Mark is one enthusiastic salesman! What I notice here is the first clear
statement of intention, to bring ATSC 3.0 into the wireless telecom world. Not
for TV signals. Rather, for this "broadcast offload" of TELCO traffic, within
the cellular telco network.
I'm still unclear that the telcos need or want any such. Or, put another way,
whether a DEDICATED broadcast radiohead, in the wireless telco's cellular
network, is justifiable to them. Just how much are wireless telcos suffering,
for lack of pure one-way broadcast in their cell networks?
But, to his credit, Mark brings up the question "who owns the spectrum." The
angle here being, the broadcasters can bring their own spectrum to bear, for
non-TV purposes, into cellular networks. Which could be pretty interesting to
the telcos, assuming the telcos really think they must have one-way-only
broadcast.
Let's assume for an instant that wireless telcos are really begging for this
dedicated broadcast mode. Would the telcos happily deal with TV broadcasters,
or would they petition the FCC to hand over more of the lower frequency
spectrum to them? For that matter, how would the FCC react, to TV broadcasters
using their relatively low cost, publically-owned spectrum, for telco purposes?
Another interesting insight from this article is that LTE-A's
multicast/broadcast mode is not so much to write home about. Maybe so, but
can't that special mode only be used if it's really beneficial on the occasion,
and then revert that spectrum to unicast most of the time? Can't do that with
dedicated broadcast.
In short, the telcos need to weigh in. In my view, in IP networks, IP multicast
is usually the efficient way to manage traffic that many require simultaneous
delivery to multiple end points. And even then, it is rarely used, in normal,
commercial IP networks. Possible exception being those specialized networks
that deploy actual IPTV. But even there, that's only TV, and only for the "live
streams." (For instance, Verizon FiOS does not use IP at all, for the linear TV
channels. They use broadcast, in dedicated optical frequency channels, which
becomes converted to regular old broadcast in 75-ohm coax. Of course, that's
wired, not wireless.)
Bert
----------------------------------------
https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/mark-aitken-talks-ces-2019-3-0-receiver-chip-rollout-5g-part-1
Mark Aitken Talks CES 2019, 3.0 Receiver Chip Rollout, 5G—Part 1
ONE Media LLC president and Sinclair VP of Advanced Technology recaps CES 2019
Phil Kurz Jan 23, 2019
HUNT VALLEY, MD.--Fresh off the rollout of a multistandard DTV receiver chipset
with support for ATSC 3.0 at the International CES 2019 in Las Vegas, Mark
Aitken, president of ONE Media LLC and VP of Advanced Technology at Sinclair
Broadcast Group is greatly encouraged about the prospects for ATSC 3.0.
Taking center stage for ONE Media at the annual consumer electronics
extravaganza was the rollout of a receiver chipset capable of receiving 12
different digital television standards, including 3.0.
But Aitken’s enthusiasm extends well beyond the favorable reception the
receiver chipset received at the show. The exhibit also featured a new
broadcast radio head designed to integrate the inherent efficiencies and
effectiveness of one-to-many OTA broadcasting into 4G and 5G wireless data
networks.
Aitken–a long-time proponent of offloading the one-to-many portion of wireless
network operators’ traffic to broadcast—says the broadcast radio head was
favorably received by representatives of wireless networks and their suppliers
in Las Vegas.
In this, the first of a two-part interview, Aitken talks about the
multistandard DTV receiver chipset, the new broadcast radio head, LTE Broadcast
and 5G and how 5G standards development envision integration of multiple
wireless networks. He also provides an update on his offer to give away 1
million of new receiver chips to any vendor that promises to build them into
mobile and portable devices.
(An edited transcript.)
TVTechnology: How would you characterize the reaction coming out of CES 2019 to
ONE Media’s rollout of two multistandard DTV receiver chips with support for
ATSC 3.0?
Mark Aitken: I would say I was startled by the level of activity and positive
feedback.
What I mean by that is we had various meetings set up with Korean, Taiwanese,
Chinese, Indian and U.S. companies—makers of dongles, set-top boxes, TV sets
and gateways.
