15.06.01.Smpte2015.Btsdlangueira

7/26/2019 15.06.01.Smpte2015.Btsdlangueira

1/12

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarilyreflect the official position of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), and its printing and distribution does

not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. This technical presentation is subject to a formal peer-reviewprocess by the SMPTE Board of Editors, upon completion of the conference. Citation of this work should state that it is a SMPTEmeeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2011. Title of Presentation, Meeting name and location.: SMPTE. Forinformation about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact SMPTE at [email protected] 914-761-1100 (3 Barker Ave., White Plains, NY 10601).

SMPTE Meeting Presentation

Layered Division Multiplexing: Basics Concepts, Application

Scenarios and Performance

Pablo Angueira, PhD - IEEE BTS Distinguished Lecturer

Associate Professor, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Dpt. ofCommunications Engineering, Bilbao Faculty of Engineering. Alda. Urkijo S/N, 48013Bilbao, Spain.

Written for presentation at the

SMPTE Sydney 2015 Technical Conference & Exhibition

Abstract.This paper presents Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM), a technology that may beused to provide a flexible multi-layer system transmission by means of spectrum overlay. Thistechnology can be used to simultaneously deliver multiple program streams with differentcharacteristics and robustness for different services (mobile TV, HDTV and UHDTV) in one RFchannel.

In Layer Division Multiplex (LDM) the signal to be transmitted consists of a number of differentindependent signals superimposed together at different injection levels to form a multi-layersignal. Each layer can have its own characteristics. The top layer is the most robust one, whichhas a negative Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) system threshold value, and can be used for robustmobile service. The lower layer(s) can be used to provide fixed high data rate services, such asmultiple High Definition Television (HDTV) and Ultra High Definition Television (UHDTV). Forexample, DVB-T2, or an alternative design of a high data rate transmission system can be usedfor the second layer. The upper layer signal can be a separate program, or be used for deliveringsupplementary bit rate to be combined with the lower layer signal to provide additional features orachieve higher quality of service (e.g., scalable video coding and placing audio on upper layer forextra robustness).

Keywords.Digital Terrestrial Television, DVB-T2, ATSC 3.0, Layered Division Multiplexing,Cloud Transmission, UHDTV, SHEVC, Mobile TV.


2/12

2

Introduction

Efficient and flexible use of the spectrum is one of the engineering research areas that hasdriven more efforts during the last two decades. First with the analogue to digital transitionand the adoption of standards developed during the 90s, and later with the development of

second generation broadcast standards during the first ten years of the XXI century, thistopic has become more and more relevant to broadcasting [1][2]. At the same time, othercommunication sectors have increased the pressure for further spectrum attributions tobroadband wireless access [3]. Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) is a flexible multi-layersystem transmission technique aiming for a better use of spectral resources.

LDM uses spectrum overlay technology to simultaneously deliver multiple program streamswith different characteristics and robustness for different services (mobile TV, HDTV andUHDTV) in one RF channel. The system allows the delivery of multiple layers on the samebroadcast channel (spectrum overlay), where each layer is associated with its own injectionpower level, and lower-layer signals are recovered by means of signal cancellationtechniques.

This feature provides a wide range of possibilities for flexible use of the RF channel,enabling the broadcaster to mix different services with independent and differentiatedrobustness. Inserting a second data stream below a desired signal has been implementedbefore in the legacy ATSC DTV system [4][5], which is called hierarchical spectrum re-use orspectrum overlay technique. One of the beauties of LDM is the implementation simplicity.The additional computation power requirements for the second layer are OFDM demappingand subtraction.

The use of hierarchical structure for delivering multiple streams is not new in broadcastingand has been proposed previously. Nevertheless, none of the existing proposals allows allstreams (layers) to transmit using 100% of the time and 100% of the television RF channelbandwidth. In comparison to Time Division Multiplex (TDM) system (the US mobile TV

standard, ATSC mobile), frequency division multiplex (FDM) system (Japanese TV standardISDB-T), or combined TDM and FDM system (DVB-T2), which either transmit data in part ofthe time or part of the RF channel bandwidth, LDM has the advantage on the totalaggregated data rate and better time-frequency diversity.

