Case study on a comparison between e MBMS

Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network 08/10/2013 Sebastien GRIMOUD grimoud@anfr. fr 08/10/2013 Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network 1

To. C • Problem statement • Simulation framework • Evaluation metric • Results and interpretation 08/10/2013 Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network 2

Problem statement • What are the consequences of the differences between the two standards for a rollout on high tower/high power networks ? • The concept of tower overlay refers to the use of high tower/high power network in combination with a mobile network. The broadcast content is sent over the HT/HP and refered to by the mobile carriers. Question is therefore whether a mobile standard can do the overlay job. • The possibility to implement a single standard in every UE makes it easier for the content to reach the terminals. The efficiency of the two main standards on HT/HP is therefore of interest. DVB-T 2 and LTE use quite alike physical layers but with different possible parameters sets. The contribution addresses the efficiency of the two standards on HP/HT networks. 08/10/2013 Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network 3

Simulation framework • We consider a HP/HT network made of 103 sites. • Propagation is FD 15000 km (1% of time interference, but corverage slightly overestimated). • Cyclic Prefix is 16µs for e. MBMS (max available value) and 224µs for DVB-T 2. • Target reception is fixed rooftop, antenna is BT 419. • A C/I margin is applied to meet a 70% of location service area criteria. • The network is assumed to be a national SFN. • SFN interference are derived according to EBU formula. Two national SFNs on HT/HP networks are simulated for T 2 and e. MBMS, given their respective cyclic prefix. 08/10/2013 Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network 4

Evaluation metric • The result is given in term of SINR maps. • The maximum SINR that ‘’serves’’ at least 95% of the population allows to compare both technologies. • The higher the SINR, the higher the required PR can be and the more efficient the modulation and coding scheme is. The SFN interference puts an upper limit on the MCS that can be used, and therefore on the maximum throughput. 08/10/2013 Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network 5

Results and interpretation e. MBMS DVB-T 2 Due to the larger cyclic prefix available, DVB-T 2 is much more efficient than e. MBMS on HT/HP networks. The limit of the e. MBMS CP is due to the much lower FFT size. 08/10/2013 e. MBMS PR (d. B) 6 Corresponding MCS for DVB-T 2 QPSK 3/4 Corresponding datarate for DVB-T 2 (Mbps) 10. 46 C/I, location probability 70% (d. B) 10 Emin(d. BµV/m) 26. 3+C/N Emed, location probability 95% (d. BµV/m) 41 Population in service area (%) 94. 61% Case study on a comparison between e. MBMS and DVB-T 2 on a high tower high power network DVB-T 2 16 64 QAM 3/4 31. 39 20 25. 2+C/N 50 95. 16% 6