Digital Dividend - wasting our assets???

nohopengn

With approx 400Mhz of sub 1Ghz spectrum becoming available. Why is the Irish regulator giving two thirds of it to broadcasters?
That is prime spectrum and could easily be used for broadband delivery?

watty

Er.. the majority would rather have TV than Broadband.

It's not really reasonable for the Broadcasters to give up much more than 100MHz. Ofcom wants them to give up maybe 250MHz. Comreg may be planning a more reasonable 115Mhz.

470MHz to 862MHz is Analogue & Digital Terrestrial TV. Before HD was envisaged, Ofcom thought selling off half of it or more was a good idea. It's not.

It's a lie and dishonest for ANYONE to suggest that 400MHz is becoming available.

While Satellite is important, we currently have NO Irish satellite service at all and it requires fixed dish. There is NO good reason to remove the majority of spectrum from Terrestrial Broadcast that has had it for 40 years simply because of Digital change over. With need to provide 30 regular and 6 HD channels minimum, rather than 4 to 5 analogue ones the "digital dividend" is nothing like as big as envisaged 10 years ago.

Broadband largely needs cabled infrastructure (fibre, coax or copper pairs). Unless you have very small wireless cells the facility to have real broadband is very limited except in very low density rural areas.

Allowing 100MHz would ensure reasonable cell sizes for Nomdic or Mobile "near broadband" experience.

200Mhz to 300MHz (Even the most anti-DTT regulators/consultants would allow 150MHz broadcast) would simply let the providers build bigger cells. It's very unlikely to give x2 to x3 speed for various technical reasons.

Remember also that Broadcast DTT is up to 1000x more efficient in spectrum use than using the same channels as IPTV on a Wireless Broadband Sector. It also allows HD and as many receivers as you like. That's not economic on IPTV.

So there needs to be a sensible balance between Broadcast and Unicast Data. About 280 MHz (470 .. 750MHz) DTT (DVB-t and DVB-t2 mix) and 110MHz Data (752MHz .. 862MHz) is about right. Many in Europe agree. Ofcom is the odd man out.

864 .. 870 is SRD / Licence free band for gadgets. VERY important

872 .. 960 is existing Mobile/Nomadic communication services. Public GSM is 880 .. 915 & 925 .. 960MHz. With EDGE and now EDGE 2.0, which is as spectrum efficient as HSDPA and in some ways superior, it's marginal idea to recycle the GSM as 3G/HSDPA and make millions of European phones obsolete. New phones would be needed.

1.2GHz to 1.3GHz is in use.

I'm not sure if something can be done with 960MHz to 1200MHz. Very nice spectrum, 240MHz.

bk

Yes, as LTE seems to typically use max 20MHz chunks, you could probably issue 5 licenses based on 115MHz.

That would be the 4 major mobile companies, plus one more.

They could perhaps even issue a sixth.

watty wrote: »

So there needs to be a sensible balance between Broadcast and Unicast Data. About 280 MHz (470 .. 750MHz) DTT (DVB-t and DVB-t2 mix) and 110MHz Data (752MHz .. 862MHz) is about right. Many in Europe agree. Ofcom is the odd man out.

In the US they are mostly using between 698MHz and 793MHz, I assume most devices would be compatible up to 862MHz used in Europe and visa versa?

I'd hate to see a repeat of the old GSM situation where for a long time phones operated at only a specific frequency and therefore you couldn't roam.

watty wrote: »

872 .. 960 is existing Mobile/Nomadic communication services. Public GSM is 880 .. 915 & 925 .. 960MHz. With EDGE and now EDGE 2.0, which is as spectrum efficient as HSDPA and in some ways superior, it's marginal idea to recycle the GSM as 3G/HSDPA and make millions of European phones obsolete. New phones would be needed.

Well with my iPhone, I seem to always get full connection on Edge, but even in Dublin city center, 3G can be spotty. I assume that this is because Edge is using 900MHz, while 3G is using 1900MHz to 2100MHz and 900MHz travels further and penetrates walls better.