Concept description

System foundations

In LDM the transmitted signal is formed by superimposing a number of independent signalsat desired power levels to form a multi-layer signal. The signals of different layers can havedifferent characteristics, i.e., different coding, bit rate, and robustness. For the top layer,

however, such characteristics are chosen to provide a very robust transmission that can beused for mobile broadcasting service to handheld devices. The bit rate is traded for morepowerful error correction coding and robustness such that the receiving signal-to-noise ratio(SNR) threshold is a negative value, e.g., in the range of -2 to -3 dB [6]. The negative SNRvalue indicates that the system can withstand combined noise, co-channel interference andmultipath distortion powers that are higher than the desired signal power. Such a lowthreshold makes the top layer highly robust against co-channel interferences, multipathdistortion and Doppler effects.

There is one immediate use case for this technology. In this case, the system is based on aSingle Frequency Network (SFN) where all transmitters broadcast a signal composed by two(or more) layers. The LDM signal is composed of one robust upper layer for mobile and

portable services and a second layer transmitted with an injection level

dB below theupper layer. The lower layer will have a configuration suitable for high data rate services(HDTV, UHDTV) to fixed receivers. With appropriate cancellation and/or demodulation


3/12

3

techniques, the receiver is able to detect, demodulate and decode both layers, which isequivalent to frequency re-use the 6, 7 or 8 MHz RF channel twice.

Use case hierarchical spectrum

The hierarchical spectrum reuse consists of two synchronized signals (frequency, power,

and probably also time) broadcasted on the same RF television channel. This is possibledue to the robustness provided by the LDPC code and cancellation and/or demodulationtechniques at the receiver. With this approach, it is possible to inject a first signal, stream A,and on the same channel, another signal (stream B), where stream B could be a DVB-T2 [7]signal or some other signal format. In principle, there is not any restriction for the secondlayer choice. Nevertheless, if the second layer is based on OFDM, with the same FFT size,symbol period and pilot pattern as the upper layer, the receiver implementation will simplifysignificantly. In this report, it will be assumed that the second layer (stream B) is a DVB-T2signal, which has the same RF channel bandwidth, is frequency locked, and clocksynchronized with the upper layer signal (stream A).

The spectrum efficiency of the stream B can be around 2 to 8 bit/s/Hz with an SNR threshold

of 6 30 dB depending on the selected DVB-T2 mode [8] (T2 limited to 256-QAM). Thecombined multi-layer system spectrum efficiency will be about 2.5 - 8.5 bit/s/Hz. For an8 MHz TV band, the total expected data rates are in the range of 15 to 40 Mbit/s, with about3 to 4 Mbit/s very robust data for mobile service and the rest for fixed multiple HDTVservices or even UHDTV-4k service if HEVC coders are used [9]. It should be mentionedthat injection levels between data streams are flexible, as well as the modulation andchannel coding applied on each data stream for different reception robustness requirements.

Transmitter and receiver block diagram

Figures 1 and 2 show a Layer Division Multiplex system diagram. At the transmitter, thesignals of different streams are superimposed with specific injection levels, after beingseparately formatted and encoded. A third data stream C could be further injected at e.g. 5dB, below the stream B. In this case, Stream C has also the same RF channel bandwidth asthat of the other streams (A and B), and will be frequency locked and clock synchronizedwith the other layers.

At the receiver side the initial blocks after the antenna are the same as the standard OFDMreceivers. These include: the RF front-end (tuner), IF system and Automatic Gain Control(AGC), carrier recovery, time synchronization, and equalization. For an OFDM modulationsystem, for simplicity, all layers should use the same size of FFT, same guard interval lengthand same in-band pilots.

Figure 1. LDM transmitter and receiver diagram.


