Tech Spotlight

DTS May Hold The Key To Mobile DTV

As broadcasters look more seriously at offering mobile DTV, many engineers think the answer to the problem of providing a strong, dependable signal across their markets will be DTS, distributed transmission systems. Some stations have begun testing the low-power, multiple-transmitter technology and say that price is the biggest obstacle to widespread adoption right now.
By
TVNewsCheck,

Distributed transmission systems, the cellphone approach to broadcasting, could give a boost to mobile DTV as broadcasters attempt to reach on-the-go viewers with rock-solid signals.

"DTS is just going to be required [for mobile DTV]," says David Neff, president of Axcera, a Pittsburgh-based transmitter manufacturer. "It's not going to work any other way."

Story continues after the ad

Mobile requires "a good, reliable over-the-air signal that has to be ubiquitous," he says. "If you want to have reliable coverage you really are more compelled to do a service that broadcasts from multiple sites and multiple transmitters."

DTS, otherwise known as single frequency networks, was conceived nearly a decade ago as an alternative the tall tower approach that broadcasters have been using for the past 90 years.

DTS comprises a network of transmission sites -- antennas on relatively short towers driven by low-power transmitters and interconnected via microwave, landline or satellite.

With the advent of digital TV receiver technology, such networks can make use of a single frequency to cover a market just like conventional big-stick broadcasting.

The FCC authorized use of DTS in February 2009 and 17 stations have filed applications to build systems, including a few that had been experimenting with the technology for years.

However, DTS pioneers are finding that DTS is not practical for conventional broadcasting.

"It still costs way too much to implement," says Russell Rockwell, chief engineer of Penn State's noncommercial WPSU State Colleage, Pa., the first experimental DTS in the country.

Rockwell is using DTS to feed to fill in coverage in the challenging Nittany Valley terrain around State College, conceding that some viewers who could see WPSU's analog signal cannot see its digital one.

But he shelved the idea of using DTS to cover the Altoona market 45 miles from the main transmitter site because it would cost about $500,000 to link the transmitter sites.

"The promise is there but I believe the manufacturers need to reach a point where they can put up a distributed transmission site for the cost of a translator -- $20,000-$25,000," he says.

Costs are such a concern that many broadcasters won't even consider DTS, says an engineer with a national broadcast firm speaking on background.

"There's not a willingness to go out on a limb and try this technology in places other than where you have mountain ridges between transmitters," he says.

Still, in spite of the costs, many see DTS as the key to mobile DTV where having blanket coverage is critical since viewers will not tolerate having their pictures fizzle as they walk down the street or ride along in a car.

"You need very high field strengths over your entire service area to attain reliable network service," says Merrill Weiss, president of Merrill Weiss Group, and a longtime DTS proponent and patent holder. "If anything, mobile will be the driver for using single-frequency networks."

Tom Long, director of engineering for Long Communications' WHKY Hickory, N.C., received FCC approval for his DTS last May and plans to deploy the service in the fall. He hopes it will improve reception of the main signal, but his real goal is to lay down a ubiquitous mobile DTV signal.

"We think the technology is going to go handheld," he says. "We want to cover the entire Charlotte market on a single frequency and have 90 dB or more on most signal levels."

Long acknowledges that deploying DTS is "not the cheap way to go." A 47-mile microwave link cost $100,000 and brought the cost of a single DTS site to about $250,000, he says. That's why Long whittled back his original plan from four sites to two and also why he'd like some other Charlotte stations to join him in building and sharing a system.

"This is the way everybody will eventually have to go," he says. "If somebody wants to buy space on my microwave, I'll offer to lease space."

Because it is expensive and because mobile DTV can be initially deployed without it, DTS may continue to sit on the technological back burner for a little longer.

But it should finally have its day.

Says Jay Adrick, VP of broadcast technology at Harris: "When mobile comes along and there are receivers out there, there will be quite a few stations that end up deploying DTS."

