versatile content distribution over lte networks, a … · dutch communications and broadcasting...

Versatile Content Distribution over LTE networks, a Multi-Provider Approach

Authors: Menno Bangma, Frank Berkers, Bram van den Ende, Annemieke Kips, Pieter Nooren

TNO Networked Information, Delft, the Netherlands1

1 Introduction

The interest in LTE Multicast/Broadcasting technology is growing rapidly in the market place. This

technology, often referred to as eMBMS, facilitates synchronous distribution of live content to all

mobile subscribers within a defined area of a mobile network. The technology is disruptive in light of

the conventional unicast paradigm which is characteristic for mobile networks. There have been

various technology demonstrations over the last few years and more recently various trials and even

commercial launches2. In the Netherlands, it was demonstrated by Ericsson, Qualcomm, Samsung,

IBM and KPN in May 2014 in the Amsterdam Arena football stadium during a live match of Ajax

against NEC. Just three months before that event, Vodafone had worked together with almost the

same industrial partners for a demonstration at Borussia’s football stadium in Mönchengladbach,

Germany. Outside Europe, we have seen similar initiatives from e.g. Telstra (Australia), Verizon (US)

and Smart Communications (Filippines). The technology may open up opportunities for new use

cases. For example, it could be used to serve attendees at large scale events with live broadcast of

multimedia content as demonstrated already in the Netherlands and elsewhere. It might also create

opportunities in the field of machine-to-machine communications (M2M). Large numbers of systems

and devices may need software updates, which can be broadcast for increased efficiency. If access to

Broadcast-Multicast functionality is granted to third parties, it can potentially lead to a range of new

applications. This is similar to the case of smartphone “apps”, which had explosive growth after

smartphone functionalities had opened up to developers. In the case of broadcast, there are use

cases with local advertisements (e.g. a news channel at a railway station funded by advertisements).

1 This study has been conducted by TNO in close cooperation with KPN, Vodafone NL, NPO (Dutch Public

Broadcaster), SBS Broadcasting, Ericsson, Samsung Benelux. The work was partly funded by the Topsector High

Tech Systems and Materials (NL). A Management Summary of this Study Paper is published separately. 2 See: http://lteworld.org/category/tags/embms

LTE BROADCAST Study Paper DECEMBER 2014

Figure 1: LTE Broadcast technology demonstration by Korea Telecom, at Mobile World Congress 2014. Source: TNO

So, several ongoing developments could lead to a breakthrough for LTE Multicast/Broadcast3

technology, which has not happened with earlier mobile generations, e.g. DVB-H. However, it also

raises several questions among stakeholders, mostly regarding the ecosystem that should be put in

place to ultimately achieve widespread adoption of this technology. In case of LTE Broadcast, this is

not trivial. There are also technical matters to consider as LTE Broadcast technology introduces

additional complexity inside mobile networks and introduces changes in the usage of available

spectrum resources. Last but not least, the business model raises questions concerning billing. With

LTE Broadcast-based services usage based billing of unicast traffic is paradigm no longer holds.

Another revenue model for this type of service must be found.

This paper, which has been developed by TNO in close cooperation with a group of key players in the

Dutch communications and broadcasting market, is inspired by the question “Can LTE networks be

equipped with a future-proof option, in terms of technology, business and regulations & rights, for

scalable live content distribution over the air on the basis of a viable ecosystem and use of multiple

networks?” The emphasis of the paper is on the analysis of the new ecosystem which comes into

play and the paper addresses the question how this could be launched.

Chapter 2 puts wireless broadcasting in a historical perspective which also leads us to explaining the

motivation for the conduct of this work in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 of this paper provides the non-

specialized reader a basic understanding of LTE Broadcast and introduces some of the issues which

3 In the remainder of this paper, the term ‘LTE Broadcast’ will be used.


will become important later in the paper. Experts are also encouraged to read this part. Chapter 5

discusses how LTE Broadcast capabilities could be leveraged. It deals with the exploration of relevant

use cases, presents the various different distribution models which are possible with LTE Broadcast,

and discusses the mapping of selected use cases on these distribution models. Based on those

insights, in Chapter 6 addresses a roadmap for LTE Broadcast is proposed and next steps to stimulate

near-term adoption of LTE Broadcast in the ecosystem are recommended. Finally, the paper

presents the main conclusions and key highlights. Annex A contains a long-list and characterisation

of use cases relevant to LTE Broadcast, as discussed with the project group. Annex B provides a list of

abbreviations used in this paper.

2 Wireless and mobile broadcasting in a historical perspective

2.1 Early days of wireless broadcasting

Wireless broadcasting has existed for almost a century. It was first used to deliver radio services, and

later television services. The earliest launches of radio broadcasting services in the UK and the

Americas go back to the period around 1920. Back in 1919, the first radio programme was

broadcasted from The Hague in the Netherlands. Later in the 1920s, the introduction of public

television broadcasting services followed. To date the HF, VHF and UHF frequency bands have been

used, at least for terrestrial broadcast services.

Wireless broadcasting to nomadic and mobile users became possible as soon as receiving devices

could be made small enough to carry them around. In case of radio this became possible in the

1950s soon after the introduction of transistor technology, which miniaturized the receivers and

reduced power consumption tremendously allowing the use of batteries. In case of TV, which was

much more complex, it took considerably longer. During the whole era of TV tube technology, TV

sets eventually became portable but not fully mobile. Only after the introduction of LCD technology

did it become possible to display (moving) graphical images on small form factor displays because of

sufficient pixel resolution. In the 1980s, handheld devices were introduced in the market, which

could handle moving pictures, first in monochrome and later followed by full colour.

Since then, developments in network technology (DAB, DVB) and mobile device technologies

gradually created a consumer market for multimedia broadcast services which exists to date. Public

and commercial service providers are active in this market. The adoption of radio (FM) among

mobile and nomadic users has always been superior to TV.

2.2 Broadcasting developments in the mobile industry

Since the 1980s, mobile communications have emerged with a very fast pace of development and

adoption. This took place completely independently from the broadcasting domain. Already in the

early 2000s, the first activities were deployed in the mobile industry in the area of Broadcast and TV

services. In 2004, the first commercial services appeared in Europe that offered TV and video

content over 3G. This was also the time that activities were started around mobile broadcast

standards to converge the TV and Mobile world and offer large scale Mobile TV services. Various

initiatives were started in different domains and this led to a number of standards in different

regions in the world, as depicted in the table below.


Table 1 – an overview of Mobile TV broadcast technologies developed in the past decade. Source: TNO

Technology Region(s) used

MBMS Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service Worldwide

BCMCS BroadCast MultiCast Services US variation of MBMS

CMMB China Multimedia Mobile Broadcasting, both Satellite and

Terrestrial

China

DVB-H Digital Video Broadcast – Handheld Europe, Africa, SE

Asia, US

DVB-SH Digital Video Broadcast – Satellite Handheld -never deployed-

S-DMB Satellite Digital Multimedia Broadcasting South Korea

T-DMB Terrestrial Digital Multimedia Broadcasting South Korea, some

countries in Europe

MediaFLO Media Forward Link Only US

ISDB-T Integrated Service Digital Broadcasting – Terrestrial Japan, Latin America

ATSC-M/H Advanced Television Systems Committee – Mobile Handheld US

The DVB-H, ISDB-T and ATSC-M/H standards for Mobile TV were derived from standards for fixed

digital Terrestrial TV. This approach was supported by the idea that this way existing networks could

be reused for Mobile TV. But since every region uses its own standard for fixed TV (Europe - DVB,

North America - ATSC, Japan - ISDB), this introduced fragmentation into the Mobile TV standards. T-

DMB and S-DMB were derived from standards for digital radio (DAB) with the idea that digital radio

standards already have good mobile reception characteristics (in contrast to TV standards).

MediaFLO was a ‘standard’ developed by Qualcomm specifically for Mobile TV, aiming to optimize

performance and battery life, and built up from the ground. Qualcomm even purchased dedicated

spectrum in the US for their technology. Finally, in China the CMMB standard was developed, which

is very similar to DVB-SH.

Mobile TV over ISDB-T, marketed as “OneSeg”or “1-seg”, was very successful in Japan and reached

over 40 million people at its peak (2008/2009). The DMB services in Korea were popular as well,

reaching 15-18 million users around 2008. In Europe and the US the situation was much bleaker.

DVB-H was launched first in Italy and quickly reached about 600k subscribers. In 2008 it was

launched in Finland, the Netherlands and a few other countries, but never reached more than 100k

subscribers. In France, Spain, Germany and the UK it never came off the ground. In the US the clash

between the different supporting groups behind DVB-H, ATSCH-MH and MediaFLO prevented a

wide-scale deployment of any of the services. MediaFLO only reached a 100,000 subscribers at its

peak.

As of today, almost all the commercial Mobile TV broadcasting services have been shut down in

Europe. In Asia the services are still operational and used but the video quality is regarded as poor

compared to today’s standards. Looking back, a number of important reasons can be identified for

the failure of these Mobile broadcast networks and initiatives, specifically focussed on the failure in

Europe.

2.3 Reasons why mobile TV never really took of

First of all there was a lack of a steady flow of new end-user devices. The technologies required

special chipsets and devices and DVB-H was only available on three end-user devices (manufactured


by Nokia, Samsung and LG). With a replacement time of 18 months by consumers the DVB-H phones

quickly became obsolete and because newer phones did not provide DVB-H, the service lost

subscribers.

Secondly, in many countries there was no positive business case to justify the required broadcast

network investments and in some countries the spectrum was not yet available for the service. This

led to long debates and complicated business constructions between mobile operators, broadcasters

and broadcast network operators. On top of that, the negotiation of rights for Mobile TV slowed

things down further.

Another (third) reason for failure was the fact that the broadcast standards were fragmented per

region. On top of that, in Europe there was a large debate on the service layers used on top of

DVB-H. Italy used a service layer different from the rest of Europe. This meant the phones in Italy

were incompatible (with respect to the Mobile TV service) with the phones used in the other parts of

Europe although they all supported DVB-H. Especially in the mobile market, which is global market,

none of the initiatives would be able to reach significant scale.

Fourthly, the developments for Mobile TV started in 2004. But by the time the service came to the

market in 2008 the focus of the industry had shifted towards mobile Internet. This was also due to

the introduction of the iPhone that realized a breakthrough in making browsing the web on a phone

user friendly due to its touchscreen.

The surge of mobile Internet also provided opportunities for content providers for direct customer

relationships through the mobile. This was a very attractive proposition for many content providers

compared to the “walled garden” model of mobile broadcast. And so, many content providers chose

to focus their attention on the rise of the mobile Internet.

And finally there was a mismatch between the rigid linear TV broadcast schedule and mobile usage.

Consumers seemed to like watching TV on their mobile but not necessarily when they are mobile.

When people are travelling and have some time to kill they wanted to see something from the start

instead of dropping in halfway during the program. Most watching (at least in Europe) was therefore

done in the home or at the office.


Table 2 below summarizes the main reasons for the failure of mobile TV to take off until now.

Table 2: Summary of the main reasons for failure of the Mobile TV Broadcast technologies that were

introduced between 2006 and 2010, specifically DVB-H in Europe.

Main reasons

Lack of steady flow of new end-user devices

Change of focus of the Industry towards mobile Internet

No opportunities for direct customer relationship for CPs, compared to Internet.

No positive business case to justify the required broadcast network investment.

Mobile usage does not match with the rigid linear TV broadcast schedule.

3 Motivation for this Study

3.1 Changing conditions in the market place

So does the previous analysis mean that the future for LTE Broadcast is dark as well? Certainly not:

since 2008, a number of important developments have taken place in favour of LTE Broadcast.

3.1.1 Surge in mobile video

First of all, video usage on mobile is growing very rapidly. Video data already amounts to 50% of all

mobile data traffic. This is only expected to increase in the future; Cisco predicts an annual growth

rate of 75% for Mobile video between 2012 and 2017, the highest growth rate of any mobile

application category that Cisco forecasts4. Even in new LTE networks with significantly increased

capacity compared with 3G networks, installing sufficient capacity to transport these increasing

volumes of data is challenging. Much of the video content is consumed by individual users, for

example using services such as YouTube, VoD or Catch-up TV for which unicast may be adequate.