4/12

4

Figure 2. LDM receiver diagram.

On the other hand, different modulation schemes can be applied on different layers or evenon different data carriers in the same layer. The physical layer pipe (PLP) concept used inthe DVB-T2 system can also be applied on each layer. Actually, the multi-layer approach isequivalent to a layered PLP.

Difference with hierarchical modulation

LDM can be understood as a generalization of the hierarchical modulation technique. In therecent history of the broadcasting, there are other systems that have previously consideredmerging two components on the transmitted signal in the form of hierarchical transmission.For instance, DVB-T [10] and DVB-NGH [11] have some working modes based onhierarchical modulation, which enable two layers of the same information message to be

transmitted with different robustness.Nevertheless, the LDM scheme offers some substantial differences when compared toDVBs hierarchical modulation. First, in LDM, the lower layer insertion is done at cell level,and therefore, it allows having different transmission chains for both layers. That is to say, ina layer division multiplexing system, the upper and lower layers may have different timeinterleavers. This is a clear advantage as both layers are targeting different services, andtherefore, they have different requirements. In the classical approach, the modulation isdone at bit level, within the BICM, and thus, from there on both streams share the sametransmission modules. Second, the constellation associated to the lower layer injectedconstellation point (DVB-T2) does not have to share the same quadrant as the upper layer, itdepends on the upper layer constellation and on the injection range. An example of this

concept is shown in figure 3.Figure 3 shows, on the right, the lower layer constellation for a 64-QAM signal, where foreach quadrant a coded colour has been assigned. Thus, the green colour is associated withthe upper left quadrant, whereas the black colour marks the lower right points. The figure onthe left shows the multi-layer constellation when a QPSK signal for the UL and a 64-QAM forthe LL have been added with a -3 dB injection level. It can be clearly seen how some pointsof the legacy layer constellation cross to other quadrants, and therefore, this is not the caseof a classical hierarchical modulation.

Furthermore, in the classical concept of hierarchical modulation of DVB systems, only QPSKmodulation can be used for high priority bit stream, and only 16-QAM/64-QAM for lowpriority bit stream. In contrast, the idea of Layer Division Multiplexing would allow any

modulation on any layer, where modulation schemes among layers are independent.


5/12

5

Besides, in DVB systems, the injection levels of different layers are fixed values, whereas inthe LDM system, the injection levels are flexible.

Figure 3. Multi-layer constellation example

The optimization of the injection levels (difference between upper and lower layers) anddifferent constellation cancellation, demapping and decoding is still a topic for research.

System capacity discussion

It should be pointed out that the main advantage of a spectrum overlay system with layeredtransmissions is the spectrum efficiency. In the proposed system, all streams (layers) aretransmitting using 100% of the time and 100% of the RF channel bandwidth. In comparison

to TDM-ed systems (ATSC mobile), FDM-ed systems (ISDB-T), or combined TDM and FDMsystems, which either transmit data in part of the time or part of the RF channel bandwidth,the spectrum overlay system has the advantage on the total aggregated data rate and bettertime-frequency diversity [13]. Meanwhile, higher data rate can be traded for betterrobustness via error correction code. The flexibility of selecting injection levels betweenlayers is another tool to set the robustness.

From a theoretical point of view, the capacity analysis for LDM using two different streamsneeds to be analysed. The following equations show, first, the upper layer capacity designedfor deliver mobile services, and second, the lower layer capacity which is defined to offerUHDTV.

2log 1ULm

C B f N

(1)

2log 1LLf

C BN

(2)

where m and f are the mobile and fixed layer power value respectively, being m/f theinjection range and N is the overall noise power. It should be noted that this approximation isbased on the assumption that co-channel interference can be treated as a regular whitenoise [12]. The other two main options for multiplexing mobile and fixed services are TDMand FDM. In that case the resultant capacities are:

2log 1mobile

mobile

total

TC B SNR

T

(3)

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5MultiLayer

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Lower Layer


6/12

6

2log 1fixed

fixed

total

TC B SNR

T

(4)

Comparing the previous equations, it can be observed that both TDM and FDM are scalingthe BW while maintaining a constant value for the SNR, whereas LDM system varies SNR

and uses the full bandwidth.Figure 4 shows the RF channel usage for the TDM/FDM signal (left) and for the LDM case(right). In the upper part of the figure it is shown how, in high SNR case, mobile and fixedservices work well for both systems.