The discussions were not just about the chip. The other thing that was in the
room as a backdrop for the chip was Saankhya had almost a dozen different
applications of software-defined receivers. They ran the gamut from USB dongles
and tablets to satellite radios and modulators.
Alongside of that was a product we are in the process of developing as a direct
result of our conversations on the convergence of broadcast and broadband. We
showed a prototype broadcast radio head.
TVT: What’s that?
MA: A broadcast radio head is a small, outdoor-mount utility device, not at all
unlike an LTE radio head, except supporting broadcast.
We were involved in designing that for a customer deployment. The idea is
pretty simple–a box that can sit on a tower alongside LTE and 5G that is
designed to tie into the data network, the intelligent network of a telecom
operator. In the 4G world, it’s the “EPC” [Evolved Packet Core]. In 5G, it’s
the new 5G Core architecture.
The point is we are headlong into defining the interconnect of Next-Gen
Broadcast to the world of telcom as a supplemental download or auxiliary
download or however you want to view it—but a broadcast spectrum-enabled device
that allows the conveyance of telcom data across an ATSC 3 waveform.
By the way, I almost hate to say ATSC 3 because with the implementation that is
being prototyped and coming into a proof of concept we are supporting parts of
the ATSC 3 standard that are extensions that will be enabled and signaled via
the bootstrap. So, we are already evolving the standard.
TVT: So, from a wireless operator’s point of view, does this broadcast radio
head fulfill what you have talked about for a long time: a technology that
enables an operator to offload its one-to-many data traffic to broadcast, thus
preserving a significant portion of its wireless network?
MA: Absolutely. It is being designed as a replacement to the very poorly
conceived, very poorly implemented multicast mode in the LTE environment.
It’s known to the consumer as LTE Broadcast. It’s eMBMS [Evolved Multimedia
Broadcast Multicast Service].
But eMBMS is a unicast-enabled multicast mode of operation, and it is
unicast-enabled because it can’t stand on its own as a broadcast waveform. It
lives in the unicast environment and demands the ability to do lost packet
replacement knowing there is going to be lost packets replaced versus a
designed broadcast standard that is meant to stand on its own.
We are doing all of the plumbing. We are involved in India, not just with the
chip development, but we are also a member of the telecom standards
organization in India, TSDSI [Telecommunications Standards Development Society,
India].
They are working at defining the standard that would allow anybody to a take a
non-3GPP [Third Generation Partnership Project] broadcast radio—and I call it a
radio because that’s how the telcom guys like to think of it—and tie it into a
3GPP access network. We are defining all the attributes that allow this
non-3GPP radio to be integrated into that network.
TVT: What about 5G? It seems like you will be going head to head against what
operators plan for 5G broadcast.
MA: Well, these go hand-in-hand. What we are doing is providing an invaluable
supplemental feed that is actually aligned with the 5G standard.
TVT: Let me clarify what I was asking. I guess it’s a matter of perspective
because I know some broadcasters—and you specifically—have talked about 3.0
being an integral part of a future 5G network. But I don’t know if the wireless
industry has shown it is receptive to that and will let broadcasters play in
their sandbox.
MA: Look, part of this is a matter of who owns the spectrum. Part of this is a
matter of who controls the network.
So, the 3GPP spectrum I am talking about is “TS22.261, Release 16.”
http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1831-sa1_5g. There are all kinds of ;
pieces to this puzzle, but it [broadcast spectrum] is one of the many.
TS22.261 is the 3GPP technical standard and system aspects that define service
requirements for 5G systems. It’s known as Release 16, and it’s not finished
yet. But from its inception, Release 16 has continued to address the
requirements to work in conjunction with 3GPP and non-3GPP systems.
There is an absolute recognition that 3GPP doesn’t live in the world by itself.
There are other standards, and the true nature of 5G has nothing to do with
specific spectrum.
You say 5G, and there are some people who think it is 20 GHz, or it is
millimeter wave or it’s 60 GHz. People jump to the spectrum side of it, and
there is some spectrum that is being opened up for advanced radios.