However, unicast is very inefficient and not scalable for transmission of (popular) live content that is

viewed simultaneously by many mobile subscribers. One application is to offer attendees at a large-

scale live event, such as a football stadium, access to a video stream on their smartphones. At

present, such a service is already offered via Wi-Fi but the quality of service offered cannot be

guaranteed with the current 802.11n/ac standard. Mobile operators can respond here with an

excellent quality service by using LTE Broadcast.

3.1.2 Mitigation of reasons for failure

Secondly, a number of reasons for failure previously mentioned have been mitigated. LTE Broadcast

does not require specialty chipsets or devices. The hardware functionality is already available in a

number of (high-end) smartphones and chipsets on the market. Also on the network side, it can be

deployed through existing LTE networks and the radio network only requires a software upgrade.

The required investments are ‘limited’ to the back-end infrastructure. LTE is a global standard and

LTE Broadcast is supported by all the parties that were previously divided across the different Mobile

broadcast standards.

Another key capability of LTE Broadcast is that it can be (dynamically) switched. This means the

mobile operator does not have to buy or reserve dedicated spectrum for mobile broadcast services,

4 Cisco VNI, Forecast and methodology 2013-2018, www.cisco.com


as was the case with DVB-H. The current LTE spectrum can be used for both broadcast services as

well as LTE unicast services. Only when the broadcast service is in use does the network have to

reserve LTE carriers for broadcast services.

Finally, the rapid growth in the use of mobile services is leading to changing conditions in the TV

broadcasting industry as well. Terrestrial broadcasting of Digital TV (e.g. Digitenne in the

Netherlands) has been a reality for many years already and is still the primary means to receive

television in Europe. This service makes use of spectrum in the UHF band. This broadcast spectrum is

being reorganized (i.e., “re-farmed”) due to the increasing demand for mobile services. This is one of

the topics for discussion during the upcoming World Radio Conference in 2015 (Section 3.2). As a

result, the Broadcasting sector is becoming increasingly interested in LTE technology as a possible

alternative to DVB-T(2) for broadcast services or as part of the solution in the convergence of Mobile

and Broadcast services.

All these changes and developments pave the way for success of LTE Broadcast. However there are

still some challenges to overcome and questions to be answered. First, we will touch upon some

relevant developments in the spectrum domain which are expected to also influence the

development and adoption of LTE Broadcast technology.

3.2 Relevant developments in spectrum

The future of LTE Broadcast technology is also influenced by developments currently taking place in

the international spectrum arena, and particularly by potential “transfers” of broadcast allocations

to mobile. It is widely known that the mobile communications sector strongly pleads for more

spectrum to accommodate the continued steep growth in mobile data consumption which is

expected in the coming years. Although precise spectrum predictions are often subject to criticism5,

the need for expansion in this domain is not disputed. The GSMA Association mentions 600-800 MHz

extra in 2020 in its recently published position paper6. One of the spectrum bands which are

expected to deliver spectrum to mobile is the Broadcast Services band, w an original allocation

between 470 MHz and 862 MHz and has been the main stay for Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT)

services throughout Europe for decades. A few years ago, the 792-862 MHz sub band was already

reallocated to Mobile Services and now the sub band 694 – 790 MHz awaits a similar change (see

later in this section). Discussions are now arising quickly about the future of the remaining part of

this UHF band (the so-called core band) with attractive propagation properties. The relevant bands

are depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Frequency bands between 470 and 862 MHz.

5 For example, ITU-R M.2290 is leading in WRC-2015 but it is also strongly criticized.

6 Mobile Spectrum Requirements and target bands for WRC-15, GSMA Policy Position: May 2014


The European Commission has a positive attitude towards claims for additional mobile spectrum, in

the sense that the Commission is convinced of the positive socio-economic benefits of

wireless/mobile broadband in Europe. Realization of the Digital Agenda targets is an important pillar

in current EU policy7. Mobile broadband is considered as a key enabler to achieve a widely spread

broadband coverage in Europe in a relatively short time frame, especially where fixed broadband

networks are scarce or even absent. The Radio Spectrum Policy Programme is the available

instrument to influence national policies in this direction towards more harmonised spectrum for

(wireless) electronic communications. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) however,

representing the national broadcasters as well as the Programme Making & Special Events (PMSE)

sector, fears deterioration of public service availability and of services ancillary to broadcasting due

to ongoing spectrum reductions combined with an emerging negative/insecure investment climate8.

The High Level Group installed by Commissioner Kroes in spring 2014 and comprised of executives

from the mobile and broadcast sectors was tasked to find consensus in this area with conflicting

requirements today but with future potential of convergence. Formal consensus could not be

reached in this group, but it appeared that the 2020-2030-2025 strategy as published by chairman

Mr Pascal Lamy was appreciated by the Commission. This strategy for the 700 MHz band implied

that the 700 MHz band should be cleared in Europe by 2020, the availability of the core band should

be guaranteed until 2030, with a review of mobile requirements in 20259.

On the global level, the World Radio Conferences (WRCs) fairly well predict what is ahead of us

regarding spectrum changes. The upcoming WRC in 2015 will be decisive for the future use of the

700 MHz band and will also be influential for the core band.

Status and prospect of the 700 MHz band (694-790 MHz)

Since 2012, the 700 MHz band is targeted as a band (in Europe and Africa) which could be given a so

called co-primary status for Broadcasting and Mobile Services. The EC initiated studies in 2013 into a

possible band plan for Mobile broadband communications. This work finished in May 2014 with the

outcome that the Asia-Pacific band plan will be adopted10

. This outcome substantially increases

international harmonization which is important to create large scale markets for 4G/5G technology.

The plan, which leaves some room for national preferences, accommodates 2x30 MHz (Up/Down)

with an additional option for 2x5 MHz Supplementary Downlink11

. Alternatively, it provides options

for Public Protection and Disaster Relief (PPDR) services and PMSE. Again, this is subject to national

policies to be developed after WRC-15. The Dutch government announced in September 2014 that

the policy-making process on the 700 MHz band has started in the face of expiration of the license

for DTT per 2017. At the time of publication of this paper, a market consultation is being held. The

current position is that the 700 MHz band is a complex case with no trivial outcomes.

7 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/

8 http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/ebu-and-abu-defend-broadcast-spectrum/273232

9 Results of the Work of the High Level Group on the future use of the UHF band (470-790 MHz), Pascal Lamy,

Report to the European Commission, August 2014 10

See: Draft ECC Decision for the harmonized use of the 700 MHz range for wireless broadband in Europe,

CEPT Report 53, December 3rd

2014 11

This means that additional downlink capacity can be created in a mobile network to accommodate

asymmetrical traffic needs.


Long term future of the core band (470-694 MHz)

As mentioned before, positions about the future of the UHF core band are being prepared for the

international debate on that topic. Various studies are being conducted which feed the debate about

this band (sources). Ultimately, the WRC is the forum with legal mandate where the high level

spectrum roadmap is determined and updated but it is interesting to observe how technological

developments and expected trends lead to new creative ideas how spectrum could be retargeted in

the long term. In various studies12

technical solutions are being considered including hybrid and

transitional solutions. The latter essentially boil down to a combination of broadcasting and mobile

network technologies. These would have to be introduced and deployed under a spectrum regime

which offers flexibility.

The associated spectrum perspective is that in a technology transitional phase, spectrum in the core

band could be assigned in a flexible way such that depending on national and market conditions,

spectrum can be assigned flexibly to DTT and mobile, separately and/or in hybrid form, see

Figure 3.

Figure 3: Flexible assignment of spectrum to DTT and mobile.

In conclusion, we can observe a few important developments in the spectrum domain both in the

short-term as well as in the long-term which will be influential to the evolution and roll out of future

wireless networks providing broadcasting services capabilities.

12

See:

1) First stakeholder workshop for the Study Challenges and opportunities of broadcast-broadband convergence

and its impact on spectrum and network use, Plum Consulting/Farncombe, March 2014

2) Delivery of Broadcast content over LTE networks, European Broadcasting Union, TR 027, july 2014.


3.3 Questions regarding LTE Broadcast

There are a number of key questions which need to be addressed and dealt with before the market

can convincingly pick-up the LTE Broadcast development:


The ‘killer’ application for LTE Broadcast

A clear killer application for LTE Broadcast in a particular use case or a small combination of

appealing use cases could easily accelerate its development and adoption. Firstly, the corresponding

use case(s) should require synchronous distribution of broadband content which is the key feature

of LTE Broadcast and secondly, the deployment of LTE Broadcast should provide a service level and

cost/benefit ratio which cannot be easily provided by alternative (substitute) solutions. There are

some specific use cases often considered in regards to LTE Broadcast, but does anyone of them have

the potential to create a break-through?

Technical maturity

Has eMBMS reached a level of technological maturity and stability that it can be introduced into

today’s mobile networks? Are all essential functionalities there to support operational deployment

and are interfaces defined and implemented to allow the mobile operator to interwork with other

stakeholders in the value chain? Is the technology being supported by device manufacturers?

Impact on mobile network infrastructure, operations and exploitation

First of all, how does LTE Broadcast impact the allocation of scarce resources (potential and actually

achievable capacity gains)? What is the impact of LTE Broadcast on the network, in terms of

infrastructure adjustments, planning & provisioning, management and monitoring, and billing?

Viable business case

Does the mobile operator, who is considered to be the true the prime enabler of this feature, see a

positive business case emerge eventually? Is there the perspective of a net positive return on

investment, taking into account limitations in revenue models in case of broadcasting (compared to

unicast) and the costs involved which may not scale well to the population subscribing to these

applications?

Attractive alternative distribution channel for content providers

Although a mobile network operator (MNO) could fully internalize the eMBMS functionality in its

network as a means only to improve his resource utilisation efficiency (so called ‘feature’), it is

envisioned that any successful exploitation of LTE Broadcast features will have to involve content

providers as well. Which (types of) content providers are interested in reaching their nomadic and

mobile customers (most likely cross cutting the MNO’s individual subscriber populations) through

this particular channel in the presence of alternative distribution channels? What specific

requirements do they bring and can a healthy business arrangement be made?

Getting an ecosystem in place

Exploitation of LTE Broadcast technology is not limited to one mobile operator only. It should be

considered as an ecosystem involving various stakeholders (network and device vendors, mobile

operators, content providers, application developers) that need to get aligned technically,

organisationally and businesswise (value and money streams). There seems to be general consensus

in the market place that the ecosystem needed to launch LTE Broadcast based services successfully

is still to be established. This ecosystem should be structured such that the business potential which


LTE Broadcast based services could offer results in viable business models within this ecosystem.

This is an essential condition for sustainable success.

Compliancy with digital rights and regulations

Leveraging LTE Broadcast addresses various regulatory and rights matters, e.g. broadcasting

legislation, telecommunication and spectrum regulations, competition regulation, and about digital

rights management. Does the current regulatory framework already allow for LTE Broadcast based

services? How do digital rights associated to content affect this particular form of content

distribution?

3.4 Content and emphasis of this Paper

The study performed by TNO and the group of interested stakeholders in 2014 was motivated by the

questions briefly stated in the previous section. This paper addresses many of these topics, but the

emphasis lies on a better understanding of the ecosystem involved, recognizing various possible

distribution models. It tries to answer the question of how an ecosystem for LTE Broadcast could be

launched in the market.

Recognizing that technology is enabling, this paper first explains the LTE Broadcast/eMBMS concept,

its state-of-the-art and emerging extensions/improvements. This is based on available literature as

well as on theoretical and practical expertise present in the group. It also supports a technically

sound discussion of the ecosystem around LTE Broadcast/eMBMS. The general assumption is that

LTE Broadcast/eMBMS is to be implemented in mobile networks which are compliant with 3GPP

standards. We will also pay attention to the application of LTE Broadcast in dedicated networks, as

this could be or become a viable approach for regional or national broadcasting, either in its own

right or as augmentation to a mobile network.