However, single layer mobile system wastes some channel capacity. In the lower part of thefigure, low SNR case depicted. In low SNR case, only mobile systems work, and it is clearthat a single layer system wastes some channel capacity, because its mobile service onlyruns on a part of the RF channel. Therefore, it can be observed that while the hierarchicalLayer Division Multiplexing allows a complete exploitation of the bandwidth, the othermultiplexing techniques always leave a frequency band unused.

Figure 4. System capacity of TDM/FDM systems vs. LDM system

The injection lever provides another control parameter for broadcasters in LDM system. In aTDM/FDM system, all OFDM carriers must be transmitted in the same level. So in a 8 MHzsystem, if an equivalent 2 MHz is used for mobile in TDM/FDM approach, it means only2/8 = 25% of power is allocated to mobile service. In a 2-layer LDM system, if the inject levelis 6 dB apart between upper mobile layer, and lower high-data rate layer, it means 80% ofpower is dedicated to mobile service and 20% of power is for fixed service. By varyinginjection level, the distribution of power to difference services can be controlled. It needs tobe considered that the total power is regulated by the spectrum authority. If injection level is10 dB, it means 90% power for mobile, while 10% for fixed service. This gives broadcastersmore flexibility.


7/12

7

System Performance

Table 1 shows a comparison between different combinations of LDM and TDM/FDM modesusing DVB-T2, FEFs and DVB-NGH under AWGN channel conditions. The lower layer of theLDM is DVB-T2. The thresholds have been simulated using the DVB-T2 CSP platform andan equivalent development tool for Layer Division Multiplexing created by the University of

the Basque Country, CRC Canada and ETRI Korea.

The table shows how LDM is more efficient than current TDM systems. The columns on theright represent the MODCOD, bitrate and SNR thresholds of an LDM system with two layers.The first, upper layer MODCOD is QPSK 6/15 and there are three possible MODCODconfigurations for the lower one, ranging from 17.7 Mbps to 32.9 Mbps.The right columns ofthe table display numbers for an equivalent TDM configuration, where 25% of the frames areallocated to the mobile service. In this case, the threshold for a similar bitrate on the mobileservice is higher than 9 dB, whereas the thresholds associated to the fixed service look quitesimilar.

Table 1. Layer Division Multiplexing vs. NGH+T2 (values calculated for a 6 MHz channel).

LDM (two layers) vs. DVB-T2+NGH (single layer)8 MHz RF Channel

LDM SystemMobile 50%

CapacityMobile 33.3%

CapacityMobile 25%

Capacity

Upperlayer

(Robust-mod)

Data rateSNR(dB)

Data rateSNR(dB)

Data rateSNR(dB)

Data rateSNR(dB)

3.1 MbpsQPSK1/4

-1.02.5 MbpsQPSK 2/5

-0.22.6 MbpsQPSK 2/3

3.12.5 MbpsQPSK 4/5

4.7

Low layer w. -4 dB injection Fixed(T2) 50% Fixed(T2) 66.7% Fixed(T2) 75%

Low-rate17.5 Mbps16QAM 2/3

14.418.1 Mbps

256QAM2/317.8

18.2 Mbps64QAM 2/3

13.518.3 Mbps64QAM 3/5

12.0

Mid-rate26.3 Mbps64QAM 2/3

19.0 - N/A27.2 Mbps

256QAM 3/420.0

27.2 Mbps256QAM 2/3

17.8

High-rate32.9 Mbps64QAM 5/6

22.3 - N/A - N/A34 Mbps

256QAM 5/622.0

LDM: 16K FFT, GI= 1/16, P12,2.