I know that in the US, AT&T are now rushing to move 3G to the 850MHz frequency to relieve some of the issues with their poor 3G network coverage.

It would seem like a sensible thing to do here in Ireland, surely older phones could continue to use GSM at 1800MHz frequency?

Of course that would be dependent on Comreg letting it happen.

watty

bk wrote: »

Yes, as LTE seems to typically use max 20MHz chunks, you could probably issue 5 licenses based on 115MHz.

That would be the 4 major mobile companies, plus one more.

They could perhaps even issue a sixth.



In the US they are mostly using between 698MHz and 793MHz, I assume most devices would be compatible up to 862MHz used in Europe and visa versa?

I'd hate to see a repeat of the old GSM situation where for a long time phones operated at only a specific frequency and therefore you couldn't roam.



Well with my iPhone, I seem to always get full connection on Edge, but even in Dublin city center, 3G can be spotty. I assume that this is because Edge is using 900MHz, while 3G is using 1900MHz to 2100MHz and 900MHz travels further and penetrates walls better.

I know that in the US, AT&T are now rushing to move 3G to the 850MHz frequency to relieve some of the issues with their poor 3G network coverage.

US has old very poor CDMA-1 on 850MHz, hence interest in 3G

GSM is 900 and 1800, sometimes by area. 3G is 2100 Only.

My Nokia does 850, 900, 1800 and 1900 on GSM/GPRS/EDGE and 3G only 2100MHz.


No 698MHz to 793MHz devices will NOT work on 750MHz to 862MHz. US TV band always a bit different to Europe. Also 902MHz to 928MHz is Licence free band in USA similar but more power and applications as our Euro 864 .. 870MHz band. The Euro DECT cordless is 1880 to 1900 MHz, but in USA they have DECT on 1920 MHz–1930 MHz (notice in USA and Europe DECT is close to GSM 1800/1900) but also different physical DECT protocol handsets on 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz bands in USA. FM radio even is not quite same spec in USA and Europe and different again in Japan.

There are calls for a Harmonised approach to 750MHz to 862MHz in Europe, though up to now Ofcom was wanting to "do their own thing". Now they are reconsidering.


You need 3 x 20MHz at least for one operator. Ideally 6 x 20MHz to allow better cell planning. So ONE infrastructure network operator and various retail/service providers.

reslfj

watty wrote: »

Er.. the majority would rather have TV than Broadband.

Not if they cannot otherwise get 1-2 Mbps Internet access - universal access is a must in the not to distant future. But - YES.

watty wrote:

It's not really reasonable for the Broadcasters to give up much more than 100MHz. Ofcom wants them to give up maybe 250MHz. Comreg may be planning a more reasonable 115Mhz.

470MHz to 862MHz is Analogue & Digital Terrestrial TV. Before HD was envisaged, Ofcom thought selling off half of it or more was a good idea. It's not.
It's a lie and dishonest for ANYONE to suggest that 400MHz is becoming available.

The WRC07 agreed that ch61-69 (790-862 MHz or 72 Mhz) could be used by mobile services - ITU is currently investigating options for channel rasters and interference for the next WRC (WRC11). This leaves 40 DTT channels in the RoI (to be shared with the UK) - far more capacity than needed for even HDTV via DTT, if the spectrum is used efficiently (like using SFN's and DVB-T2)

Broadband could end up something like: 30 MHz LTE/WiMax* download - 10-12 MHz guard - 30 Mhz upload - with 5 + 5 Mhz paired allocations.

LTE/WiMax - can adapt its bitrates to each individual user - much like ADSL can - transmitting faster to some users and slower to users far away or deep inside a building. I think its up to about 5 bits/Hz (download), less for upload.
This translates into 30 Mhz x 5 bits/Hz or an absolute max of 150 Mbps/cell.

I any practical situation it will be far less - cells overlap, the signal is far from perfect - so maybe in the 10-20 Mbps range for download.
With a large antenna in front of a local router better service would likely be possible.

Such broadband will not allow things like IPTV as the bandwidth is a shared resource and used bit-rate will be priced, somehow. But it will allow for a good coverage of rural areas with relatively few base stations/masts, keeping cost down.
There are many applications that will run very nicely - E-mail - Medical applications, Farm management - online tax returns, normal browsing, working from home, kids doing school work ....

In urban areas with more wireless broadband users the 2-3 GHz band can provide far more capacity - but mobile can never match a fiber - not even get close.

The big question is how to force the telcos not to 'mis-use' these frequencies in urban areas - without providing country-wide coverage. The market is unlikely to work here - some strong regulations are needed - IMHO.

And cooperation between the telcos may be much better than competition in providing universal rural broadband coverage.


Lars

* WiMax will be able to use paired channels sometime soon.

bk

watty wrote: »

No 698MHz to 793MHz devices will NOT work on 750MHz to 862MHz.

That is madness, so you are saying that a LTE mobile phone from Europe won't work when roaming in the US?!!!

That sounds like complete madness and surely completely defeats part of the purpose of Verizon moving from CDMA to LTE, seemingly to be part of a global standard and profit from roaming with Vodafone and other LTE operators.

Surely if a mobile phone can be made to operate on GSM 900 with frequencies between 900.2 and 959.8 and GSM 1800 with frequencies between 1736.4 and 1875, then it should be possible to make mobile phones and other LTE devices to operate from 700MHz up to 850MHz?

watty

There is no LTE service in Europe.

LTE phones (pointless) and LTE modems (useful) will likely do a couple of bands if "world models".

It's possible to make anything work on any frequency if the market is big enough.

The WRC07 agreed that ch61-69 (790-862 MHz or 72 Mhz) could be used by mobile services - ITU is currently investigating options for channel rasters and interference for the next WRC (WRC11).

Thanks. I think that is too small. More like 120MHz to 150MHz is needed, and I think likely as as a compromise with Ofcom's 300MHz!!

Some Comreg proposals suggest 470 .. 750 MHz for Digital TV.

Broadband could end up something like: 30 MHz LTE/WiMax* download - 10-12 MHz guard - 30 Mhz upload - with 5 + 5 Mhz paired allocations.

5MHz + 5MHz is current 3G/HSDPA/W-CDMA, far too small for decent LTE/Wimax, which is less than optimal at 10MHz and ideal at 20MHz per sector.

Really Nomadic solutions rather than phone hansets or Mobile Gadgets is what 750MHz to 862MHz should be used for. A box with WiFi, router, ethernet and Rabbit Ear aerial. Gadgets are only starting to have built in EDGE/3G/HSDPA and Phones don't need more than GSM/EDGE/3G.

LTE mobile operators will likely still have GSM/3G. They will want a new market rather than canabalising the existing one.

bk

I have to strongly disagree with you Watty. An iPhone with LTE would be a killer device, specially with the lower latency offered by LTE.

Having used an iPhone over the last two months, I believe we are going to see a radical change in mobile phones and how people use the internet.

I believe that mobile phones will end up becoming the primary way that people access the net.

For me personally, outside of work, I use my iPhone on the web far more then my laptop. I surf web sites, check email, stream internet radio stations, stream my music collection from my desktop to my iphone (app called simplify media), watch streaming videos from around the world via Truveo, hell I can even connect to work via VPN and view my desktop via VNC!!!

The reality is we are going to see all sorts of devices use LTE, next gen kindles (e-ink readers), mobiles, PMP's, hand held games consoles, GPS, etc. It would be preferable if they all worked anywhere in the world.

reslfj

watty wrote: »

There is no LTE service in Europe.

LTE phones (pointless) and LTE modems (useful) will likely do a couple of bands if "world models".

It's possible to make anything work on any frequency if the market is big enough.

I think that (ch61-69 = 72 Mhz) is too small. More like 120MHz to 150MHz is needed, and I think likely as as a compromise with Ofcom's 300MHz!!

5MHz + 5MHz is current 3G/HSDPA/W-CDMA, far too small for decent LTE/Wimax, which is less than optimal at 10MHz and ideal at 20MHz per sector.