Edit Article

Comments (13) -

Mark Aitken posted over 2 years ago
Candid personal view... There is a large difference between DTS (ATSC A/110) versus SFN (ala DVB/FLO and other OFDM). There exists no equivalent of a guard interval. Without the orthogonal component, additional (synchronized) overlays of emission sources (on-channel transmitters) appear as additional noise sources and serve to diminish reception in definable areas. Winners and losers need to be chosen. So...one point made is true...geographically isolated areas are likely to be the only recipients of extending coverage, but the costs need to be brought in line... I (and many others) are in the process of preparing the documentation to establish such proof, and I expect to be in a position to offer a paper for inclusion in the upcoming IEEE BTS Symposium. An experimental hardware platform is in the process of being build to provide the empirical data. My (SBG) filing recently with the FCC indicate our primary thoughts and concerns... I would LOVE to think of DTS in the same light as SFN, but alas, VSB versus OFDM...
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Low power stations on different channels within and outside the high-power transmitter's service area (and announced using the mechanisms in A/153) will enable fill-in service, perhaps with a hiccup when the receiver leaves the main service area. And, this is much cheaper to implement than DTS.
Johnny Fever posted over 2 years ago
All one needs to do is look at the CQPSK digital "P25" public safety radio systems to realize that this will NOT work for digital TV. We had an analog 800MHz public safety system that worked well, then they installed 12 towers and simulcast digital on all 12 towers (same frequency) and each tower 'interferes' in areas where you get the signal from more than one tower, causing digital 'monkeychatter' and total loss of digital decoding. Unless the proposed mobile TV can work off of just one tower, this will not work unless each tower uses A SEPARATE FREQUENCY for it's information, as a 'simulcast' system on the same frequency is a digital disaster, based on my experiences with 800MHz P25 digital CQPSK multicast simulcast systems.
Radio Nickname posted over 2 years ago
FLO-TV is already doing it on Channel 55 - SFN's with OFDM.
Mark Aitken posted over 2 years ago
Exactly. SFN's can work (very well) . Digital is not the reason to (or not to) work. There are inherently good reasons that multi-carrier OFDM approaches work well.
Bubba Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Why don't the publishers of this rag reach out to knowledgeable persons like the commentors above rather than relying on the sort of people who say things like "We want to cover the entire Charlotte market ... and have 90 dB or more on most signal levels." This sentence has no meaning. It's a nice publication that I usually enjoy reading but it misses again and again when discussing technical matters.
Insider Nickname posted over 2 years ago
With all due respect, the system works VERY RELIABILY with levels MUCH lower than 90db. Here are pictures of a pre-produciton LG phone of the system operating several hours ago 35 miles from a transistion antenna at roughly half power. When the power is doubled and the extra height thrown in, it should be MUCH BETTER than the results that are seen now. http://yfrog.com/20clipimage001rj http://yfrog.com/0qclipimage002qij http://yfrog.com/16clipimage003qj DTS seems to be overkill for mobile DTV under most circumstances. Video Clips can also be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/jdtvclips#p/u/3/7kbrQNHZMw8 and http://www.youtube.com/user/JDTVCLIPS
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
What's the maximum effective distance from the tx antenna, Randy? This has always been an issue; it seems to be somewhat less than the 8-VSB effective service contour.
Insider Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Well, how do you want to compare apples to apples? The ATSC system is 8VSB for both ‘regular’ and mobile. Mobile just rides inside the main 8VSB modulation. The reason it works in mobile and hostile environments better than regular is because it has much more forward error correction and some other tricks. But, If you mean the difference between existing ATSC and the new Mobile-DT service: Lots of factors involved: • Indoor reception is better at just about all distances because error tolerance is significantly greater. • Legacy ATSC won’t work at all in a moving vehicle at any distance. Falls apart after about 3mph. • For outdoor reception it appears from my casual tests that it comes down to the radio horizon. A regular TV hooked up to a high gain outdoor antenna 30’ in the air will be better, but if the antennas for both are at the same height and have the same gain, Mobile is far better in terms of amount of signal needed to work. I believe regular needs a delta of about 15 db from the noise floor, but mobile only needs 3-4 db. Keep in mind that regular ATSC is made for high quality large format displays, and uses the part of the broadcast bandwidth allocated to it to be very efficient in terms of ‘resolution’ per bit. The mobile part is made for high robustness for good quality on small format devices, so it is very inefficient in terms of ‘resolution’ per bit but is very robust because it’s bandwidth is used to repeat the data thus giving the receiver a better chance of actually receiving the data assigned to it. So, comparing apples to apples, if you look at an ATSC HDTV signal on the ground (not 30 ft in the air) that is stationary at the edge of the useable signal where you get significant errors, the Mobile DTV signal from limited tests seems to extends PAST that point on the ground a 10%-20% due to the high FEC.
Bubba Nickname posted over 2 years ago
What are you trying to say? The statement "A level of 90 dB" has no meaning in discussing received signal level unless you denote what it is referenced to! 90 dB(WHAT)? 90 dBu? 90 dBm? Both are impossibly large values for a received signal level. Apparently none of you know what you are talking about.
Mark Aitken posted over 2 years ago
I will take a guess at what the value...tell me if I am wrong.... -90dBm?
Insider Nickname posted over 2 years ago
no poster here has the credentials you have - nor should anyone question be questioning any statements you make :)
Oded Bendov Nickname posted over 2 years ago
The major promoters of DTS, mobile or not, have been companies and folks that have financial stake in this misadventure. Why don't those promoters put their money where their mouth is and build SFN networks of multiple transmitters in urban and suburban areas so that independent and scientific test of winners and losers can be performed?