Secondly, it introduces a wide range of use cases which are (potentially) relevant to LTE Broadcast,

and discusses in more detail three cases i.e. Mobile TV, the stadium use case and a group of data

casting services that could benefit from broadcasting functionality.

Thirdly, various possible distribution service models are introduced and characterized, all leveraging

LTE Broadcast functionality. These models range from bilateral service arrangements to multilateral

service models which are inherently more complex. These characterizations also generate important

values and issues for each of the stakeholders in a particular distribution service model. To arrive at

insights into the practical significance of the identified service models, they have been mapped on

the three use cases described earlier.

The fourth topic is the question of how to reach a stable ecosystem based on these insights and how

to kickstart it. We propose a roadmap through which this could be pursued. This also results in a

proposal for a logical follow-up of this work.


4 Understanding LTE Broadcast functionality

4.1 LTE Broadcast concept

The rapid adoption of smartphones and tablets with built-in support for high quality video has

increased mobile access to multimedia services, including high quality mobile audio and video

recording and uploading for the mass market. The majority of today’s mobile video services are

delivered over the mobile broadband (MBB) service of existing 3G and LTE networks, since this is the

fastest and easiest way to deploy them. The service is provided by packet-switched streaming (PSS)

on radio bearers that are dedicated to the individual users.

In scenarios in which high densities of users want to watch the same content at the same time,

deployment of multicast technologies known from the internet and broadcasting can be more

appropriate technologies for the distribution of the content. LTE Broadcast, also known as eMBMS,

is a technology to distribute the same content to the subscribers of a mobile network operator

through broadcast technologies. From an operator’s perspective, the rationale to introduce LTE

Broadcast/eMBMS into his network would be a possible gain in capacity utilization efficiency.

The concept in its most basic form is depicted in

Figure 4 at the right hand side. The conventional unicast transmission method is depicted at the left

hand side to better clarify the difference. The next section will go one step deeper into

understanding the technical concept end-to-end.

Transport of content (streams) based on conventional unicast

Source: TNO

Transport of content (streams) based on multicast/broadcast

Source: TNO

Figure 4: Content distribution using unicast technology (left) and multicast/broadcast technology (right).

In the conventional case, the content delivery would be done through separate streams from a

server to each individual mobile terminal located anywhere within the network’s service area. The

advantage of this approach is that each subscriber is served individually and independently, allowing


personalized content delivery (content on demand). In case of content which is interesting/relevant

to multiple, say M, subscribers at the same time, this content stream will have to be multiplied M

times which takes up more network resources. From a technical point of view, an efficiency gain in

resource utilization could be reached if this content stream would not be multiplied but kept as a

single stream that is broadcasted within a certain service area13

such that at least these M

subscribers would all be able to receive this stream at the same time. The exact capacity impact of

distribution of content via eMBMS and the density of users at which distribution of content via

broadcast outperforms distribution of content via unicast depends on multiple factors. As a rough

indication, it is found in literature, that in typical scenarios distribution of a 2 Mbps content stream

via LTE broadcast costs 10-20% of the capacity of a 10 MHz LTE carrier and that depending on the

actual scenario, LTE broadcast can already outperform unicast distribution if 2 or more subscribers

are interested in the broadcasted content per cell.

The actual radio capacity impact from the LTE broadcast transmission depends on a number of

deployment factors. These are: (1) the size of the area in which all base stations apply exactly the

same transmission frequency (so called Single Frequency Network area or SFN area), (2) the inter-

site distance and (3) the used frequency band. For urban or sub-urban environments with typical

inter-site distance of lower than 1 kilometre, the distribution of 2 Mbps LTE broadcast service would

require a less than 10% capacity reservation. Furthermore, for rural environments with typical inter

site distances of larger than 2 kilometres a capacity reservation of 20% of the 10 MHz LTE carrier

would be required. All this is under the assumption of relatively large SFN areas. It also requires

possibilities to switch dynamically between unicast and multicast and vice versa. In a permanent

setting, the mechanism would not be able to adapt to traffic dynamics and demands in individual

cells of the network. This will not allow optimal use of available (high valued) mobile spectrum.

Obviously this does not apply to scenarios in which the mobile operator would have access to

additional spectrum which is labelled as “broadcast only” (see also Section 3.2).

Beyond network efficiency and network overload protection, drivers for deployment of LTE

Broadcast from an operator perspective could be the ability to offer the LTE Broadcast as a network

capability to content providers. This would allow content providers to distribute their content with a

quality that is independent of the density of end users and, depending on the proposition, e.g.

against a fixed flat-fee monthly subscription.

4.2 Enabling LTE Broadcast

LTE Broadcast requires support and agreements at various places in the end-to-end value chain.

First, we will describe what an operator needs to do to enable its network for LTE Broadcast. Second,

we will describe what end user device support is needed for LTE Broadcast and what an operator

and a content provider need to do to prepare for distribution of content via LTE Broadcast. The

description will be based on functionality that is provided with current (commercial) products. The

aim is not to describe all technological details, but to provide the reader with sufficient background

to understand the ecosystem discussions in the remainder of the paper14

.

13

This is called an SFN (Single Frequency Network) Area. In this area a synchronized reception is possible of the

same signal coming from different base stations. 14

See also: Delivering content with LTE Broadcast, Thorsten Lohmar et all,. Ericsson Review – February 2013


4.2.1 Enabling LTE Broadcast in the operator network

The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined LTE Broadcast as an add-on to the LTE

network that was specified under its responsibility through the specification of the evolved

Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Services (eMBMS) system functionality15

. It has been specified

by 3GPP from 3GPP Release 9 onwards and has been further extended in subsequent releases. Most

trials and deployments today are based on the initial 3GPP Release 9 functionality for eMBMS.

eMBMS comes with a software upgrade of a number of entities in the Evolved Packet System (EPS).

Next to this software upgrade, eMBMS introduces two new functional entities in the mobile network

architecture, the Broadcast Multicast Service Centre (BM-SC) and the eMBMS Gateway. This will be

described in more detail later in this section. A simplified picture of the 3GPP architecture for

eMBMS is depicted in Figure 5. Upgraded existing entities in the 3GPP mobile network operator

domain are shown in green, whereas the new entities are shown in light blue. The Serving/PDN

gateway (shown in pink), which is used for unicast interactions between UE and server and for

support of unicast reception reporting and error correction, does not require an update for support

of eMBMS (normal Gi interface support from PDN Gateway towards the BM-SC).

Figure 5: Simplified LTE Broadcast architecture.

LTE Broadcast combines IP multicast in the fixed part of the mobile network infrastructure with new

LTE Broadcast bearers over the LTE radio interface for efficient distribution of content. LTE

15

3GPP TS 23.246: Multimedia Broad/Multicast Service (MBMS); Architecture and functional description

3GPP TS 26.346: Multimedia Broad/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and codecs

3GPP TS 36.300: Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access

Network; Overall description; Stage 2


Broadcast is based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and single-frequency

network (SFN) technology. With SFN technology, broadcast content is distributed in targeted SFN

coverage areas. An operator can configure up to eight of those SFN areas per eNodeB. An SFN area

can vary in size from a single cell up to a complete Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN). The signals

transmitted by the different eNodeBs in the SFN area are synchronised with microsecond accuracy.

In this way, the device experiences the signals transmitted by the eNodeBs in the SFN area as if they

originate from a single, large eNodeB. In this way the LTE broadcast performance for terminal

locations at borders between different cells is significantly increased. Note that the synchronisation

requirements for deployment of SFN technology can be fulfilled with satellite or transport-based

network synchronisation requirements. Depending on the actual operator situation this can be very

expensive especially with nationwide rollout of this feature. Deployment of SFN technology is well

known in other broadcast technologies, such as DVB-T(2).

Current eMBMS specifications allow the reservation of maximum 60% of the cell capacity for

broadcast purposes. Reserved broadcast resources can be filled with unicast traffic as long as no

content is available for broadcast distribution. Such a priority of broadcast over unicast makes it

challenging to forecast traffic in eMBMS deployments.

The new BM-SC is the source of the broadcast transmission with eMBMS. On the open internet, files

are typically transmitted unicast using HTTP/TCP. However, the TCP protocol is not suitable for

broadcast. For the broadcast transmission of files, the BM-SC uses the IETF FLUTE protocol. One of

the 3GPP defined eMBMS delivery formats for live video is MPEG-DASH. In contrast with LTE

unicast, eMBMS and MPEG-DASH requires that the network provides only a single high-quality

representation. With eMBMS the network ensures delivery of the content with an agreed bit rate.

The benefit of using MPEG DASH with eMBMS is that the same DASH player and the same head-end

equipment can be used for both broadcast and unicast. This facilitates the transition between

unicast and broadcast reception of the content when the MBMS coverage is switched off or when

devices leave the broadcast area. When sending MPEG-DASH over Broadcast, the FLUTE protocol is

used to deliver DASH media segments as files. In other use cases, the FLUTE protocol is used to

deliver on-demand video clips or binary data like software packages over broadcast. Also entire web

pages can be delivered using the FLUTE protocol. The BM-SC uses a Forward Error Correction (FEC)

code to increase the stream reliability. The BM-SC also provides a unicast interface for File Repair

(FR) and Reception Reporting (RR) (for this purpose the BM-SC interfaces with the PDN Gateway).

File Repair is another scheme to increase transmission reliability. Reception Reporting is a procedure

which allows operators to get feedback about the quality of the reception and the number of

receivers.

The MBMS Gateway transmits the broadcast content further downstream towards the eNodeBs and

has a role in controlling the broadcast sessions.

Not only the network but also the end user devices require support for eMBMS. The chipset in the

handsets should support eMBMS. The mobile device is extended to support the new MBMS radio

channels and also the additional service layer functions.


4.2.2 Preparation of content distribution via LTE Broadcast

In this subsection a simplified description of the preparation of the distribution of content via LTE

Broadcast is provided for a stadium use case. In this use case, the content provider has an

agreement with the network operator for distribution of “instant highlight replay” content with an

agreed quality during the soccer match in the soccer stadium. A simplified picture of the preparation

of content distribution is provided in Figure 6. The various steps in this figure will be briefly

described below.

Figure 6: Simplified preparation of content distribution via LTE Broadcast.

1. A supporter can watch “instant highlight replay” content on his LTE Broadcast-enabled device via

his broadcast enabled club app. The supporter may pay the content provider for this, for example via

an additional fixed fee coupled to his ticket. An identifier, the so-called TMGI, is allocated for this

content by the operator, which allows the identification of this particular content in the LTE network

by the device. A broadcast-enabled application on a device is made aware of which TMGI is used for

which content service, e.g. for the “instant highlight replay” content. This TMGI-content mapping

can be either statically set in the application or allow for an update through application layer

signalling between the end-user device and the application server.

Note that there is now awareness in the LTE network of the users who receive the broadcast content

and their device capabilities. This prevents doing usage based charging where a subscriber pays for

the content he actually receives via eMBMS based on information available in the network. Usage

based charging could be realized based on information available in the eMBMS middleware or based

on application layer information. Although this may work for streaming services, it is doubtful

whether such an approach would work with data casting services with which the content that is

received via eMBMS is viewed later, e.g. when the subscriber is in coverage of is home Wi-Fi access

network. In this case the subscriber could have received the content for free via this Wi-Fi access


point and it is questionable whether he is willing to pay a usage based fee for receiving this content

via eMBMS. Most trials and deployments for eMBMS so far are based on fixed fee rather than based

on usage-based charging towards the end user and this way circumvent this potential complication.

2. The device knows how the mobile operator provides the service announcements (e.g., via a

service announcement channel). The club app on the smart phone requests the MBMS middleware

to be updated on service announcements for the TMGI that is mapped to the “instant highlight

replay” content. This results in a regular check for the related service announcements by the device.