But at its heart, 5G is about convergence. 5G is about multi-radios. 5G is
about how do we assemble all of the available radio assets into a unified
environment? How does a telco fully utilize WiFi, how does it fully utilize all
the efforts that are going on in CBRS [Citizens Broadband Radio Service].
How do all of these things get pulled together in one place? That is what this
5G spec is all about. It’s about convergence. It’s about heterogeneous
networks—that’s the fancy term. Hybrid networks is an easier one to think
about. And we have talked for so long about this convergence of broadcast and
broadband—I don’t know how many different ways I have tried to describe it, but
it goes much deeper than simply it’s [3.0 is] IP-enabled.
But I can tell you that if it weren’t IP-enabled, there would be no discussion
on the table.
Great, it’s IP-enabled. That means the same stuff that flows across the
carrier’s [spectrum] can flow across our spectrum. Check that box off. Well,
how do you control that? How do you put that as an active, living mechanism
under the control of a network operator? We are doing that work.
And I say all of that because if you walked into the room [at CES] and you
could have the big screen TVs and the very same 3.0 chip doing ATSC 3 on one
screen and ATSC 1 on another screen. If you wanted, it could have been DVB-T,
DVB-T2 or ISDB-T. It could have been some of the advanced DVB satellite
[standards]. It could be any of those.
But the point is in the background of that was this whole vibrant discussion of
what if broadcasters were doing something more than television. There’s a shock.
I always have to draw people’s attention to the fact that ATSC was building a
television standard. We were engaged in ATSC because we wanted a broadcast
standard.
What you have in ATSC 3 is a broadcast standard, a broadcast television
standard, but by nature of elements that were foundational—and by the way ours,
I mean down to the IPR [intellectual property rights]—we ensured that we were
not precluded from doing the other things we knew were possible with a newly
baked, green field broadcast standard. Now we are beginning to explore those
areas.
TVT: What sort of things?
MA: A very simple example, if you want high-speed mobility, an 8K FFT [fast
Fourier transform] is not good enough. 8K gets you up to 100-plus mph. But what
if you want a broadcast standard that can operate at Autobahn speeds or will
support bullet trains? What if you have a broadcast standard that is more than
just automobiles?
Well, you need a 2K or 4K FFT—neither of which are in the ATSC 3 standard, but
are fully possible if you want to create a modulator that will do a 4K FFT for
example—and a receiver that will process a 4K FFT.
Guess what. We have a software-defined radio. So, we can literally create a
waveform on the front end and demodulate that waveform on the backend because
both ends of that are software-defined.
We are doing simple stuff first, but it will advance to different coding
techniques, different modulation schemes. We are crawling. We are just starting
down the road.
So, in the background in this room [at CES], there was this radio head on a big
tripod and an antenna attached to it that was demonstrating to people that
there are products being envisioned and prototyped and that are going to be
deployed that fit directly into the mobile network operator environment.
I choose those words carefully because it wasn’t until we were having
discussions with one of the major providers to the telco industry, as we are
describing this, that they said you are describing an architectural element.
We said, you are absolutely right. This is building a mobile network operation
a bit differently. It’s just the primary architectural element is broadcast,
not unicast. It’s not to the exclusion of unicast.
TVT: A couple of years ago at the ATSC annual meeting, you made an offer to
provide 1 million ATSC 3.0 mobile receiver chips for free to mobile or portable
device makers. Did your CES chipset rollout get you any takers?
MA: We had a couple of conversations with dongle manufacturers who wanted to
know how they would take advantage of our offer. So, we’ve now got two vendors
with whom we’ve had that first level of discussion. We are getting down to how
we make that happen.
I can’t give you all the details of that, but the criteria for that was simply
that it’s a party that commits to putting a million of these chips into mobile
and portable devices, and that is a fairly broad range of products. And they
may not all be ATSC 3.
In Part II, Mark will discuss his concept of a "broadcast market exchange,"
content security within ATSC 3.0 and Sinclair's plans for Next Gen TV
deployment in 2019.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.