Asia-Pacific Broadcasting (APB) September 2016 • Volume 33, Issue 8 | Page 6

6 NEWS & VIEWS September 2016 Which second-generation DTT standard suits your needs better? by dr peter siebert When the DVB-T2 standard was published in 2009, it was the first, and for some time the only, second-generation Digital Terrestrial Transmission (DTT) standard. Because of its superior spectral efficiency and its operational flexibility, DVB-T2 has become very successful, especially in Asia-Pacific countries that have predominantly embraced T2 technology. Now, with ATSC 3.0, there is another second-generation DTT specification and the obvious question is: What are the relevant differences between ATSC 3.0 and DVB-T2? Before answering this question, I want to congratulate our colleagues at ATSC. Over the past three years, they have brought the relevant experts together and have created a remarkable DTT specification which is a marked advance on its predecessor, ATSC 1.0. The physical layer of ATSC 3.0 has reused the basic building blocks from DVB-T2, which are OFDM and LDPC Forward Error Correction Codes. First comparisons based on simulations for an AWGN channel have demonstrated a performance improvement of about 1dB, mainly resulting from using non-uniform constellations and advanced LDPC codes. These tools provide improved performance at the cost of higher complexity. 1dB is for sure an improvement but it is not in the same range as the transition from a first- to a second-generation standard, which in the case of DVB was about 6dB. There are additional new tools in ATSC 3.0, including MIMO. So far, DVB has purposely not made such a move for T2, because to date there has been no commercial demand for it. Obviously, operators are also concerned about the more complex and expensive network infrastructure. Furthermore, ATSC 3.0 extends the operational range beyond 256 QAM by introducing 1024 QAM and 4096 QAM. This allows for more bits per symbol but at the price of a higher S/N requirement, which will again result in a more expensive network. When looking at the higher layers, ❝In summary, I see one fund