Mobile TV: The Next Killer-App
Amid the flurry of activity and hype surrounding mobile TV, various network models and technology platforms have emerged to offer their services
There is presently a great deal of industry hype surrounding 'mobile television'. Noted by some to be the next 'killer app' of the mobile sector, and dismissed by others as having no sustainable business model, mobile TV is a conjure of possibilities. It lies at the eye of a maelstrom of technologies, network models and frequency bands, waiting for many trials to end and the manifestation of a clue as to the most practical and commercially viable direction.
Experiencing TV on handheld devices raises a whole new set of issues that have spawned several new broadcast technology platforms. Attracting the most attention globally is the digital video broadcast to handhelds (DVB-H) standard, which is derived from digital video broadcast terrestrial (DVB-T). The important difference is that DVB-H transmits the signal in bursts in order to conserve handset battery life. It also incorporates greater forward error correction, essential for boosting handheld reception.Another significant difference is the data encapsulation technique. The DVB-H stream is an IP datacast at 200 to 500kbps/program, yielding up to 50 programs in an 8MHz channel. This resolution is sufficient for the tiny handset screen. In contrast, standard-definition DVB-T uses MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4) encoding at 4 to 5Mbps/program, yielding up to five 'standard resolution' programs per channel.
DVB-H is not the only mobile TV platform finding favor. Korea and China are the first to embrace terrestrial digital multimedia broadcast (T-DMB), derived from the Eureka 147 digital audio broadcast (DAB) standard. Moreover, Qualcomm has developed the forward link only (FLO) technology for the delivery of multimedia content. T-DMB, FLO and DVB-H have each addressed the same handset-related issues-battery life, reception and screen resolution-albeit in different ways.
It Starts with Delivery
The choice of technology platform is just one element of delivery-and delivery just one consideration-in the riddle that is mobile TV. Commercial imperatives drive all, and are also dependent on such aspects as consumer viewing habits, handset development, content licensing and government regulatory environment. Yet it is with delivery that the whole mobile TV enterprise gets moving, and delivery infrastructure that represents a significant proportion of capital outlay. Consequently, the question of which delivery model proves best, and most cost-effective, is one of high interest.
Speculation is compounded by the existence of several different industry players. On the one hand, there are the mobile communications carriers. These have an existing subscriber base and perceive mobile TV as a means of extending and differentiating their service. Many have introduced third-generation (3G) mobile TV services based on universal mobile telecommunications service (UMTS) in recent months, while at the same time partnering broadcast-based mobile TV trials.
It is generally well accepted that UMTS-based mobile TV has limitations. The service is here and available now, but the unicast (one-to-one) nature of UMTS means that as the viewer base grows, mobile TV will not be sustainable on this platform-even as UMTS heads towards '3G long term evolution' (3G LTE) or in-band cellular broadcast techniques such as multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS). Recent reports have suggested that it makes more sense to use the spectrum for wireless data services that can be charged at a higher rate than can television.
Mobile carriers are therefore turning to broadcast models for mobile TV. Their quest to utilize existing base station sites has led to the 'cellular overlay' model for mobile TV, where broadcast infrastructure is deployed at mobile base stations to provide mobile TV coverage in a similar way to a cell-based mobile network.
Source- ciol.com
There is presently a great deal of industry hype surrounding 'mobile television'. Noted by some to be the next 'killer app' of the mobile sector, and dismissed by others as having no sustainable business model, mobile TV is a conjure of possibilities. It lies at the eye of a maelstrom of technologies, network models and frequency bands, waiting for many trials to end and the manifestation of a clue as to the most practical and commercially viable direction.
Experiencing TV on handheld devices raises a whole new set of issues that have spawned several new broadcast technology platforms. Attracting the most attention globally is the digital video broadcast to handhelds (DVB-H) standard, which is derived from digital video broadcast terrestrial (DVB-T). The important difference is that DVB-H transmits the signal in bursts in order to conserve handset battery life. It also incorporates greater forward error correction, essential for boosting handheld reception.Another significant difference is the data encapsulation technique. The DVB-H stream is an IP datacast at 200 to 500kbps/program, yielding up to 50 programs in an 8MHz channel. This resolution is sufficient for the tiny handset screen. In contrast, standard-definition DVB-T uses MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4) encoding at 4 to 5Mbps/program, yielding up to five 'standard resolution' programs per channel.
DVB-H is not the only mobile TV platform finding favor. Korea and China are the first to embrace terrestrial digital multimedia broadcast (T-DMB), derived from the Eureka 147 digital audio broadcast (DAB) standard. Moreover, Qualcomm has developed the forward link only (FLO) technology for the delivery of multimedia content. T-DMB, FLO and DVB-H have each addressed the same handset-related issues-battery life, reception and screen resolution-albeit in different ways.
It Starts with Delivery
The choice of technology platform is just one element of delivery-and delivery just one consideration-in the riddle that is mobile TV. Commercial imperatives drive all, and are also dependent on such aspects as consumer viewing habits, handset development, content licensing and government regulatory environment. Yet it is with delivery that the whole mobile TV enterprise gets moving, and delivery infrastructure that represents a significant proportion of capital outlay. Consequently, the question of which delivery model proves best, and most cost-effective, is one of high interest.
Speculation is compounded by the existence of several different industry players. On the one hand, there are the mobile communications carriers. These have an existing subscriber base and perceive mobile TV as a means of extending and differentiating their service. Many have introduced third-generation (3G) mobile TV services based on universal mobile telecommunications service (UMTS) in recent months, while at the same time partnering broadcast-based mobile TV trials.
It is generally well accepted that UMTS-based mobile TV has limitations. The service is here and available now, but the unicast (one-to-one) nature of UMTS means that as the viewer base grows, mobile TV will not be sustainable on this platform-even as UMTS heads towards '3G long term evolution' (3G LTE) or in-band cellular broadcast techniques such as multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS). Recent reports have suggested that it makes more sense to use the spectrum for wireless data services that can be charged at a higher rate than can television.
Mobile carriers are therefore turning to broadcast models for mobile TV. Their quest to utilize existing base station sites has led to the 'cellular overlay' model for mobile TV, where broadcast infrastructure is deployed at mobile base stations to provide mobile TV coverage in a similar way to a cell-based mobile network.
Source- ciol.com
posted by SAKN at 1:31 AM
My StumbleUpon Page
Social Bookmarking
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home