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2847.21 +68.42 (+2.46%)
NYSE 7542.98 +115.24 (+1.55%)
S&P 500 1315.99 +20.77 (+1.60%)
Updated 05/22 7:39a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for May 20, 2012
  • 1.
    2.4/7
  • 2.
    1.9/6
  • 3.
    1.6/5
  • 4.
    1.3/4
  • 5.
    1.0/3
  • 6.
    0.4/1
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • David Wiegand

    Fans of Sex and the City have finally gotten their wish: Their beloved sex-focused sitcom is back on the air ... sort of. The four women have become four men, of course, and the writing isn't as good. Oh, and the laugh track so annoying, it's offensive. And did I mention that the costumes would be considered fashionable if you were holding a yard sale? Men at Work on TBS is almost quaint, it's so old fashioned. If it had any meat on its bones, you'd be tempted to say it's the sadly ignoble epitome of TV's long-festering emasculated-men syndrome. But it's so much of a big, forgettable, innocuous shrug, it's not even worth any actual vitriol.

  • Mike Hale

    The USA Network's motto is "Characters Welcome." Apparently they're especially welcome if they resemble Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Already stocked with Odd Couple knockoffs in Psych and White Collar, USA adds to its inventory Common Law, another comic crime-fighting show about mismatched partners. But this latest entry exhibits very little of that kind of spark as it tries to wring laughs from the juxtaposition of counseling and police work. It looks too flat and schematically plotted to succeed as the type of lightweight summer fun we’ve come to expect from USA.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Johnny Carson: Fantastic entertainer, miserable human being. That's the lasting message of Johnny Carson: King of Late Night, the new PBS American Masters film, a rich history of a rare product of television who dominated the small screen for decades. Unprecedented access to personal archives plus all existing episodes of The Tonight Show (1962-92), distinguishes this film by Peter Jones. Telling interviews with family and colleagues, including second wife Joanne Carson, former Tonight Show executive producer Peter Lassally and a number of biographers sharpen the picture. The clips are carefully selected to illustrate specific personality traits, the performance highlights are given context and meaning beyond funny lines and memorable moments.

  • Hank Stuever

    AMC's The Pitch is a sharply-made if slightly off-putting reality series that follows different advertising agencies each week as they compete for new accounts. The inspiration for the show — made clear by its own ad campaign — is to harness some of the verve generated by the network's acclaimed Mad Men. The Pitch has a way of making the ad world seem like a real downer — a repugnant exercise in egotism laced with depressing bouts of creative compromise.

  • Tim Goodman

    HBO's Veep stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus as former Sen. Selina Meyer, who accepts the vice presidential duty and regrets it almost immediately: She has no real power and gets muscled by the Senate, Congress and the (so-far-unseen) president, who delegates all the truly crappy jobs to her. Louis-Dreyfus has found perhaps her best post-Seinfeld role and takes to it with such fervor — the constant swearing, the barely veiled desire to become president, the unhappy give-and-take with other politicians and a delightful disdain for average citizens — that you can't help but applaud what is clearly an Emmy-worthy effort. Her work alone makes Veep a gem, but there's even more to like.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad