DVB T2W
A DVB terrestrial digital television transmission solution for
Australia, Canada, Mexico, South
Korea and New Zealand
Abstract
DVB-T2 is in process of being developed as a terrestrial
transmission system for the UK. However, as a DVB standard T2 has flaws
and is limited in bandwidth. DVB-T2's maximal transmission bandwidth is 10
MHz, a mode that could not be used in Canada or anywhere where there are 6
MHz television channels.
With an effective bandwidth increase to 12 MHz, 16 MHz, 18 MHz or 24 MHz a
better television transmission system can be created. The bandwidth
increases must naturally be in multiples of either 6 MHz or 8 MHz. The 6
MHz or 8 MHz multiples are needed to be backwardly compatible with NTSC
and PAL & SECAM bandwidth allocations.
- This proposal does ignore the 7 MHz allocation used for PAL (in the
VHF band) in many parts of the world.
- DVB-T is an adequate replacement transmission system for 7 MHz VHF
allocations formerly used by PAL, as it has a 7 MHz mode.
- Many nations are abandoning 7 MHz VHF TV transmission, so RF output
for 7 MHz TV globally will not be increasing.
The proposed wideband "DVB-T2W" system could be implemented in Australia,
Canada-Mexico and New Zealand where it makes the most economic sense.
DVB-T2W is not the same thing as DVB-T2 -- it is a more advanced
transmission format.
Primary design goals (not in any specific order)
- Increase the number of channels in a Channel Group so one transmitter
can serve an entire region on behalf of multiple broadcasters.
- Reduce RF channel planning complexity for regulators and broadcasters.
- Reduce RF transmitter output power by a factor of at least 20% vs
DVB-T or DVB-T2.
- Reduce electromagnetic compatibility issues by avoiding some of
DVB-T2's extremely high datarate transmission modes.
- Increase Doppler Immunity vs DVB-T2, but make it no worse than DVB-T
high rate modes.
- Allow for open source CODECs to be used for both Audio and Video
transmission.
- Create a transmission system that is 3D and 4k ready by default.
- Current DVB transmission systems do not support wavelet encoding in
the Video CODECs. There must be support for wavelet encoding of
reference images in the Video transmission subsystem so as to make the
signal more robust.
- Currently DVB and ATSC are shackled with some CODEC components that
have intellectual property issues. This must end.
- Turbocodes, and Punctured Turbocodes must be permitted for use in the
Error Correction subsystem, as propagation conditions may evolve that
will not work with the current DVB-T2 error correction subsystem.
- Allow mobile devices to still have access to TV service via older DVB
(or ATSC) terrestrial transmitters.
- Allow for Digital Audio Broadcasting, at least nominally as DVB-T
currently does.
All of these design goals can be met with increased
bandwidth, and limited modifications to the DVB-T2 transmission system.
The only possible major change that new video codecs will be required and
the error correction system must have an alternate to the current Low
Density Parity Check Codes + BCH currently implemented.
History matters : the role of NTSC, PAL-7 and PAL-8
PAL broadcast systems
This table illustrates the differences between the various
PAL broadcast systems.
The rarer forms of PAL have been omitted from the table.
Signal Parameter
|
PAL B |
PAL G, H |
PAL I |
PAL D |
| Transmission Band |
VHF |
UHF |
UHF/VHF |
VHF |
| Lines / Fields |
625/50 |
625/50 |
625/50 |
625/50 |
| Video Bandwidth |
5.0 MHz |
5.0 MHz |
5.5 MHz |
6.0 MHz |
| Sound Carrier |
5.5 MHz |
5.5 MHz |
6.0 MHz |
6.5 MHz |
| Channel Bandwidth |
7.0 MHz |
8.0 MHz |
8.0 MHz |
8.0 MHz |
| Active lines |
576i |
576i |
576i |
576i |
Implementation note
- Australia uses PAL-B on VHF and UHF
- NZ uses PAL-G on UHF, but PAL-B on VHF
- Canada, Mexico and Japan use NTSC
In the end these systems were decommissioned and replaced
with DVB-T (Australia, NZ) and ATSC (Canada). However, this HDTV
transmission system adoption is not without its flaws and its problems.
DVB-T and DVB-T2 History
Towards the end of 1991, broadcasters, equipment
manufacturers and regulatory bodies in Europe came together to discuss the
formation of a group that would oversee the introduction of digital TV.