3. Prior to the start of LTE Broadcast distribution, the content provider provides the mobile network

operator with the details of the content distribution. This includes the service metadata (e.g.,

manifest files with MPEG DASH) that are used in the service announcement. If this is not already

done, broadcast capacity is allocated in the LTE network and the required broadcast bearers are

established. Depending on the implementation, the allocation of broadcast resources and the

establishment of the required broadcast resources may take several tens of minutes. In general, the

use of pre-established broadcast bearers increases the responsiveness of the broadcast service,

which can be crucial for some use cases, e.g. in the public safety domain.

4. If the request for distribution of the content is accepted by the mobile network operator, a service

announcement on the availability of “instant highlight replay content is initiated. The MBMS

middleware on the device informs the club app that the content will become available soon.

5. The supporter chooses to watch the instant highlight replay content on his smart phone. His smart

phone tunes in on the appropriate broadcast channel and receives the DASH segments for the

content stream. The instant highlight replay content is represented as a streaming service (via the

DASH player) on the smart phone. The supporter continues to be able to make voice calls and to

have access to the internet via unicast bearers as far as the available capacity in the stadium allows

this. The provision of the popular instant highlight replay content via eMBMS, that otherwise partly

would have been distributed via unicast, may relax the pressure on the available capacity in the

stadium.

4.3 Foreseen new LTE Broadcast features

The LTE Broadcast technology that is currently used is sufficient for a number of relevant, yet basic,

use cases e.g. stadium type of use cases where it can be predicted well in advance that broadcast is

going to be beneficial, the targeted broadcast area is limited and there is no need for service

continuity between broadcast and unicast distribution of the content. The technology is being

developed further in 3GPP and various new functionalities are foreseen. Again, in this paper, the

aim is not to be describe all technology details, but to address those technological developments

that have a significant impact on services, business or end user experience. Below, the following new

LTE Broadcast functionalities will be addressed: 1. dynamic allocation of broadcast resources, 2.

service continuity between unicast and broadcast and vice versa, and 3. dedicated LTE Broadcast

networks.

4.3.1 Dynamic allocation of broadcast resources

Whether distribution of content via LTE Broadcast is more beneficial than distribution of content via

unicast distribution will depend on the popularity of the (live) content. Based on the changing


popularity of the (live) content over time, the operator can switch from broadcast to unicast

distribution and vice versa. An indication of the popularity of the content can be determined from

information outside the mobile network domain, e.g. based on the simultaneous watchers for a live

TV show (audience numbers). Current work in progress within 3GPP studies approaches to do this

switching based on information on the popularity as derived from the 3GPP system, e.g. through

counting viewers in the LTE radio network or via the eMBMS middleware.

4.3.2 Service continuity

Depending on the use case service, continuity may be required when the operator switches between

unicast and broadcast or vice versa due to a change in the popularity and or when a subscriber

enters or leaves an area with broadcast distribution. This is currently work in progress within 3GPP

as well. Based on the detection of such an event, e.g., based on (radio) network mechanisms, the

application in the device triggers the establishment of a unicast bearer or tunes in on the broadcast

bearer for reception of the content. This can be done on a make before break and on a break before

make basis. Typically, the quality of service for the content distributed via LTE broadcast will be

guaranteed, whereas the quality of service of the content distributed via unicast may vary due to the

actual network load. In use cases with MPEG DASH, this is accommodated by providing a single high

quality stream via eMBMS and multiple (lower) quality streams via unicast distribution to optimally

cope with changing network conditions during the distribution of the content. Note that also with

the make before break approach, some hiccups may occur, for example due to the temporary use of

both broadcast and unicast resources for the distribution of the content where only the broadcast

resources are guaranteed or due to potentially missing application data resulting from the eMBMS

and unicast streams being slightly out of sync. Handling of potentially duplicated traffic received via

both unicast and broadcast will be dealt with through application layer mechanisms. Not only

technical issues but also charging of the service with service continuity between unicast and

broadcast distribution requires attention, especially when different charging models are applied for

receiving the content via LTE broadcast and via unicast, e.g. when a fixed fee is applied for receiving

the content via LTE broadcast and when the subscriber uses his data bundle for receiving the

content via unicast, the user needs to be aware of the actual (change of) distribution method while

watching the content.

4.3.3 Dedicated LTE Broadcast networks and hybrid concepts

Another LTE broadcast related area that would require further work in 3GPP is the development of

100% broadcast carriers. Currently at maximum 60% of the capacity of an LTE carrier can be

reserved for broadcast purposes. Rather than using an FDD uplink downlink pair, such 100%

broadcast carriers can be deployed as a so-called supplementary downlink carrier. The latter avoids

wasting scarce (uplink) capacity.

Currently, with LTE broadcast the sub carrier spacing (guard interval) is relatively small compared to

other broadcast technologies such as DVB-T2. This limits the tolerance in the delay variation of

signals received from the eNodeBs constituting an SFN area and consequently the maximum inter-

site distance of these eNodeBs. A (future) increase of this guard interval, allows mitigation of the

inter-site distance limitation. This can be exploited to increase the number of eNodeBs that

contribute to the SFN area which results in an increased signal to noise ratio. Another potential

approach to increase the achievable signal to noise ratio is deployment of MIMO with LTE broadcast.


These developments may allow higher modulation coding schemes (e.g. 256 QAM instead of 64

QAM) and an associated higher spectral efficiency in the future.

Such a larger inter-site distance can also be beneficial to create less dense LTE broadcast (overlay)

networks. Note that in current implementations and deployments with a combined broadcast and

unicast carrier, there are also transmit power limitations in the device (uplink) that limit the

maximum inter-site distance in the LTE radio access network.

Current commercial implementations rely on broadcast distribution in the networks of a mobile

network operator and can only be received by subscribers of this operator and inbound roamers.

This would imply that for nationwide live TV, the live TV content would have to be broadcasted in all

Dutch PLMNs to reach the subscribers of all mobile operators. Here, it would help to extend existing

carrier aggregation to support aggregation of broadcast and unicast carriers that are associated with

different eNodeBs. This would allow for scenarios where (live TV) content is broadcasted via a

dedicated LTE broadcast carrier and where this (live TV) content can be received by subscribers

independent of the Dutch PLMN to which they are registered for their normal mobile unicast service

offering. This way both subscribers in their home PLMN and inbound roamers can be supported.

Note that this can be accomplished because eMBMS does not make use of the LTE specific ciphering.

In an example implementation, researchers at the University of Braunschweig developed and

demonstrated a so-called tower overlay solution to deliver nationwide high quality TV content to

tablets and smart phones. This solution uses a single broadcast carrier operated by a (separate)

broadcast operator to reach the subscribers of all mobile network operators at the location of the

broadcast assuming LTE Broadcast support in their devices. This solution uses the Future Extension

Frames (FEFs) offered by the DVB-T2 standard for distribution of LTE Broadcast signals. This is

illustrated in Figure 7. The broadcast operator has the flexibility to decide on the allocation of

frames either to DVB-T2 or to LTE Broadcast signals, depending on the relative importance of these

technologies over time.

Figure 7: Delivering DVB-T2 and LTE Broadcast signals on a single carrier.

DVB-T2 receivers will ignore the LTE Broadcast signal whereas LTE Broadcast receivers will ignore the

DVB-T2 signal. The solution is not necessarily limited to DVB-T2 carriers: a dedicated LTE-Advanced

solution is foreseen as well.


The study of Plum Consulting and Farncombe on “Challenges and opportunities of broadcast-

broadband convergence and its impact on spectrum and network use” is relevant to mention here.

At the time of writing this paper, final results were not yet available but we expect it will report if

and when convergence will reach the marketplace. Several (hybrid) solutions were introduced in

their first phase of the study: solutions either based on LPLT (Low Power Low Tower, resemblance

with today’s mobile networks) or HPHT (High Power High Tower, resemblance with today’s

broadcast networks). Their intermediate findings regarding LPLT indicate that LPLT with

broadcasting facilitated through eMBMS could bring significant spectrum efficiency gains (and thus

solve the spectrum crunch for broadcasting) and could also bring a better mobile TV proposition

compared to DVB-T2, which is the latest terrestrial broadcast technology. On the other hand, quite a

few (transitional) challenges are foreseen and have to be tackled. Among other factors, a pan-

European approach would be required to prevent/reduce cross border issues. Handset

modifications would also be required, in turn asking for a clear market demand. This has not clearly

emerged yet. The HPHT option as mentioned by Plum actually refers to the solution which we just

described in this section, i.e. an overlay concept16

in which (existing) broadcast towers are used to

provide an overlay that a mobile device could be notified about and tune in to in order to receive

broadcast content. The overlay technology can be either LTE (Broadcast technology, eMBMS) or

modified DVB-T2 technology. At the time of writing this paper, the findings of Plum Consulting

regarding the HPHT option were not yet available17

.

5 Leveraging LTE Broadcast functionality In order to consider distribution of content services using LTE Broadcast technology, it is important

to better understand the implications of doing this. In this section, we distinguish a number of uni-,

bi- and multilateral situations between Content Service Providers and Mobile Network Operators to

deliver and distribute content services using LTE Broadcast. For example, LTE Broadcast can be used

to broadcast a few TV channels in a single city, but exploitation by multiple services of the broadcast

capacities of multiple operators is also conceivable. We have named these Distribution Service

Models. The Distribution Service Models describe how different roles are connected in delivering a

service with LTE Broadcast. As described in the previous chapter, deploying LTE Broadcast will

inherently require collaborations between Content Service Providers, MNOs and device vendors. In

practice, we expect to see multiple players in each of these roles simultaneously. We have organised

the Distribution Service Models with increasing complexity in terms of the number of roles involved.

Each of these models has different characteristics that can be linked to specific service

characteristics. Typical characteristics of the Distribution Service Model include how many content

service providers it supports and over how many mobile networks the content is distributed. These

have implications for addressing specific locations or customer groups.

However, since LTE Broadcast is currently deployed very scarcely in practice, it should be noted that

these models are purely theoretical. The main purpose of introducing these theoretical models is to

analyse and illustrate how different distribution models create different business values as well as

16

See: Terrestrial Media Delivery – beyond DVB-T2, Prof U. Reimers, TU Braunschweig, March 2013 17

This study has been published on 15/12/2014: . The findings could not be incorporated in this paper.


issues for the different roles involved. In Chapter 5 we propose a roadmap that will move towards

establishing an LTE Broadcast ecosystem and addresses these issues in a logical sequence.

This chapter is structured as follows. First, we present a few different Use Cases to illustrate how LTE

Broadcast could be applied in practice (Section 5.1). Then, we introduce and discuss the Distribution

Service models (Section 5.2) and confront them with the Use Cases (Section 0). We conclude this

chapter in Section 5.3 by discussing the implications of the Distribution Service Models for starting

an LTE Broadcast ecosystem.

5.1 LTE Broadcast Use Cases

There are a large number of use cases that may be enabled by LTE Broadcast. Through discussions

with the project partners and external experts 22 main use cases have been identified. Annex A

presents this longlist of use cases. In a second step, the use cases were further classified based on a

number of parameters on the service, network and traffic level, according to Table 3.

Table 3: Classification of use cases for LTE Broadcast.

Service

Service type – Is the service targeted at consumers or professionals? Stream/Data based – Is the service delivered by a media stream or by data files? Target screen size – What is the targeted screen size? Unicast/Broadcast rollover – Will people use the service both inside and outside the broadcast area? Sync with other services – Should the service synchronize with other services/screens?

Network

Frequency – How often is the service available?

Planning – Is the service planned according to a schedule, in an ad hoc manner or made available for an

emergency?

Area coverage size – Is the service available in a single cell, in a region or nationwide?

User density in a cell – How many users will typically be in an LTE cell to use the broadcast service?

Traffic

Data volume – What is the volume of the data transmitted?

User mobility – While consuming the service, does the user stay in the cell (local) or move around?

Time sensitivity – How soon should the media be distributed after being available?

QoS – Does the service have service quality requirements regarding the broadcast network?

Alternative solutions – What alternative solutions are available?

The relationship among the use cases can be illustrated by the mapping of the “Network”

parameters, as presented in Figure 8. The horizontal axis represents the frequency of use of data

broadcast services, while the vertical axis represents the broadcast area size, ranging from local to

nationwide. The use cases in the lower left corner are local events that take place once a year such

as the Lowlands music festival. Radio services on the other hand focus on 24/7 nationwide

broadcast. In between are the stadium and digital signage use cases that may use broadcast capacity

on a regular basis. The two other parameters illustrated in this figure are the expected user density

(per cell) and the planning of the service. The Broadcast of the TV stream of the Lowlands music

festival at the festival area is an example of a service with “mass” density of user per cell, which can

be planned well ahead. Issuing an Amber Alert (missing child) is an example of a data broadcast that


would need to take place immediately and where the user density in mobile cells is expected to be

‘normal’.

Figure 8: Mapping of the identified use cases on four “Network” parameters. The horizontal axis represents the

frequency, i.e., how often the data broadcast is required for the service. The vertical axis represents the broadcast area

size. The colour of the shapes represents the expected user density per cell in the broadcast area. The border of the

shapes represents the level of planning that is expected to be available for the broadcast, ranging from scheduled event

to emergency services.

In a workshop with the project stakeholders, the use cases were ranked on value versus effort. The

participants were divided in two separate groups and determined the ratings for value (such as

strategic, competitive, efficiency and income benefits) and effort (such as organisational, process,

system and monetary costs) based on open discussions and consensus forming. The ratings of the

two groups were averaged, which resulted18

in a selection of a top three of use cases for LTE

Broadcast with the highest value/effort ratio:

18

Value includes business values for various roles and societal benefits that can be derived from implementing

the use case. The effort category includes the investments and operational costs including organizational

changes associated with implementing the use case. The ranking of the use cases was performed by two

multidisciplinary teams from industry.


1. Mobile IPTV and Radio

2. Stadium

3. A tie between four datacasting use cases:

• Situational awareness for emergency services, e.g. broadcasting situation updates to

rescue workers

• Tourist City Guide, e.g., broadcasting the guide at the entrance of the museum

• Digital Signage, e.g., broadcasting updates to advertising screens

• Enterprise Channel, e.g., broadcasting logistics information in the harbour area

These use cases are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.

Figure 9: Digital Signage. Possible use case for LTE Broadcast

5.1.1 Mobile IPTV/radio

The Mobile IPTV and Radio case covers the broadcast of linear radio (music) stations and TV services.

A short use case description is provided in the box below.

Richard is working late and leaves the office at 19:00. He walks to the station and takes the tram

home from Rotterdam Central. He is a big fan of the reality show “Utopia” and decides to watch it

during the ride home. He grabs his mobile phone and fires up the IPTV App from his provider. He

selects SBS and sees in the upper right of his phone a logo meaning he is in IPTV broadcast area.

He’s happy to know he isn’t charged from his data bundle for watching TV.

This is the same use case that was targeted with the previous broadcast networks, such as DVB-H.

Such an LTE Broadcast service is currently operational in a few areas in Seoul (LTE Broadcast

“hotspots”). The interest in this service is driven by a number of reasons:

• Linear TV is the premium content service with the largest share in viewing times across the

whole population (although this is certainly true for content consumed on TV sets, it may not

hold for mobiles);

• The discussions regarding the reorganisation of terrestrial TV spectrum.


TV content, or video in general, is very bandwidth hungry and has low value per bit, which

means it may benefit the most from the capacity efficiency that broadcast technology offers19

in

case multiple viewers are watching simultaneously in one cell.

At this point, it is worthwhile to mention recent work done by the European Broadcasting Union

(EBU). Its report, published in the summer of 2014, concludes that various broadcast use cases can

be enabled by LTE eMBMS, but further development is required and an overall assessment of

viability can be done only after better understanding of regulatory constraints, business and

operational models (including Free-to-Air), costs and terminal availability.

5.1.2 Stadium

The stadium use case, where the event that takes place is broadcast to the audience on

smartphones, is the use case that is brought up most frequently in the industry when talking about

LTE Broadcast. It has already been piloted by a number of operators in a number of countries, such

as Verizon in the Superbowl in the US, KPN in the Amsterdam Arena and Vodafone with Borussia

Mönchengladbach football club (Germany). This use case was also identified in the workshop as

bringing large value with limited effort. Broadcast is the only means to cover the event to tens of

thousands of people in a small area such as a stadium and is therefore the enabler of a new service.

Moreover, it fulfils the objective of many stadium owners and sports clubs to increase the “live”

stadium experience, which is on some criteria less than the home experience. The broadcast service

can offer the “live” interviews before and after the match, provide a data service with real time

statistics and push video clips containing instant replays of highlights during the game. Finally, the

broadcast service is also very well defined, with a well-known event schedule and required coverage

area.

A short use case description is provided in the box below.

“Tom enters the stadium and enables the instant-highlight replay option in his Club app. It is a really

nice game with a lot of spectacle and a score of 4-3. After each goal, Tom instantly receives a

notification and can watch the replay on his smartphone at a high quality and shot from different

camera angles.”

5.1.3 Datacasting services

The LTE Broadcast service that ranked third on the ratio of value versus effort is a collection of

datacasting services:

• Situational awareness for emergency services, e.g., broadcasting situation updates to rescue

workers;

• Tourist City Guide, e.g., broadcasting the guide to the visitors at the entrance of the museum;

• Digital Signage, e.g., broadcasting content updates to advertising screens;

• Enterprise Channel, e.g., broadcasting logistics info in the harbour area.

19

Note that this efficiency does depend on the distribution of users in a cell and whether the number of users

actually viewing a certain TV channel reaches the threshold to justify the switch to broadcast.


A short use case description of the situational awareness for emergency services is provided in the

box below

“A huge fire broke out in Rotterdam harbour. Michael, the watch commander, coordinates all

emergency services. With their new system, video footage from helicopters and information coming

from different teams are collected centrally. With help of a media and information director, all

relevant data is filtered and distributed to all rescue workers, firefighters and medics. Leading

firefighter Peter gets up to date info about the disaster on his ruggedized tablet and is able to adapt

better to the quickly changing situation.”

In contrast to the stadium and Mobile TV/Radio case, which are clearly focussed at delivering

premium live (TV) content to consumers, there is a large diversity in the datacasting services. As can

be derived from Figure 8, these datacasting services have a large variation on the “Network”

parameters identified earlier. For instance, Enterprise Channel services are expected to be local,

rather permanent and the required capacity is well scheduled in advance. Emergency services on the

other hand have dense population, are unplanned and (hopefully) limited to single events. Some

have to be national and incidental, like NL-Alert, some rely on temporarily deployed networks but

distribute larger streams. Furthermore, they also target the whole spectrum of possible end-users,

including consumers, business users, public officers and sensors/machines.

What all these datacasting services do have in common is that they use LTE Broadcast to distribute a

certain amount of information to all receivers at the same time (the ‘real-time performance´ aspect

of broadcast) and/or use to it for efficiency, i.e. datacasting the museum guide to all visitors at the

entrance is much more efficient than having all visitors downloading the guide individually.

The next session will describe the distribution models and business values for all the selected use

cases in more detail.

5.2 Service models for LTE Broadcasted Distribution

Before introducing the Distribution Service Models, we discuss business values in general that LTE

Broadcast potentially provides for different roles, specifically for the Content Service Provider (CSP)

and the Mobile Network Operator (MNO) as well as competing choices by different roles with

respect to distribution. The Distribution Service Models introduced in this section will be analysed

with respect to applicability to the services defined in the Use Cases above in section 0.

5.2.1 LTE Broadcast requires support by multiple roles

Obviously, for delivering a content service via LTE Broadcast there must be a mobile access network

available that has the ‘LTE Broadcast’ feature enabled and the relevant spectrum licenses must be in

place. This is a serious consideration, as enabling a mobile access network with LTE Broadcast

functionality will, on top of the license costs, affect the central forecasting and planning process and

when in use, also limit available spectrum for other unicast usage. The content must be available in

the right format and quality and played out. The applicable content (broadcast) distribution rights

must also be in place. These are typically held by a party other than the MNO: the content service

provider. An MNO serves, in principle, only its own subscriber base, which may differ from the

customer base that the content service provider intends to serve. In order for the customer to


receive the broadcasted content service, he must have an LTE Broadcast enabled device and an app

must eventually finalize the service delivery. This illustrates that for distributing a content service

using LTE Broadcast multiple roles must accept and support this way of delivering services; it is not a

decision that can be enforced or executed by a single role (but there are cases in which one player

can play most of these roles). This is illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Multiple roles must support LTE Broadcast distribution of services.

This discussion on assets also introduces the following relevant perspectives on LTE Broadcast: The

Content Service Provider wants to deliver its content service to a specific set of customers at a

specific moment at some desired or required quality and performance levels. The content services

we are considering here typically have a local, regional and sometimes national scope. It is easy to

imagine tens of different services. Content Service Providers are potentially interested in LTE

Broadcast because it offers QoS/Performance of their Content Services and also promises lower

battery consumption. For Content Service Providers not only the Customer’s willingness to pay is of

importance, but also the “willingness to watch”. Tracking of views is relevant for demonstrating

public value as well as for attracting advertising industry.

In a given country, there are typically a few MNOs. MNOs typically have a national focus. MNOs are

served by network equipment vendors of which a few exist globally, all serving many MNOs globally.

A customer typically has a subscription relation with one MNO and owns one (or at most a few)

potentially LTE capable mobile devices and is probably interested in many content services.

MNOs are interested in LTE Broadcast because it offers efficiency in distribution (both spectrum and

power consumption) and the possibility to offer managed QoS/Performance distribution services

and an innovative edge.


Device vendors typically have a global continental-region scope and there are around ten of these.

OS providers have a global scope and there are a few of these. Device vendors are interested in LTE

Broadcast because interesting broadcasted services will increase demand for LTE Broadcast featured

models.

This sketches the contours for the challenge for alignment, because each role will consider the

returns on its investments in the market it has in scope and will have a tendency to avoid managing

different models in different markets, see Table 4.

Table 4: Cardinality and geographical scope for the most important roles.

Role Cardinality Geographical scope

Content Service Provider Many Local/regional

MNO Few National

Equipment vendor Few Global

Device vendor Ten Continental-regions

OS provider Few Global

Customer Numerous Single/few devices

Single MNO

Few/many services

5.2.2 Exploiting LTE Broadcast versus Content Distribution options

Since LTE Broadcast is essentially a feature that can be enabled in a readily deployed mobile

communication network, it is in principle the MNO who decides on this investment. From that

perspective there are a number of potential business values that LTE Broadcast could bring to justify

the investment. These are:

i) efficiency in distribution of high-volume data (especially video). This is one of the key

promises of LTE Broadcast: broadcasting the same content to multiple devices

simultaneously avoids having to send many unicasts of the same content.

ii) increased Quality of Service/Performance in data distribution that allows the MNO to

better manage mobile data delivery. Because the distribution of content is managed

from play-out via dedicated lines and backbone to wireless broadcasting over a reserved

frequency, the distribution quality and guarantees can be better than via unicast.

iii) LTE Broadcast unlocks new types of services that cannot (practically) be delivered

otherwise. Content services that require for instance a wirelessly delivered simultaneous

consumption with high densities can currently not be delivered.

iv) LTE Broadcast might represent a complete alternative to other wireless distribution

technologies (such as Wi-Fi or DVB-T/2). The latter depends on the technology portfolio

of the MNO; in some cases, MNOs do also operate DVB-T/2 broadcasting facilities. The

business value is in this case that other technologies can be phased out if distribution is

merged.