TDM: Fixed 32K FFT, GI = 1/32, P24,4; Mobile 8K FFT, GI = 1/8, P6,2.

All SNR power levels are referenced to the total RF in-band power (of all layers)

Simulations in different propagation channels

The performance of the LDM technology has been tested for a wide range of systemconfigurations, injection levels, modulation and coding (MODCOD) combinations,propagation channels and broadcast network structures. The tables below show the systemperformance for both stationary and mobile channels. The MODCOD combinations are onlya few examples of the overall test results[12][14]. The mobile channel is the TU6, withDoppler values ranging from 5 to 75 Hz.

Table 2. Stationary Channels

AWGN RICE Rayleigh 0dB Echo

UL QPSK 4/15 -0.4 -0.1 1.3 0.8

LL 16QAM 3/4 15.4 15.9 18.8 18.7

LL 64QAM 2/3 18.9 19.2 21.5 21.3LL 256QAM 2/3 23.2 23.5 25.7 25.8


8/12

8

Table 3. Mobile Channels

fd=5 Hz fd=5 Hz fd=5 Hz

UL QPSK 4/15 2.0 2.3 2.4

Lab Tests

The tests on the laboratory have been carried out using two different equipment sets. A firstphase of testing has been carried out in 2014 at the University of the Basque Country usinga prototype transmission-reception system based Software Defined Radio[15][16]. Thesecond set of measurements were carried out during 2014 and 2015 at the ETRI, using thefirst hardware prototype of LDM (see HW Prototype). The lab set-up at the University of theBasque Country was based on Vector Signal Generators and analyzers as the digital toanalogue and analogue to digital converting modules.

Figure 5. Laboratory Test Set-up

The objective of this round of testing was to evaluate the implementation loss associated toADC/DAC, synch impairments, real channel estimation, etc. The following figures provide

some result examples. More data can be found in [14].

Figure 6. Lab System Performance (loss related to ideal performance)

The results are in line with the expectations for a first generation receiver. It is remarkablethat the difference between simulations and lab implementation for mobile worst case islower than 2 dB.

D/A VSG

Matlab

Tx

IQ

Producer

Channel Model Simulation AWGN noise Addition

RF Output

HWSW

LDM IQ Generator

A/D VSA

RF Signal Recorder

SWHW

Hard

Disk

SDR LDM Receiver

Results

Mobile ChannelsStationary Channels


9/12

9

Field Trials

During 2013 and 2014 a field test was operative in Bilbao (Spain) in order to test differentreception conditions for LDM. A pre-recorded LDM signal was transmitted from theBanderas Transmission site, currently used to broadcast regular DVB-T services to themetropolitan area of Bilbao. The test included fixed and mobile measurements. The results

have been already published in [14] - [18]. Figure 8 shows the results of one of themeasurement locations, where empirical data were compared to lab and computersimulations.

Figure 7. Field Test Data

Table 4. Field Test Data.

Frequency 690 MHz

Transmitter ERP 35.68 dBW

Antenna 4 Element UHF Pannel

Tx Antenna Height 48 meters

Altitude (a.s.l) 216 meters

Figure 8. Field System Performance

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 010

-8

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

SNR (dB)

BER

Upper Layer: 8K, GI=1/32, CR=1/4, QPSK, R=2.3 Mbps

22 24 26 28 30

10-8

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

SNR (dB)

BER

Low er Layer: 8K, GI=1/32, CR=2/3, 256-QAM, R=30.1 Mbps

AWGN: Simulated

AWGN: Laboratory

Field Test

AWGN: Simulated

AWGN: Laboratory

Field Test

Upper Layer: QPSK

R=1/4, 2.3 Mbps.