That group, which became known as the European Launching Group (ELG),
realized that a consensus-based framework, through which all of the key
stakeholders could agree on the appropriate technologies to be used, would
benefit everybody involved.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was drawn up, setting out the basis on
which competitors in the marketplace would come together in a spirit of
trust and mutual respect. The MoU was signed in September 1993 by all ELG
participants, and the DVB Project was born. A key report from the Working
Group on Digital Television was also central to setting out important
concepts that would go on to shape the introduction of digital TV in
Europe and far beyond.
By any measure the DVB Project has been a success. More than 500 million
devices around the world are receiving services that use DVB standards,
including at least 100 million satellite receivers and at least 150
million DVB-T receivers. DVB-C is the most commonly used system for
digital cable TV. DVB-T has seen phenomenal growth in the last few years
with services on air across Europe and in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin
America and many more countries that are planning deployment. The
economies of scale engendered by such success mean that the prices
consumers have to pay for receivers are falling all the time.
In March 2006 DVB decided to study options for an upgraded DVB-T standard.
In June 2006, a formal study group named TM-T2 (Technical Module on Next
Generation DVB-T) was established by the DVB Group to develop an advanced
modulation scheme that could be adopted by a second generation digital
terrestrial television standard, to be named DVB-T2.
According to the "Commercial Requirements" and "Call For
Technologies" issued in April 2007, the first phase of DVB-T2 would be
devoted to provide optimum reception for stationary (fixed) and portable
receivers (units which can be nomadic, but not fully mobile) using
existing aerials, whereas a second and third phase would study methods to
deliver higher payloads (with new aerials) and the mobile reception issue.
The novel system should provide a minimum 30% increase in payload, under
similar channel conditions already used for DVB-T.
The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five agreed with the regulator
OFCOM to convert one UK multiplex (B, or PSB3) to DVB-T2 to increase
capacity for HDTV via DTT. They expected the first TV region to use the
new standard would be Granada in November 2009 (with existing switched
over regions being changed at the same time). It was expected that over
time there would be enough DVB-T2 receivers sold to switch all DTT
transmissions to DVB-T2, and H.264.
- OFCOM published its final decision on April 3, 2008 for HDTV using
DVB-T2 and H.264 : BBC HD would have one HD slot after DSO at Granada.
ITV and C4 had, as expected, applied to OFCOM for the 2 additional HD
slots available from 2009 to 2012.
- OFCOM indicated that it found an unused channel covering 3.7 million
households in London, which could be used to broadcast the DVB-T2 HD
multiplex from 2010, i.e., before DSO in London. OFCOM indicated that
they would look for more unused UHF channels in other parts of the UK,
that can be used for the DVB-T2 HD multiplex from 2010 until DSO.
- The US FCC has permitted DVB-T and DVB-T2 test transmissions, so the
US is technically open to DVB-T type modulation systems for HDTV
delivery.
The current DVB-T2 specification
The DVB-T2 draft standard was ratified by the DVB Steering
Board on June 26, 2008, and published on the DVB homepage as DVB-T2
standard Blue Book. The T3 specification was handed over to the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) by DVB.ORG on June 20, 2008.
The ETSI process resulted in the DVB-T2 standard being adopted on
September 9, 2009.
The ETSI process had several phases, but the only changes were text
clarifications. Since the DVB-T2 physical layer specification was
complete, and there would be no further technical enhancements, receiver
VLSI chip design started with confidence in stability of specification. A
draft PSI/SI (program and system information) specification document was
also agreed with the DVB-TM-GBS group.
DVB-T and DVB-T2 Compared
Bold text indicates changes added to the DVB base
system
System
|
DVB-T |
DVB-T2 |
| FEC |
Convolusional Coding + Reed Solomon 1/2, 2/3, 3/4,
5/6, 7/8 |
LDPC + BCH 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5,
5/6 |
| Modes |
QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM |
QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, 256QAM |
| Guard Interval |
1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 |
1/4, 19/256, 1/8, 19/128,
1/16, 1/32, 1/128 |
| FFT size |
2k, 8k |
1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, 16k,
32k |
| Scattered Pilots |
8% of total |
1%, 2%, 4%,
8% of total |
| Continual Pilots |
2.6% of total |
0.35% of total |
Now that the DVB system has been adequately presented, the
main proposal for its modifications can be made.