In order to realize these business values, the LTE Broadcast feature will have to be exploited in one

way or another. This can be based on cost savings due to efficiency, upsell through a new service,

revenue by selling the QoS/Performance value of the distribution or by selling capacity (or a mix of

these). Since many of these ways of exploiting the LTE Broadcast feature involve commercial sales, it

makes sense to confront these with the perspective of the Content Service Provider with respect to


options in the distribution of its services, since this role is potentially ‘in demand’ for distribution

facilities. Its choices for distributing its content services depend on the service characteristics and

requirements. These are alternative technologies (e.g. Wi-Fi, DVB-T/2), over-the-top (unicast) and

LTE Broadcast (unicast/multicast or multicast only) or a combination and not necessarily with a

single distributor. The set of choices from the perspective of the ‘demand’ side do not all drive the

supply of LTE Broadcast distribution, moreover they might even compete with that. Thus the

prevalence of alternative choices affects the exploitability of the LTE Broadcast feature. It should be

borne in mind that Content Services are funded in different ways, e.g. direct payment by consumers,

advertising revenues or from government budgets. These provide different requirements for control

and accountability. The question thus is what advantages LTE Broadcast brings in its different

exploitation formats over competing alternatives.

Figure 11: Identifying exploitation opportunities of LTE Broadcast is essentially a ‘confrontation’ of the options for

exploitation investor’s/operator’s perspective (supply) and the options for distribution technology from the Content

Service Provider’s perspective (demand).

In the next sections, we introduce the basics of the different Distribution Service Models that an

MNO can consider for exploiting the LTE Broadcast feature. Then, we discuss the applicability of

these models to the services defined in the selected Use Cases.

The Distribution Service Models are ordered in ‘order of independence’ from the perspective of the

MNO. A natural consideration for exploiting LTE Broadcast as a mobile network feature would be to

see if the investment can be returned independently without needing coordination with others. For

LTE Broadcast this would imply that the MNO could determine on its own how to distribute specific

content (e.g. switching from OTT/unicast to multicast and vice versa), without making arrangements

with either the Content Service Provider, the Device Vendor or the Customer. However, this is not

possible, given the eMBMS definitions. In all cases ‘cooperation’ of the Device Vendor is needed, but

this would be structural, e.g. in the form of enabling LTE Broadcast for certain device models.

Furthermore, the devices will need adaptations in apps or in the middleware and in order to render

efficiency there must be sufficient uptake of LTE Broadcast enabled devices so that the chance of

simultaneous consumption of the same content in one cell by at least two devices is maximized.

Only for services in which the MNO also plays the role of Content Service Provider, e.g. TV services

for which the content and the rights are acquired by the MNO, a more or less independent service


delivery would be feasible. In all other cases, agreements on the specific timing and location of the

content broadcast should be achieved and technical arrangements for play-out and connectivity

need to be in place. The ordering of Distribution Service Models further includes:

- LTE Broadcast integrated as a ‘feature’ in MNO services such as mobile TV (section 5.2.3)

- Selling LTE Broadcast Distribution Services in bilateral agreements where QoS / Performance

are of value to the Content Service (section 5.2.4)

- Multilateral models (section 5.2.5):

o Multiple Content Service Providers distribute services via 1 MNO network

o 1 Content Service Provider distributes its services via multiple MNO networks

o Multiple Content Service Providers distribute their services via multiple MNO

networks

- A dedicated broadcast network (section 5.2.6)

5.2.3 LTE Broadcast integrated in MNO services

As described above, it is currently not feasible for an MNO to deploy LTE Broadcast for the

distribution of content without coordinating with the Content Service Provider and the Device

Vendor or the Customer. However, for some services, such as mobile TV, the MNO has sufficient

control over the required assets to realise an LTE Broadcast distributed content service. This means

that the MNO has acquired the content and appropriate rights for making the content available

exclusively to an identified segment of the MNO’s subscribers. It plans and schedules the broadcast

of the content in designated cells using its play-out facilities. For the delivery of the services, the

MNO may have prepared (in coordination with a Device Vendor and/or the Customer, e.g., via a

software upgrade) devices to be capable of receiving LTE Broadcasted services and consuming it via

a dedicated app, downloadable via the app store of the OS. The end user will experience not only a

constant and high-quality, but also improved battery-life.

Box 1: LTE broadcast in South Korea

On January 27, 2014, KT telecom launched the first wide scale LTE broadcast service in South

Korea20

. The service is available for LTE advanced subscribers with a Samsung Galaxy Note 3 after

software upgrade and can be received in dedicated areas of Seoul. The IPTV service that is offered is

called “Olley LTE play”. Inside the broadcast areas, two channels are delivered via broadcast and

these channels can be received free of data charge. Outside of these areas the IPTV channels are

delivered through unicast. The broadcast channels are delivered in 720p with 2 Mbps, which means

the quality is lot higher than the standard digital media broadcasting service.

The broadcast may be continuous, i.e. content services are continuously available via LTE Broadcast

in a specific area, such as a dense city. Alternatively, it may switch dynamically from unicast to

multicast if demand for the content service reaches a threshold.

20

http://www.telecoms.com/217182/koreas-kt-launches-lte-broadcast-service/


Initially, if the LTE Broadcast capable devices are not widely spread, the service is for that reason not

available to all subscribers. Limited uptake, in general, limits the potential efficiency, so the MNO

should consider whether to provide the unicast variant of the service to others – to push demand, or

to provide the service exclusively to for instance premium subscribers – to gain revenues. It may

even attract new subscribers who are willing to switch provider for this specific service (and/or the

LTE capable device). This requires highlighting the specific benefits LTE Broadcast brings over an

over-the-top (or other technology) provided alternative (See Section 4.3.3).

Because cases like this are fairly well scoped and to a large extent in control of the MNO, the

business case can be determined. It can be questioned, however, if the content services portfolio of

an MNO (TV, radio, …) provides sufficient basis to justify an investment in LTE Broadcast, since the

overall efficiency gain will be limited as well as the additional revenue. Next to potential direct

business values of such a service, it will also have value as a stepping stone. The deployment of this

service will create exposure and awareness of LTE Broadcast and the basis for future uptake:

fundaments in the infrastructure as well as in the market are laid down. The experience gained and

measures taken to deploy the service can be reused in deployments in other areas or deployments

of other services, potentially in collaboration with external Content Service Providers (See Section

4.2.3). Furthermore, if the LTE Broadcast feature is not used, then the capacity can be used for

unicast services.

Next to the fact that ‘legacy devices’ and different distribution qualities and codecs limit the

realization of potential efficiency of the technology, there is another consideration. In the network

itself it is difficult to measure who received and consumed the broadcasted content without

consulting the device. Furthermore, if content is not consumed directly, but later, for instance in a

location with free Wi-Fi, it will be hard to charge for the LTE Broadcasted content. Therefore there

are some limitations to base payments on data count. In theory the consumption could be

administered on the client, but an ‘out-of-bundle’ service seems to be preferred currently.

Table 5 summarizes the business values and issues associated with deployment of LTE Broadcast

integrated in MNO services. We distinguish three Issue Types: technical (T), organizational (O) and

business (B), also discussion in introduction of section 4.2. Issues that are addressed in other models

(presented in the next sections) are indicated by the following coding: B for bilateral; M:1 for

multiple content services on one MNO network; 1:N for one content service on multiple networks;

M:N for multiple services on multiple networks. Issues may also be solved by the introduction of

new roles, described in the multilateral models: PB for Planning Broker; CDA for Content Demand

Aggregator; F for Facilitator and T for Trader.


Table 5. Values and issues associated with LTE Broadcast when integrated in MNO services.

Role Values

MNO - Innovation

- Efficiency

- QoS / Performance

- New services to attract new subscribers

- Stepping stone

Device Vendor - Device Innovation

- Better battery usage

End User - With managed quality and availability

- Better battery usage

Role Issues Type Solution

MNO - Cost for enabling feature / Business

case?

- Datacount charging

B

T/B

M:1: acquire multiple content

services

Device Vendor - Enable device/OS T

End User - Needs to be enabled by app or OS

upgrade

- Legacy devices cannot be used

T

B

Summarizing, the exploitation of LTE Broadcast by integrating this distribution technology into

content services provided by the MNO definitely has some merits based on its independence of other

players. There are however some considerations, such as limited reach to only the MNO’s subscribers,

legacy devices, difficulties to bill and the limited content service portfolio of MNOs, that potentially

limit the viability of this Distribution Service Model to serve as a stand-alone rationale for investing in

LTE Broadcast. It has however potential to be a stepping stone.

5.2.4 Bilateral agreements

In this Distribution Service Model, the MNO interacts with an external Content Service Provider to

distribute its content service by means of LTE Broadcast. In mutual agreement, a broadcasting

scheme (when and where) is set up and at the moment of broadcast the content service is played

out. Prior to play-out, it has to be determined, among other things, which and whose play-out facility

is used, who creates and distributes the app for consumption (and which devices and OSs can be

supported), which and whose lines are used for connecting to the backbone. Another important

aspect to determine is whether the content service is also provided over unicast and if the MNO has

freedom to switch between unicast and multicast. Clearly, this construction is tailored bilaterally and

it can also be co-branded. Early on it can be a unique selling point for the MNO.

The value for the Content Service Provider is that the distribution is managed by the MNO, that this

could enable simultaneous content consumption in dense areas and that the service delivery could

have a higher QoS/Performance level. As capacity for broadcasting is reserved (up to 60% of the

capacity), broadcasting content, if it is within the limits set by this reservation, has a higher priority

than unicast content. These qualities for dense consumption and QoS/Performance of the LTE

Broadcast distribution service could meet the requirements of certain Content Services, e.g. in

stadium broadcasts or local events reporting (e.g., the Amstel Gold Race).


Box 2: LTE broadcast and net neutrality

A video service that is based exclusively on LTE Broadcast distribution technology is not subject to

the net neutrality rules contained in the Dutch telecommunications law21

. The video content is

broadcasted via the mobile network over reserved and dedicated capacity. The capacity is reserved

and dedicated in the sense that it is specifically reserved for LTE Broadcast and not for other traffic,

such as the IP traffic from the mobile internet access service that an end user may have. Because of

this, such an LTE Broadcast-based video service qualifies as a so-called specialised service.

Specialised services are not subject to net neutrality rules.

Net neutrality regulation can become relevant in scenarios that combine LTE Broadcast distribution

with unicast distribution. As an example, we consider a Live TV service with national coverage, built

using LTE Broadcast distribution in areas with high density of viewers, complemented with unicast

distribution in areas with lower density. Depending on the characteristics of the unicast part of the

distribution, the service may or may not qualify as a specialised service. If the Live TV service does

not qualify as a specialised service, then net neutrality can affect options for retail tariffing, in

particular the options to exclude the mobile data used in the unicast of the Live TV service from the

customers’ data bundles. Net neutrality regulations can also affect the options for technical

measures to improve the quality of the unicast Live TV streams.

The specialised service is introduced in the European Commission’s Connected Continent proposal22

,

amended by the European Parliament in March 201423

. It is also introduced in the context of a

recently proposed guideline24

by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. It is difficult to come to a

generic qualification of unicast-based services, as this depends on the way in which the service is

implemented: is the unicast video stream carried over the end user’s internet access connection or

not? Are there special measures to guarantee bandwidth for the unicast streams? This warrants a

closer study when the proposed Dutch ministerial guideline and the Connected Continent proposal

have been finalized.

The Content Service Provider or its Customers could be willing to pay for this if this really provides a

better service (for example for parties that provide paid or sponsored live content). The

collaboration between Content Service Providers and Internet Providers to improve availability of

“over the top” content is already visible in the fixed market, for example in Content Delivery

Networks operated by various providers. Eventually, we expect that a Content Service Provider could

be looking for distribution to its complete Customer Base, which might not coincide with the

Subscriber Base of the MNO or the diffusion of supported LTE Broadcast capable devices. This means

that this model also assumes cooperation from device vendors. Whereas we can imagine that the

integrated model (see previous section) the MNO can arrange collaboration of a device vendor for a

21

Telecommunications law, article 7.4a 22

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning

the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, Brussels,

11.9.2013, COM(2013) 627 final 23

Amendment 234, Marietje Schaake on behalf of the ALDE Group, 26.3.2014, A7-0190/234 24

Consultatieverslag concept beleidsregel netneutraliteit (in Dutch), Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 23

September 2014, available from http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/netneutraliteit/document/1302


specific device model (this has occurred in the past), the roll-out of a specific model for this specific

service seems unlikely. From the device vendor perspective: a customization for a single service and

a single MNO, as well as from the Content Service Provider: providing the service to a single MNO

and only on a single device model, seems a too narrow segment. Therefore we expect this model to

scale only if multiple device vendors are willing to commit.