Here are three extracts from responses to the Ofcom's consultation on the award design (auction) for "Digital Dividend Review: 550-630MHz and 790-854MHz" - August 2008.
There are more responses here http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/clearedaward/, the focus on an Europe wide standard of ch61-69 for LTE/WiMax can be found in many more responses.

Lars

"T-Mobile believes that a thorough impact assessment would find that the benefits of revising the current proposal to another which is more suitable for mobile use would far outweigh the costs.
The proposal that we feel should be adopted includes the following points:
• Clear channels 61 and 62 completely to be auctioned within the Digital Dividend award;
• Re-locate channels 61 and 62 to within the lower sub-band of digital dividend spectrum or where possible to within the interleaved spectrum;
• Clear channel 69 for auction and move PMSE users to alternative spectrum, potentially within the duplex gap between the FDD uplink and FDD downlink;
• Package the spectrum available in the upper sub-band in paired 5MHz lots with a fixed duplex spacing
• Use the technical conditions being developed by CEPT for mobile use of the 790 – 862 MHz range.
• Package the spectrum available in the lower sub-band in 8MHz lots only so that it is suitable for broadcasting uses. "

" Vodafone proposes that Ofcom should extend the upper sub-band to channels 61 to 69 (790-862MHz). It is clear that mobile telecommunications will be the most valuable use of the upper sub-band. To make optimal use of this sub-band, it must be aligned with developments in Europe. WRC-07 allocated the frequency range 790-862MHz to the Mobile Service and identified it for IMT. Since WRC-07, the developments in Europe have focused on this sub-band1. In particular, the European Commission has issued a Mandate to CEPT to develop channelling arrangements applicable for the sub-band 790-862MHz that are sufficiently precise for the development of EU-wide equipment.
If the upper sub-band in UK is not harmonised with Europe, the value of it for mobile is unlikely to be substantially greater than the recent UK L-Band auction.

To achieve the optimal use of the upper sub-band, Ofcom should:
- Offer channels 61 and 62 as cleared spectrum, and relocate the DVB-T transmissions currently proposed for these channels to the lower sub-band or interleaved channels. In this response, Vodafone proposes a method of substantially reducing the cost and disruption of doing this.
- Offer the spectrum as paired lots of 2 X 5MHz, following the FDD bandplan currently being developed by CEPT in response to the Commission Mandate.
- Use the Technical Licence Conditions (TLCs) also being developed by CEPT.
- Relocate the PMSE currently in channel 69 to the centre gap of this bandplan.
- Release the spectrum nationally in 2012, after the Olympics and Paralympics."

"Orange does not support Ofcom’s proposals to include the interleaved spectrum in Channels 61 and 62. We believe that DVB-T users in this spectrum should be moved to the lower band as this would improve border coordination with the rest of Europe who will use channels 61 to 69 MHz for mobile broadband services.
This would free the upper band to be awarded in lots of 5 MHz and improve spectrum efficiency as there would be a reduced need for coordination at the uplink/ downlink boundaries around the UK.
....
With the current lack of equipment and harmonisation issues, we believe there is absolutely no market need for this spectrum to be awarded before 2011.
"

nohopengn

Guys the reason I asked the question was that having attended the Digital Dividend conference. The authors of the report given to ComReg - Europe Economics, these guys questioned whether or not allocating the majority of the spectrum that will become available to broadcasting was a good idea?

Here are a few interesting points that were made:
1. When the analogue switchoff is made, RTE with its one license will be able to provide more services than it can at present.
2. Robert Putnam(Ofcom) made the point that on average 20% of broadcasting spectrum will be in use at any one time.
3. Robert Pepper (ex FCC & Senior Cisco guy) - gave a very good presentation and he suggested that half the digital dividend (386Mhz) be allocated to 'other/innovative' uses. In my own humble opinion it seems like more sense for this spectrum to be available for these uses rather than have extra channels from Boxer???
4. If we did have approx 190Mhz for 'other uses' I can't see how that wouldn't be better than more paid TV choices.
That spectrum would give Ireland Inc a chance to experiment with new technologies and that can't be a bad thing. Unfortunately it seems the regulatory wheels that are in place cannot be undone and personally I think we've wasted an opportunity.