DVB T2W Specification
Proposed DVB-T2W System
System characteristics
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original TV Bandwidth
|
8 MHz
|
7 MHz
|
6 MHz |
PAL, PAL-M, PAL-N, NTSC; 5 MHz PAL (VHF) not used
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed T2W Bandwidth (1)
|
24 MHz
|
21 MHz
|
24 MHz
|
(3 x 8, 3 x 7, 4 x 6)
|
Proposed T2W Bandwidth (2)
|
16 MHz
|
14 MHz
|
18 MHz
|
(2 x 8, 2 x 7, 3 x 6)
|
Proposed T2W Bandwidth (3)
|
= NA =
|
= NA =
|
12 MHz
|
(NA, NA, 2 x 6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
T2W Relative to T2
|
|
|
|
|
"Carrier Density"
|
~= DVB-T2 |
~= DVB-T2 |
~= DVB-T2 |
No change vs T2
|
"Number of Carriers"
|
~= DVB-T2
|
~= DVB-T2 |
~= DVB-T2
|
No change vs T2 |
"Guard band"
|
~= DVB-T2 |
~= DVB-T2 |
~= DVB-T2 |
No change vs T2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Constellation deletions
|
256 QAM
|
256 QAM |
256 QAM |
Cable TV Only
|
Constellation additions
|
32 QAM
|
32 QAM |
32 QAM |
EM compatibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
DVB-T2W FFT sizes vs T2
|
No change
|
No change |
No change
|
EM compatibility
|
Guard intervals vs T2
|
No change
|
No change |
No change
|
EM compatibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continual pilots %
|
0.35, 0.70, 1.4
|
0.35, 0.70, 1.4
|
0.35, 0.70, 1.4
|
Propagation
|
Continual pilots
% (added)
|
2.8
|
2.8 |
2.8 |
Propagation
Fallback
|
|
|
|
|
|
Error
Correction
|
|
|
|
|
FEC added to T2(W)
|
Turbo Codes
|
Turbo Codes
|
Turbo Codes |
(+Punctured) Fallback
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audio
& Video CODECs
|
|
|
|
|
CODECs added (2D)
|
Dirac + Theora
|
Dirac + Theora
|
Dirac + Theora
|
Open Source CODECs
|
|
|
|
|
|
CODECs deleted (2D)
|
MPEG (2 & 4)
|
MPEG (2 & 4)
|
MPEG (2 & 4)
|
JPEG & AAC Core IP issues
|
| CODECs added (3D) |
DVB-3D TV
|
DVB-3D TV
|
DVB-3D TV |
|
| CODECs added (3D) |
DVB-3D TV (Dirac)
|
DVB-3D TV (Dirac) |
DVB-3D TV (Dirac) |
Dirac 3D mode
does not exist (2013)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interlaced DTV
Modes (deleted)
|
16:9 HD, ALL
|
16:9 HD, ALL |
16:9 HD, ALL |
Dirac Progressive
Modes only
|
Interlaced DTV
Modes (SDTV)
|
4:3, ALL
|
4:3, ALL |
4:3, ALL |
For MPEG 2 &
4 compatibility only
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bandwidth Density
|
|
|
|
|
"goal" T2W (wide)
|
5.55 mbs / 1 MHz
|
5.55 mbs / 1 MHz
|
5.55 mbs / 1 MHz
|
12, 16 MHz
|
"goal" T2W (widest)
|
5.65 mbs / 1 MHz
|
5.65 mbs / 1 MHz |
5.65 mbs / 1 MHz
|
18, 24 MHz
|
"Maximal" T2 (reference)
|
6.29 mbs / 1 MHz
|
6.29 mbs / 1 MHz
|
6.29 mbs / 1 MHz
|
@ 8 MHz nominal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Single Frequency Networks
|
Possible, permitted
|
Possible, permitted |
Possible, permitted
|
~ (DVB-T & T2) nominal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtual Channel Codegroups
|
Forced
|
Forced |
Forced
|
RF channel issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doppler Immunity
|
~DVB-T, >DVB-T2
|
~DVB-T, >DVB-T2 |
~DVB-T, >DVB-T2
|
Generally no worse than DVB-T!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
Annex
|
Table
Annex |
Table
Annex |
Table
Annex |
Table
Annex |
|
|
|
|
|
3D
Ready (mode)
|
16 MHz, 24 MHz
|
14 MHz, 21 MHz
|
All modes
|
3D HD requires about 120% of nominal
HD bandwidth
|
|
|
|
|
|
4k
Ready (mode, provisional)
|
24 MHz only
|
21 MHz only
|
24 MHz only
|
4k requires about 250% to 350%
nominal HD bandwidth
|
|
|
|
|
|
1seg Ready
|
ALL MODES
|
ALL MODES |
ALL MODES |
1seg delivers video as a narrowband
stream
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to the changes in (error correction systems, density of
scatter pilots, density of continual pilots) and other factors it is
unknown if DVB-T2W will have the same Doppler Immunity (aka non
affectation of reviver motion) that DVB or DVB-T2 has.
DVB-T2W should have Doppler Immunity nearly equivalent to DVB under the
highest datarate transmission conditions.
At the current time there is at least some latent evidence that DVB-T2 may
not be as robust as DVB-T in motor cars or airplanes when high datarate
modes are used using the minimal number of pilots and scattered pilots in
the datastream.
In moving to a higher order QAM constellation (higher data
rate and mode) in hostile RF / microwave QAM application environments,
such as in broadcasting or telecommunications, interference (via
multipath) typically increases.
Reduced noise immunity due to constellation separation makes it difficult
to achieve theoretical performance thresholds. There are several test
parameter measurements which can help determine an optimal QAM mode for a
specific operating environment.
- Carrier/interference ratio
- Carrier-to-noise ratio
- Threshold-to-noise ratio
Rectangular QAM
Rectangular QAM constellations are, in general, sub-optimal
in the sense that they do not maximally space the constellation points for
a given energy. However, they have the considerable advantage that they
may be easily transmitted as two pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signals
on quadrature carriers, and can be easily demodulated. The non-square
constellations achieve marginally better bit-error rate (BER) but are
harder to modulate and demodulate.
The first rectangular QAM constellation usually encountered
is 16-QAM. In QAM modulation systems, there is a Gray coded bit-assignment
that has evolved that is nearly standard to the format.
- The reason that 16-QAM is usually the first kind of QAM modulation
encountered by people is that 2-QAM and 4-QAM are really no more than
complex forms of binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) and quadrature
phase-shift keying (QPSK).
- The error-rate performance of 8-QAM is close to that of 16-QAM (at
best ~0.5 dB better), but 8-QAM's data rate is 75% (3/4ths) that of
16-QAM.
Non-rectangular QAM -- a
transmission format that should be added to T2W
It most be noted that T2 permits the QAM constellation to be tilted up to
~40º. It is reasonable to preserve this tilting feature in T2W.
However, it is the nature of QAM modulation that many
different constellations can be constructed. Circular QAM should be
allowed at lower datarates as it may provide better signal propagation
versus tilted Rectangular QAM. Circular QAM may be more
electromagnetically benign versus Rectangular QAM.
- The circular 8-QAM constellation is known to be the optimal 8-QAM
constellation in the sense of requiring the least mean power for a given
minimum Euclidean distance.
- The 16-QAM constellation is suboptimal although the optimal one may be
constructed along the same lines as the 8-QAM constellation.
- Circular QAM constellations are unique in that they are very similar
to PSK constellations, and PSK is fairly robust with reasonable Doppler
Immunity.
- It is consequently hard to establish expressions for the error rates
of non-rectangular QAM since it necessarily depends on the
constellation, so further research will be required.
- The bit-error rate with all QAM systems depends on the assignment of
bits to symbols, but constellation shaping can help in reducing error
rates.
Areas of absolutely no change : The video resolution layers
set up in ATSC that are identical to DVB will not change. However,
abandonment of interlaced HDTV modes may come in the near future but for
the sake of the standard it is wise to permit these transmission formats.
Interoperability
Tuner interoperability
- Yes, interoperability is a big deal. There are a lot of deployed DVB-T
tuners and in future DVB-T2 tuners that will have to scan for channels
in future -- and will come across T2W transmissions and have problems.
- My view is that minor modifications of carrier spacings vs DVB-T and
DVB-T2 will make most tuners reject T2W signals as RFI. These carrier
distance modifications should not affect the final datarates, but should
confuse older receivers into thinking that they are seeing RFI.
General electromagnetic interoperability
- The goal of this system is to reduce transmitter power, the number of
transmitters used per populated region AND and receiver complexity.
- However, DVB transmission waveforms wider tan 12 MHz are bound to
cause some problems no matter what. Care must be taken to limit possible
harm.
- Generally, except for low power "point to point" links in the
microwave band 256-QAM is to be discouraged.
- 256-QAM has its problems as a general purpose microwave band
telecommunications waveform. There is no existing evidence that
advocates using any more than 64-QAM for this wide a waveform is
feasible or safe.