Whether the Content Service Provider is willing to pay is affected by his business model, more

specifically its revenue stream. If a Content Service Provider is paid for its services directly by its

consumers, then the revenue stream is directly from these customers. The Content Service Provider

should consider if it can shift the costs to its customers or that it might gain a competitive edge and

attract new customers. Other Content Service Providers (typically National Broadcast Organisations)

however get governance funding to realise specific public imperitives. Other service providers attract

funding from advertising industry. In order to realise this funding, views must be accounted for and

that requires ‘traceability’ of views. This puts forward requirements to the realization of the end-to-

end service in which end-user statistics are available to the Content Service Provider.

This model could be of interest to the MNO as well if it can theoretically shift substantial amounts of

unicast streams to multicast, e.g. when massive live TV events occur. This depends on the current or

expected unicast demand for this service and if the MNO is allowed to switch from unicast to

multicast. Unused reserved capacity can be utilized for unicast traffic, which can be a benefit to

MNOs. This also illustrates the increased complexity for traffic forecasting: the broadcast of content

may ‘convert’ unicast Customers, but it may as well generate more follow-up unicast traffic, e.g. if

the broadcast triggers unicast services. An additional complicating factor in the traffic forecasting

with LTE Broadcast is that resources are reserved for broadcast: broadcast will ‘push out’ unicast

traffic when it is activated, if total capacity is reached. It also introduces another consideration: the

current unicast consumption is a basis for revenue streams (e.g. from the subscribers’ data plans) for

the MNO and moving that traffic to multicast, outside the data plan could require extra

compensation. As with the previous integrated distribution service model, cases like these are also

fairly well scoped and therefore the business case should be feasible to calculate.

Table 6 summarizes the business values and issues for the bilateral Distribution Service Model.


Table 6. Values and issues associated with LTE Broadcast under bilateral agreement between MNO and CSP. The coding

of types and solutions is the same as in Table 5.

Role Values25

Content

Service Provider

- New Distribution Technology

- QoS/Performance (real-time high volume services in dense areas)

MNO - Can be cobranded with CSP

- Unused capacity can be used for unicast

- New Distribution Services

- eMBMS standard assumes presence of MNO (obligatory role)

- Collaboration experience basis for further upscaling

Device Vendor

End User

Role Issues Type26

Solution27

Content

Service Provider

- Customer Base distributed over

Subscriber Bases of different MNOs

- Selection and coordination of

distribution technologies (OTT/LTE-

Broadcast)

- Tracing of views for indirect funding

- Willingness to pay for distribution

B

T/O

T/B

B

1:N: involve multiple operators

F (1:N): concentrate in

Facilitator

MNO - Intense coordination with Content

Service Provider

- Increased complexity of traffic

forecasting

- Organisation and support, OSS

- May cannibalize on unicast-traffic based

revenue

- Requires high penetration of LTE

Broadcast capable devices

O

O

O

B

B

CDA(M:1): concentrate

activities

PB(M:1): concentrate activities

M:1: acquire more services

Device Vendor - Integrate chipsets

- Support and s/w development

- High penetration of multiple device

brands required

T

B/O

B

M:1: acquire more services

End User

25

Values and Issues identified in previous models are not repeated in subsequent tables. 26

As in Table 5, we distinguish three Issue Types: technical (T), organizational (O) and business (B). 27

Issues that are addressed in other models (presented in the next sections) are indicated by the following

coding: B for bilateral; M:1 for multiple content services on one MNO network; 1:N for one content service on

multiple networks; M:N for multiple services on multiple networks. Issues may also be solved by the

introduction of new roles, described in the multilateral models: PB for Planning Broker; CDA for Content

Demand Aggregator; F for Facilitator and T for Trader.


In summary, the bilateral Distribution Service Model requires strong and case specific interaction

between the service provider and the MNO. It can provide QoS/Performance qualities for Content

Service Providers and efficiency for MNOs simultaneously. It can be seen as a potential first step

towards externally exploiting the LTE Broadcast feature. The business case can be calculated case by

case, but this model potentially cannibalises on the MNO business model.

5.2.5 Multilateral Distribution Service Models

The Distribution Service Models above are internally integrated or one-to-one (1:1; bilateral). These

models may not meet the needs of either the Content Service Provider or the MNO (or both). An

MNO may be looking for multiple content services that jointly justify the LTE Broadcast capability,

whereas the Content Service Provider might be looking for service distribution to all Subscriber

Bases. This section introduces three basic types of multilateral models:

i) the broker that enables multiple content services to broadcast on a single MNO network

(“M:1”);

ii) the model that enables a single content service to be broadcasted over multiple mobile

networks (“1:N”)

iii) and the combination of the two: multiple content services over multiple mobile

networks (“M:N”).

In this section a broad palette of functions and complementary services to enable these multilateral

models are introduced.

5.2.5.1 Multiple Content Services to a Single MNO (“M:1”)

If an MNO is looking for multiple content services, for instance to jointly justify the enabling of LTE

Broadcast in its network, then there will be a need to coordinate and facilitate these content

services.

Firstly, appropriate capacity planning reservations must be made on basis of the aggregation of

broadcast requests in terms of desired bandwidth and geographic area. This must be in a format that

suits the specific sector, for example in terms of postal code areas or GPS coordinates, and does not

require knowledge of the MNOs radio network topology (polygons, time window, channels, TMGIs).

This is essential, because if content services intend to broadcast content in the same area

simultaneously then a capacity limitation either in the broadcast reservation or the unicast capacity

may arise. Coordination is thus required, because an aggregated overview of the desired capacity is

needed. This is different from unicast capacity, which is automatically limited by the technology for

each of the users. This is why over the top services are also referred to as “best effort”. This is not

acceptable if a Content Service Provider has its content service distribution managed by an MNO

using LTE Broadcast, specifically if QoS/Performance is a key criterion for this agreement. However

there are types of content that allow some flexibility in distribution, e.g. broadcasting data files

slower or later, which is not acceptable with live video content. Also live video content could be

coded down to a lower quality. Flexibility can to some extent also be found in the capacity licenses

that most equipment vendors offer. This means that capacity can be gradually and instantaneously

increased by ‘unlocking’ a paid license. Reserved capacity that is eventually not used is typically

available for unicast. It will depend on the contractual agreements whether this capacity can be

‘given back’ to the MNO at a penalty or be sold by the CSP to other CSPs. In summary, an aggregate,

and probably MNO specific, planning process must be in place that utilizes the flexibility that the

content services offer and that the network offers. This will probably also be reflected in the pricing


of broadcasting; a quality (= bandwidth and timing) guarantee will be more expensive than a

downcodeable broadcast. If at any time no broadcastable content is provided, then the capacity can

be deployed for unicast.

Secondly, in order to lower the barriers for Content Service Providers to offer LTE Broadcast

distributed content services, there are different services that can be offered to facilitate this. A

portal to automate the requests for (reservations of) broadcasted distribution of content may be set

up. In terms of the end-to-end content distribution process, play-out facilities can be offered. These

are servers that make sure that content is available for broadcasting in the right formats and with

the right level of availability and started and stopped at the right time. Another type of facilitation is

the need to have high-quality connectivity from content to play-out and from play-out to MNO

backbone. Although, as in the over-the-top unicast delivery, a high-capacity internet connection

technically suffices, that may suffer from interruptions that may cause the broadcast to falter. For

servers and connectivity, the facilitator can provide managed connectivity, server (and connectivity)

redundancy and storage/back-ups to ensure high quality and high uptime. At the user end, there are

also services that can be offered to the Content Service Provider. For example, the content service

will have to be consumed on an LTE capable device using an App. In order to achieve that, a service

for upgrading the software (OS/MW) and a customizable white-label app can be provided; larger

Content Service Providers would probably build and develop and use its own. Related to the app and

play-out is the need for access control, making sure that only the right (paying) customers have

access. One can also think of services in the area of production and recording, but this is not specific

to LTE Broadcast. Content Service Providers can be facilitated with usage reports and checks of

whether the coverage agreed with MNOs is realized.

In the introduction of the Content Service Provider perspective in 4.2.1, we listed alternative choices

for distribution of the content service, such as Wi-Fi and OTT/unicast. By shifting from ‘broadcast-as-

a-service’28

to (managed) distribution as a service, by including alternative distribution technologies

in the offering, the Content Service Provider is further unburdened. The MNO however has

additional degrees of freedom to optimize its traffic efficiency and potentially achieves the position

of the seamless extension of residential gateway, since managed service delivery continues once out

of reach of the home router.

From the above we can derive a ‘menu’ (cafeteria model) of services to support the Content Service

Provider in delivering content services, with benefits for both Content Service Provider and MNO.

However, facilitation and coordination might not be sufficient to acquire sufficient demand for LTE

Broadcast. This might require a deeper involvement in specific domains.

As the Content Service is still delivered by the Content Service Provider, although strongly facilitated

by the MNO, the billing for the service to the end user can be done by the Content Service Provider,

which pays the MNO for its services. Alternative money flows, e.g. where subscribers pay the MNO

28

In broadcast as a service the MNO offers to distribute certain content in specific cells using LTE Broadcast.

Distribution as a service can be seen as a generalization thereof. The distribution service provider offers to

distribute certain content to specific users using a portfolio of technologies, potentially including LTE

Broadcast. The distinction highlights that in case of Broadcast-as-a-service the Content Service Provider

chooses the distribution technology; in distribution as a service this choice can be outsourced as long as QoS

criteria are met.


who pays the content rights owners, are possible as well, so the revenue streams are undetermined

at this point.

From the above follows that the M:1 model will require a separate MNO specific Broadcast Planning

Department that takes care of the complex planning issues as well as an MNO specific

technical/operational Facilitator. Furthermore this model seems to benefit from a role that attracts

Content Service Providers to distribute their content over this MNO’s network, the Content Services

Demand Aggregator. This may be an MNO department or subsidiary, but also an independent

broker or even a Trader. These roles will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.5.3, the M:N

model, where these roles have even stronger relevance. Nevertheless, the distribution of roles will

obscure the view for end-users on the ecosystem.

This model abstracts the Content Service Providers from the technical issues of broadcasting via a

mobile network, whilst shielding the (main operation of the) MNO from the need to build up specific

service domain knowledge. The configuration of such a business function may be different for each

MNO. The offer to the Content Service Provider is determined by quality and capacity available to

broadcast, the subscriber base and the additionally offered services. The level of facilitation makes

occasional broadcasting more worthwhile for Content Service Providers, see Figure 12, which may

lead to increased use of Broadcasting facilities. An increase of services will also drive demand for LTE

Broadcast enabled devices. An increased offload to broadcasting in theory also decreases power

consumption for radio, which is a benefit for the MNO.

Figure 12: An M:1 broker that arranges distribution for multiple content service providers to customers of one MNO. The

broker arranges the distribution of content via eMBMS to the customer bases (CBs) of multiple SPs. Potential customers

of the CSP that are not part of the MNO’s subscriber base (SB) of the MNO do not receive the content. The existence of a

broker with a significant reach to CSPs is crucial for the success of this distribution model.


In practice, we expect that an MNO’s LTE Broadcast services may find its root in the experience with

the first bilateral agreement with a larger Content Service Provider. Once this experience is

standardized and automated, it will be easier to “add” the content services of smaller Content

Service Providers. This can be driven not only by the larger Content Service Provider but also by the

MNO. Gradually, a larger subset of the MNOs Subscriber Base will be serviced with LTE Broadcast

distributed Content Services. Table 7 summarises the values and issues for the M:1 model.

