1 / 21

Elmar Zilles Head Broadcasting, Federal Network Agency, Germany

Elmar Zilles Head Broadcasting, Federal Network Agency, Germany. The second dividend implementation or (much better): A Sustainable Approach For the Supply of Capacity for Mobile And Broadcasting Services in the UHF-Band.

baker-lynch
Download Presentation

Elmar Zilles Head Broadcasting, Federal Network Agency, Germany

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Elmar Zilles Head Broadcasting, Federal Network Agency, Germany The second dividend implementationor (much better):A Sustainable Approach For the Supply of Capacity for Mobile And Broadcasting Services in the UHF-Band TRANSITION TO DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING, BORDERLINE FREQUENCY COORDINATION AND DIGITAL DIVIDEND Warsaw (RepublicofPoland), 7 – 9 May 2012

  2. A reminder … • “Definition” • The Digital Dividend is understood as the additionalspectrum, which will become available as a consequence of the digitalisationand proper establishment of existing analogue services, based onnew, efficient transmission and coding technologies • A proper establishment takes into account all societal needs and is based on political decisions. • But: there is also a framework beyond … 2

  3. The ITU framework • Starting points: ITU frequency allocation (WRC) and GE-06 • Binding for administrations versus administrations only, but not for internal way of use or for administration versusoperator • Co-allocation of mobile and broadcasting service • Primary rights possible for both of them • Existing rights of any (primary) service to be taken into account • Severe consequences for any country, depending on the neighbours´ decisions • The only way out: harmonisation 3

  4. The situation as from now (1) • Different supply of number of programmes also to be considered!(Impact on “regulatory” capacity claim) 4

  5. The situation as from now (2) • Implementation of Digital Dividend in 790 MHz to 862 MHz influenced by compatibility issues between mobile service, broadcasting service and other services (ARNS) • Relaxed situation for countries making use of up to four networks for terrestrial TV only • Implementation below 790 MHz even easier??? • Approach mainly based on the assumption:What can be delivered by broadcasters?No regard to “real” possibilities on mobile side!!! 5

  6. The framework of claims (1) • What mobile operators tell you (long story told short): • development of traffic demand will soon exceed any limit • more spectrum needed • more spectrum needed • more spectrum needed • … • What they don´t tell you • from a certain point on no more exponential growth of traffic • calculated from their own figures, a “gift” of 100 MHz would help just a few months more, from a certain point of time 6

  7. The framework of claims (2) • In detail… 7

  8. The framework of claims (3) • “Poking” conclusion: Not even with all spectrum made available the networks will cope with the upcoming traffic demand (Spectrum gift doesn´t help!!!) • Additional means needed: • Additional density in network structures • Offload • Better technical spectrum efficiency • … • All of them to be done WITHIN a defined spectrum limit anyway! 8

  9. The framework of claims (4) • Similar behaviour to be observed from broadcast operators • spectrum to be kept • spectrum to be kept • spectrum to be kept • … 9

  10. The framework of claims (5) • About 30 programmes needed to satisfy recipientsto a 95 % extent on a platform (Impacts on the “recipients´” capacity claim) • For a future fixed reception situation: 8 Mbit/s (720p) to 20 Mbit/s (1080p) per stream needed; even much more in the near future (TV sets with 4k) • 240 to 600 Mbit/s downstream to large-sized TV sets; terrestrially very difficult even with DVB-T2 and H.264/AVC • Different conclusion for portable or mobile reception (smaller displays) • Different feeds for different application situations? • “Poking” conclusion: UHF for large-sized TV at all??? 10

  11. How to “decide” on the resources (1) • In the analogue world… • One “best” technical solution for a certain problem • Efficiency increase by harmonisation • Harmonised ranges to be separated • Hence: definition of (different) radio services • Allocation of different frequency ranges to different radio services • Axiom: • “Separation” done based on decoupling on the physical level 11

  12. How to “decide” on the resources (2) • And nowadays… • For broadcasting, portable and mobile reception situations get more and more important • For mobile networks, the transport of media content plays an increasing role • Assumption: services get much closer to each other • Physical “separation” no longer the most efficient approach • Axiom: • “Separation” to be done based on decoupling on the “logical” level!!! 12

  13. How to “decide” on the resources (3) • Approach: Collaborative, not conflicting • Conflicting approach: broadcasters will lose slices from their“sausage” (“dividend I”, “dividend II”, …) • Better: • putting all demands together on one table • putting all resources together as well • define the framework of a commonly used network structure(no type of technical implementation preferred for the time being, great task for engineers!) • “Provocation” or not? In best case, from some future pointfor ALL UHF-band!!! 13

  14. How to “decide” on the resources (4) • To be resolved: • Different business cases • Different tariffing models • Different coverage intentions • Different … • Solutions possible on a regulatory level 14

  15. Flexible equitable access approach (1) • Frequency co-ordination strategies • Starting point: Distribution of frequency positions(agreements) • Following a certain pattern(ST61: rhombic, edges of 200 km – 250 km) • Efficient for a certain type of application (only)

  16. Flexible equitable access approach (2) • Better flexibility by • defining a potential usage of a channel / block up to the border of country A, • the usage of country B being kept away from this border for a distance d • doing things the other way round for a different channel (equitable access) • d will depend on terrain AND technical conditions of applied systems

  17. Flexible equitable access approach (3) Illustration d d To be achieved as an evolution of GE06, taking into account individual situations per country over a period Work already started in some regions!

  18. OK, understood … and when? • Starting point: Individual situations • Administration A does a transition (duration x years), Administration B follows after y years (duration z years)  Transition losses by efforts to be taken and gains achieved • Situation holds for nearly all cases in the past! • Why not taking part in a process long in advance??? Join the party at the earliest point of time possible!!!

  19. A crucial point… • Besides all • technical • regulatory • commercial • … • issues: WRC-15 should not be taken as singular point, nor as a final stage, but as the first step in a binding process

  20. A first little step … Use of words may influence minds, so… This time, it is not a “dividend”! The circumstances are different. The approach should be different, too: A Sustainable Approach For the Supply of Capacity for Mobile And Broadcasting Servicesin the UHF-Band

  21. Thankyouverymuch foryourattention! Elmar Zilles Elmar.Zilles@BNetzA.de www.bundesnetzagentur.de TRANSITION TO DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING, BORDERLINE FREQUENCY COORDINATION AND DIGITAL DIVIDEND Warsaw (RepublicofPoland), 7 – 9 May 2012

More Related