Lower Layer:

256QAM, R=2/3,

30.1 Mbps

8k FFT


10/12

10

Implementation aspects

Latency

For a Layer Division Multiplexing receiver that is designed to receive only the mobile (top)layer signal, the receiver system can be really simple. Only stream A decoder is required,

without the need of other stream decoders and re-modulators [19]. This single layer receiveris very simple, energy efficient and can be easily integrated into portable and handhelddevices.

On the other hand, for a Layer Division Multiplexing receiver that can decode the high-datarate lower layer by means of cancellation, the first step is to correctly decode the upperlayer, re-modulate the decoded data, and then cancel it from the received signal [19]. Oncethe upper layer has been removed, the decoding of the second layer signal can proceed.The exact memory and complexity requirements at the receiver side depend very muchupon the point where the upper layer and the lower layer are combined.

In option 1, the two layers use different time interleavers, which can be different sizes andstructures for different services and robustness. As a constraint, the use of the 2D FECincreases the receiver complexity, as the time interleaver is most memory consuming. Infact, the upper layer interleaver latency accumulates for lower layer signal demodulation.

In option 2, the two layers share the same time interleaver. This option reduces hardware(memory) complexity and latency, since there is not latency accumulation for the decoding ofthe lower layer.

Memory

The use of LDPC error control coding can be also very effective in a Layer Division Multiplexsystem. Considering a two-layer system, the upper layer is operated at very low SNR (e.g. 0dB) for mobile reception. When there is sufficient SNR to decode the lower layer signal, the

first layer decoding will have a larger SNR head room than the required SNR. In this case,upper layer decoding can be significantly simplified by reducing the computation complexity,truncating the LDPC code length, reducing the decoding latency, and saving memory andpower.

It should be noted that when a convolutional interleaver is used, it can save 50% of memoryand reduce latency by 50%. However, a re-interleaver is needed to recover the transmittedsequence, which needs another set of memory and delay. There is no gain to useconvolutional interleaver. Instead, the 2D block interleaver can reduce the latency andmemory by 50% in high SNR environments. This is the case for upper layer signal decoding,when there is sufficient SNR to decode the second layer signal.

ConclusionsLayer Division Multiplexing is a spectrum overlay technology is used to simultaneouslytransmit multiple program streams with different robustness for different services in one RFchannel. A multi-layer system makes a more efficient and flexible use of the spectrum, aseach layer fully uses the entire RF channel bandwidth. That is to say, a two layer system islike implementing two independent mobile and fixed networks in one RF channel. The upperlayer will normally be targeted for robust low SNR mobile services and robust fixed servicewith large coverage, whereas the lower layer would be best suited for high SNR, high datarate services.

Simulations show that a combination of LDM and DVB-T2 outperform a TDM scheme (DVB-T2+NGH). In a TDM scenario, it seems reasonable that a maximum of 50% of the resources

(time) would be allocated to the mobile carrier, whereas in the LDM approach there is norestriction for the mobile/fixed power allocation ratio. Regarding the mobile layer


11/12

11

performance gain, it ranges from 1 dB to even 5 dB depending on the assumed time slotassigned to the mobile layer in DVB-NGH. Furthermore, in the case of the high-capacitylayer (DVB-T2), performance gain can be up to 3 dB.

If fixed services would be the optimization target, the DVB-T2 component of TDM can beconfigured to outperform by 2 dB its equivalent in LDM (DVB-T2 lower layer), but in that

case the DVB-NGH component of TDM would require 5 dB more than the LDM upper layer.

Therefore, the main advantages of the Layer Division Multiplexing are spectrum efficiencyand flexibility. All layers transmit information simultaneously using 100% of the time and100% of the RF bandwidth. It has better time and spectrum diversity to achieve a higheraggregated data rate and better flexibility on robustness and data throughput on differenttransmission layers.

The complexity penalty of this technology is associated to the receiver side. It mainlyconcentrates on latency and memory requirements to perform cancellation. Nevertheless,the degree of complexity will strongly depend on the FEC structure used to implement theLDM approach. In areas where there is enough available SNR to decode the lower layer, thenumber of iterations to decode the LDPCs of the upper layer will be five or less.