The big winner of course if Denis O'Brien and his Boxer consortium.

watty

The non-Boxer main channels would need in the future a lot more spectrum for HD. For a significant period there is need for SD & HD versions of channels.

Ofcom need to harmonise with Europe.

386MHz as a "Digital Dividend" is simple greed on part of regulator/government to make money. It doesn't make sense. The "real" & realistic Digital Dividend is more than the 790-854MHz but less than the 386MHz fantasy.

If too little spectrum is for Broadcast and too much for Mobile operators it's only Rupert Murdoch's News International/NDS/BskyB that will benefit.

386 Vs 140 Mhz makes almost no difference to the quality of service of Broadband in rural Ireland. Even the 150MHz is useless if poor regulation of it. We definitely don't want the regulator parcelling it into small chunks for many licences. For speed you need 20MHz per sector minimum.

nohopengn

hmm valid point..... my thinking on the spectrum was not to give/sell it to mobile operators - (they're some of the biggest ripoff merchants going)....

No, I think that spectrum could be used for more of the low power 'whitespace' solutions that Bob pepper was talking about... if we had a big chunk of spectrum would it not be attractive for R&D purposes to develop new technologies?

bk

watty wrote: »

The non-Boxer main channels would need in the future a lot more spectrum for HD. For a significant period there is need for SD & HD versions of channels.

Actually I was thinking about this, would it not be possible to turn off the SD channels and have the receiver box down convert the HD channels to SD when needed?

Seems like a more efficient use of spectrum.

reslfj

bk wrote: »

... would it not be possible to turn off the SD channels and have the receiver box down convert the HD channels to SD when needed?

Seems like a more efficient use of spectrum.

This is exactly what will happen if a MPEG-4 HP @ L4 (HP enabled) receiver is connected to a non HD-ready TV or connected via SCART (analogue).

If you are ready to buy a new box (next year), there is no problem.

The need for simulcast is to protect viewers with an old box/DTT receiver that do not support MPEG-4 HP @ L4 (SD only MPEG-4) or an MPEG-2 IDTV with a Neotion type card.

One thing is not using DVB-T2 in Ireland, but allowing any MPEG-4 SD-only solution - is a very unwise decision - IMHO.

Norway is using MPEG-4 and they only broadcast SD, but all STB's/IDTV's must support HD reception.

Lars

PS! If WRC07 (1.4) is adapted at WRC11 - the value of spectrum below 790 Mhz will be very low. Ireland is much to small not to follow commen EU standards in this area.

watty

bk wrote: »

Actually I was thinking about this, would it not be possible to turn off the SD channels and have the receiver box down convert the HD channels to SD when needed?

Seems like a more efficient use of spectrum.

Indeed ALL HD receivers I've ever looked at do that. Gives a 30% perceptual improvement compared with a non-HD source (same thing done at studio end on entire MPEG2 or MPEG4 SD chain has same effect) But then you need EVERYONE to have HD receivers from day one. An MPEG4 receiver may not be HD.

bk

Well then it would seem clear that Comreg should specify that all official* Irish DTT receivers are HD compatible, to help the transition in the future.

It seems stupid to launch MPEG 4 DTT in 2009 and not have then HD capable.

As an example Smart Telecoms new IPTV STB's are all HD compatible, supporting up to 1080i output and HDMI, despite the fact they are only doing SD at the moment.

* Of course I understand people might import non HD compatible boxes from abroad, but then tough luck, all the boxes sold in Ireland should be HD compatible, it is really a no brainer.

watty

It's pretty nearly impossible to get a decent IPTV or Cable TV set-box that does MPEG4 and NOT have HD... More that than any plan for HD. HD needs x5 the bitrate, so I'm not expecting Smart to offer a Satellite Grade HD content



B&Q and other places in Ireland have MPEG2 DTT boxes. What sort of Idiocy is that?