- Large population centres will be exposed to this family of waveforms.
Also, small but dense population centres will be exposed to these
waveforms.
Annex A : Backward Compatibility
For the utility of this proposal in nations already using DVB, the current authorized
nation level DVB base allocation of CODECs is acceptable.
For practical purposes this means
Video
- MPEG 1 (mostly
absorbed in a modified form by MPEG 2, its audio and video coding
standards are still considered valid for video broadcasting)
- 1seg (this is the
current technological replacement for MPEG 1)
- MPEG 2 (most DTV
globally is MPEG2, mainly for 4:3 transmissions but heavily used for
16:9 transmissions)
- MPEG 4 (used mainly
in the DVB-T zone, more spectrally efficient than MPEG-2 but more
computationally costly for the multiplexer); mainly this also included MPEG 4
Structured Audio.
Audio
- AAC
(Also known as MPEG-2 Part 7. Formally known as ISO / IEC 13818-7:1997.
Note: MPEG-2 Part 7 is also known as MPEG-2 NBC (Non-Backward
Compatible), because it is not compatible with the MPEG-1 audio formats
(MP1, MP2 & MP3))
- Dolby Digital
(aka AC-3, this is part of the ATSC
8VSB transmission standard)
- Musicam
(Europe, Various), also known as MPEG-1
Audio Layer II or MPEG-2 Audio Layer II or even in simpler terms
MP2. Used mainly as a primary CODEC by state broadcasters and a backup
CODEC for private broadcasters in the European Region.
- Do not confuse Musicam with MP3
as MP3 is completely separate audio coding system used for audio files
on the Internet. Both have similar bandwidth efficiencies but only
Musicam is used for broadcasting.
are permitted by default.
Annex B : 4K & 3D
Compatibility
DVB (and DVB T2) is intelligent enough that it sends out an extra robust
signal for the mobile reception and a high-data rate signal for the 4K
signal.
So, in essence all of the 4K possibilities of DVB and DVB T2 are absorbed by
this specification. It is possible to transmit 4K and 3D at the same time,
where DVB and DVB T2 cannot do this at all.
Here are some specs on the Fall 2013 experimental 4K broadcasts :
• It takes 25.24 Mb/s of bandwidth for the 4K broadcast; 1.02 Mb/s for the
mobile broadcast.
• The 4K signal used HEVC encoding; mobile used H.264
• The 4K broadcast used 256 QAM modulation; mobile use QPSK
DVB is celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2013 and is currently being used
in 67% of digital broadcast receivers around the world.
Phil Laven, chairman of the standards body, also reported that the 1
billionth DVB receiver just lit up in October 2013.
Technical references
Video CODECs & Audio CODECs used for broadcasting
Transmission systems (physical layer)
- DVB-T (the base DVB
system)
- DVB-T2 (the upgraded
DVB system, still narrowband)
- Quadrature
amplitude modulation (an important modulation scheme for high
datarate DVB-T & T2)
- Turbo Codes
(Turbo Codes are a class of high-performance forward error correction
(FEC) codes developed in 1993, which were the first practical codes to
closely approach the channel capacity. Turbo Codes can reach a
theoretical maximum for the channel noise at which reliable
communication is still possible given a code rate. For DVB-T2W,
Punctured Turbo Codes should also be part of the Turbo Codes option.)
Transmission
systems (codec layer)
Next Generation video CODECs, with no intellectual property
issues
- Dirac (codec)
[latest
specification] -- a more flexible CODEC than MPEG (2 or 4) with
wavelet compression for reference frames
- Theora -- a more
flexible CODEC than MPEG (2 or 4). Theora is broadly comparable in
design and bitrate efficiency to MPEG-4 Part 2 but lacks some common
features present in other modern Video codecs. Theora is comparable in
open standards philosophy to the BBC's Dirac CODEC.
- Wavelet Moving Picture Codecs still have problems : http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/317
|
Created by |
|
Initial idea |
|
Created |
|
Last Modified |
|
Version
|
|
Last
change
|
|
Revision
state
|
|
|
Max Power |
|
20 July 2010 |
|
14 August 2010 |
|
22 May 2014 |
|
0.77b3
|
|
Add Annex A & B
|
|
Active
|
|
This is an updated version, the original ATSC 3.0
Submission version can be found here.
Versions in PDF or other formats may become available in future but are
available via request at the current time.