Acknowledgements

This paper represents a complementary of material compilation for attendees to the IEEEBroadcast Technology Society Distinguished Lecturer program Tutorial at SMPTE Sydney2015. The research materials and results summarized here have been developed by threeteams at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU, Spain), CommunicationsResearch Centre (CRC, Canada) and Electronics and Telecommunications Institute (ETRIKorea). The complete set of results can be found in the references below.

References

[1] Jiang, T.; Li, C.; Ni, C., "Effect of PAPR Reduction on Spectrum and Energy Efficienciesin OFDM Systems With Class-A HPA Over AWGN Channel," Broadcasting, IEEETransactions on , vol.59, no.3, pp.513,519, Sept. 2013

[2] Gozalvez, D. et al, "Combined Time, Frequency and Space Diversity in DVB-NGH," IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol.59, no.4, pp.674-684, Dec. 2013

[3] Meintel, B., Broadcast Spectrum Issues in North America, Future of BroadcastTelevision Summit, Nov. 10-11, 2011, Shanghai, China.

[4] Rong, B.et al,Signal Cancellation Techniques for RF Watermark Detection in ATSCMobile DTV System:, IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol.60, no. 8, pp.4070-4076,Oct. 2011.

[5] Park, S-I.et al, Augmented Data Transmission for the ATSC Terrestrial DTV System,IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 58, no. 2, June 2012.

[6] Wu, Y.et al, Cloud Transmission: A New Spectrum-Reuse Friendly Digital TerrestrialBroadcasting Transmission System, IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 58, no. 3, pp.329-337, Sept. 2012

[7] EN 302 755 V1.3.1 (04/12) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Frame structure channelcoding and modulation for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcastingsystem (DVB-T2), European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Geneva,Aug. 2012.

[8] TS 102 831 V1.2.1 (08/12) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Implementation guidelines

for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting system (DVB-T2),European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Geneva. 2012.


12/12

12

[9] Bossen, F. et al, HEVC complexity and implementation analysis, IEEE Trans. CircuitsSyst. Video Technol., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 16851696, Dec. 2012.

[10] ETSI EN 300 744 V1.6.1 (01/09) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing Structure,Channel Coding and Modulation for Digital Terrestrial Television, Geneva, Jan. 2009.

[11] Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Next Generation broadcasting system to Handheld,physical layer specification (DVB-NGH). DVB Document A160. Geneva, Nov. 2012

[12] Montalban, J. et al, Cloud Transmission: System simulation and performance analysis,Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2013 IEEE InternationalSymposium on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 5-7 June 2013.

[13] Zhang, L. et al, Channel capacity distribution of Layer-Division-Multiplexing system fornext generation digital broadcasting transmission, Broadband Multimedia Systems andBroadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEE International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,6, 25-27June 2014.

[14] Montalban, J.et al, Cloud Transmission: System Performance and ApplicationScenarios, Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on , vol.60, no.2, pp.170,184, June 2014.

[15] Lee, J-Y.et al, Performance evaluation of lower layer system in cloud transmission forterrestrial DTV broadcasting, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting(BMSB), 2014 IEEE International Symposium on, vol., no., pp.1,3, 25-27 June 2014.

[16] Regueiro, C.et al, Cloud Transmission system performance in portable indoorenvironments, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEEInternational Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 25-27 June 2014.

[17] Montalban, J.et al, Large size FFTs over time-varying channels, Electronics Letters,vol.50, no.15, pp.1102, 1103, July 17 2014.

[18] Gil, U.et al, Cloud Transmission System performance for mobile urban scenarios in thefield, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEE

International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 25-27 June 2014.

[19] Kwon, S.et al,Analysis on two dimensional block interleaver for the cloud transmissionsystem, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEEInternational Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,3, 25-27 June 2014.

Date post:	01-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aditya-joshi
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

15.06.01.Smpte2015.Btsdlangueira

Documents