need to be outfitted to use new frequencies. That same amount of spectrum can achieve much higher data rates with LTE (nearly 300 Mbits/sec in a 20 MHz channel) The towers could deliver a few 19 Mb/sec TV channels and still have most of their bandwidth available for cellular users. With LTE Advanced the numbers are even better.
There are some issues of course, like TV tuners not being able to receive LTE, and antennas needing to be re-pointed to the nearest cellular tower. In some cases people who can receive broadcasts from a TV tower would not be able to do from a cellular tower. Nokia wants to sell more cellular-related stuff, obviously, but they don't have to deal with the hard problems of forcing consumers through a painful transition.
In the US, there's a voluntary auction next year of UHF channels 31-51 (126 MHz of spectrum, a bit less usable due to required guard bands to protect TV reception) The affected channels will be repacked into the rest of the space. Theoretically you could eventually take the remainder of the UHF space, if the auction rules required dedicating a portion of your spectrum to TV broadcasting, and the auction proceeds could be used to provide people with free set top tuners that would connect to their antenna and receive the broadcasts. One of the benefits would be that instead of being locked into using MPEG2 HD broadcasts because that's what the ATSC standard says, they could switch to HEVC for a 4x bandwidth savings, as well as potentially offering some 4K broadcasts.
"European DVB-T and especially DVB-T2 is nothing to do with politically chosen 8-VSB"
Yet another case of the USA being lumbered with a crappy inferior system versus the UK?
There is a lot of precident:
110V vs 220V
NTSC vs Pal
6 weeks to train a soldier vs 28 weeks.
CDMA vs GSM
CDMA2000 vs LTE
IBOC versus DAB
XM vers DAB+
etc. etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