Table 7. Values and issues for LTE Broadcast deployment in M:1 multilateral Distribution Service Model.

Role Values25

Content

Service Provider

- Facilitated access to Broadcast capacity

- A variety of value adding options

MNO - Decreased power consumption

- Seamless extension of residential gateway

Device Vendor - Increased number of services will increase demand for LTE enabled

devices

End User - New services

Content Services

Demand

Aggregator

- Demand aggregation simplifies planning

- Domain knowledge

- Commercial negotiation power

- Interface for Content Service Providers

- Many services possible (e.g. access to alternative wireless

distribution)

- Potential integration facilitation and planning brokerage

MNO specific

Broadcast

Facilitator

- Combination of the demand aggregation, facilitation, planning

broker and trader roles – specifically for a single MNO

- Managing quality and availability of required facilities

- No need for investment and technology knowledge at Content

Service Provider

- Many services possible (end to end)

- Potential integration aggregator and planning brokerage

MNO specific

Planning

- Handles complexity of planning

Wholesale trader - Trades broadcast capacity and takes on commercial risk of MNO

and Content Service Provider


Role Issues Type26

Solution27

Content

Service

Provider

- Development of new services that need

specific Broadcast feature, including App

- Customers’ willingness to pay and

willingness to watch linear content

- Infrequent and local need for broadcast

- Flexibility options may lead to pricing

complexity

- Per MNO access to only 1 Subscriber Base

B

B

B

B

B

CDA: aggregate demand

CDA/T: broker supply/demand

M:N: involve more operators

MNO - Complex Capacity Planning and Forecasting

- Broadcast services cannot be ‘squeezed’ to

capacity automatically

- Acquisition and servicing of many and small

Content Service Providers with infrequent

and local demand

- Loss of competitive edge

T/O

T

O/B

B

PB: concentrate activities

CDA/F: aggregate and service

Device

Vendor

- Requires attractive Content Services B M:N: increase # applicable

services

End User - Willingness to pay extra for new services

and especially QoS / Performance

- Obscurity on who-does-what

- Availability of services depends on 1 MNO

B

O

B

M:N: involve more operators

Content

Services

Demand

Aggregator

- New role, can be played by multiple parties

- Business Case unclear

- Coordination or trading?

B

B

B

MNO

specific

Broadcast

Facilitator

- Depends on total demand for Broadcast

services

- Include trading?

- Might become obsolete in case multi-

operator roles

B

B

B

F (M:N): become the shared

Facilitator

MNO

specific

Planning

- Planning complexity B

Wholesale

trader

- Business Case unclear

- Planning / forecasting complexity, depends

on knowledge of content services

B

B

In summary, the “M:1” multilateral Distribution Service Model is a business function that aggregates

content services for broadcasting over a single MNO network. It coordinates planning and execution

in a way standardized for the MNO. To facilitate this and lower barriers for Content Service Providers,

there are a number of end-to-end services that an MNO can offer, such as play-out facilities. A shift

from technology specific broadcast-as-a-service to the encompassing distribution-as-a-service (over

different technologies) model is also conceivable. Flexibility in the required broadcast capacity can be

achieved by distinguishing (and delaying) data-services from live-video-services, but also by acquiring

instantaneous capacity license upgrades from the equipment vendor.

5.2.5.2 A single Content Service to multiple MNOs (“1:N”)

To reach the complete Customer Base of a Content Service while achieving the QoS/Performance

available via LTE Broadcast, distribution via a single MNO may not be sufficient, as that is in principle

limited to the subscriber base of that MNO. In such cases the Content Service Provider will have to


make arrangements with all MNOs who provide broadcasted distribution to be able to reach the

complete customer base, see Figure 13.

Figure 13: A 1:N configuration for distribution of services from one content service provider to multiple MNOs.

These arrangements may vary from MNO to MNO, because their technology base as well as the

network topology differs and thus also the capacity and QoS/Performance achievable by LTE

Broadcast. This means that the Content Service Party, in order to define a consistent Broadcast plan

for its subscriber base, will have to request, gather, compare and align the responses to the request

of the different MNOs. This is dependent on whether all required MNOs that could provide access to

their subscriber bases have LTE Broadcast enabled as well as weather they have capacity to do so at

the requested time and location. MNOs are not in a situation to share this type of strategic and

confidential information, but it is needed to properly design a consistent distribution plan. The

challenge thus is to find a way to create a distribution plan where the Quality/Performance of the

Content Service is comparable for all MNOs, but without the possibility to gather information on the

topology and capacities of the individual MNO’s networks, for example by a trusted party. This

Planning Broker role coordinates the construction of the broadcast plan. The Play-out does not

require coordination or aggregation per se, but working with multiple MNOs might imply that Play-

out needs to be provided in multiple technically different ways. Depending on which model appears

in what order, more specifically if the MNOs have not yet invested in their MNO specific facilities, a

shared broadcast Facilitator, e.g. a joint venture for the related MNOs, is conceivable. As described

in the previous section, one or the other MNO may have arranged their own facilities and services to

support this, or none at all. This is not yet standardized.

The challenge for this model is the justification by a business case as the required effort needs to be

covered by a single Content Service. This applies to the business cases for the MNOs, but also to that

of the Planning Broker and the Content Service Provider29

.

29

We are considering here the 1:N model as if only a single Content Service is provided this way. In theory

there can by multiple services that can be delivered using this model, e.g. ‘M*(1:N)’. From the perspective of

the MNOs this would require too much coordination. We refer to the M:N model for this.


The Content Service Provider here can be a party that represents the joint interests of a specific

group as one (e.g. emergency services, stadiums, national TV broadcasters; thus Content

Providers)30

. Because of the complexity of achieving this model and the expected value for many

Content Service to reach their full Customer Base via multiple networks, this model can be seen as a

step-up to and reused in a model in which multiple content services distribute via multiple MNOs

(see next section).

It is conceivable that such cases are justified by public interest and thus correlated with dedicated

spectrum. The debate on reallocation of spectrum currently used for national television to mobile

communication (section 3.2) and the technical tower overlay approach in which existing towers in

the networks are used to form a nationally covering LTE Broadcast network (4.3.3) are related to this

model. However the latter does not per se include multiple operators.

Table 8. Values and issues for 1:N Distribution Service Model.

Role Values25

Content

Service Provider

- Access to multiple Subscriber Bases

MNO - Step up to new services

Device Vendor - Not dependent on a single MNO

End User - Not dependent on a single MNO

Shared

Broadcast

Facilitator

- Cost saving for MNOs

- Single contact point for Content Service Provider

Planning Broker - Trusted third party to hide strategically sensitive information

Role Issues Type26

Solution27

Content

Service Provider

- MNOs might have different

requirements

T/O F: concentrate activities

MNO - Strategic Sensitivity of capacity and

topology

- Value of technology increases with

other MNOs

B

B

PB: set up trusted 3rd

party

F/PB: simplify involvement of

MNOs

Device Vendor - Depends on a single service B M:N: acquire new services

End User - Only a single service B M:N: acquire new services

Shared Broadcast

Facilitator

- If MNOs have set up different specific

facilities

B/T

Planning Broker - Planning complexity and sensitivity O PB: concentrate activities

30

We refer to the M:N for this situation.


In summary, the “1:N” multilateral Distribution Service model allows a (potentially joint) Content

Service Provider to distribute its content services via the LTE Broadcast enabled networks of multiple

MNOs. This is expected to be of value to many Content Services. Because of the strategic sensitivity

of the planning information, the coordination of a consistent broadcast plan requires a trusted third

party. The actual distribution of the content service can be organized independent of or provided by

this broker.

5.2.5.3 Multiple Content Services to multiple MNOs (“M:N”)

In the models above we described the drive for an MNO to support the coordination and facilitation

of the distribution of multiple Content Services with systems and processes in the “M:1” model. In

the previous section we discussed the need for an independent Planning Broker for distributing

even a single content service over multiple networks and the forthcoming value of an open Play-out

facility to support the actual play-out and distribution of multiple content services. In fact the

combination of the previous two models is the “M:N” distribution service model that offers reach to

all subscribers of all involved MNOs for multiple Content Services. As discussed in the section 4.1.3

there is a larger set of content services that could potentially benefit from LTE Broadcast

distribution, but these services are relatively small in terms of data or region or are infrequent.

These could also be aggregated and supported using the M:N model.

Figure 14: Roles in M:N service model.

The “M:N” model roughly includes the roles included in Figure 14 above. On the left, we have

multiple Content Service Providers, potentially with different “sizes” of demand (see section 4.2.5.1

on the M:1 model). This demand may be aggregated to achieve larger scale. This will result in a

relatively low cost price of the broadcast resources as a result of more their efficient usage of

resources due to complementary profiles of services, which in turn may lead to more demand. An


increase in Content Services allows for multiple domain specific Demand Aggregators. It also

unburdens the MNOs from having to collect demand and the aggregators are in a better position

than the MNOs to acquire sector specific knowledge.

As seen in the “1:M” model, coordination via a trusted third party, the Planning Broker, with respect

to planning is needed. In the execution of the services, a shared Facilitator open for usage by

Content Service Providers is optional; the play-out can also be managed by the Content Service

Provider itself or by the MNO. The latter can, for instance, use an MNO specific Facilitator (Play-out

Platform).

These roles need not be independent parties: e.g. the aggregation of content can be done by a

“larger” Content Service Provider that seeks other Content Services that have a complementary

profile in terms of demand (e.g., same locations with different timeslots) to gain a better position

with respect to the MNO. The shared Play-out facility could for instance come from a joint effort of

the MNOs, but also from the Content Demand Aggregator. The MNO specific play-out facilitator

may be an MNO department or an independent party that manages this on behalf of the MNO. The

trusted third party (Planning Broker) might be an independent party, or a service department of an

equipment vendor. This one may be integrated with for instance the Facilitator (the shared Play-out

facility). This list of combinations of these new roles with existing roles is incomplete, but it

illustrates that although the functions (roles) are identified, the structure in an actual real life

situation is still open.

Money flows can take on many directions that cannot yet be logically determined in this model. In

this case one of the possibilities is that the Facilitator takes care of the end user billing of the

customer base of the Content Service Provider. This implies an (opposite) cash flow from Facilitator

to Content Service Provider.

Another consideration that definitely affects the monetary flows and distribution of risk is whether

the Content Demand Aggregator, Planning Broker or Facilitator is actually a wholesale Trader or

simply a coordinator: does it pay for the reserved and utilized capacity or receive a fee for servicing?

Typically in such situations the wholesale trader (broker) will have a payment to the MNO that is

independent of the number of end users that receive the content (no visibility of the end users that

receive the content in the mobile network), but the Content Service Provider pays the trader a

relatively higher price for the broadcast resources (as a compensation for the risk and the

coordination).

This model thus has a content-driven and network-driven side. The key functions and business

values on the planning and execution level are summarized In Table 9 below:

Table 9: Key functions on the planning and execution level.

Content-driven Network-driven

Planning Content Demand

Aggregator(commercial scale)

Planning Broker (trusted third

party) (competition)

Execution Facilitator of the shared play-out

Facility (cost saving)

Reliable and well managed input

(quality)


From the content-driven perspective, the value of coordination (aggregation) of demand for LTE

Broadcast distribution services from joint or individual MNOs results in a better negotiation position,

because larger quantities and guarantees can be achieved. On the execution level, the infrastructure

for play-out, which might not be fully utilized for a single Content Service Provider, can be shared,

which results in lower costs. The two need not overlap: Content Service Providers taking part in a

joint negotiation for distribution capacity may have private play-out facilities. From the network-

driven perspective, the requirement on the planning level to shield strategic information of

capacities and availability leads to the need for a trusted third party. On the execution level, MNOs

benefit from broadcasting sources that are capable of technically handling the content services, so

as to provide a minimum of disturbances and to achieve a quick recovery in case of any disturbance.

Table 9 does not imply that these coordination functions are separate roles, but integration of the

network-driven and content-driven perspective on the execution level, a shared and ably managed

play-out facility seems to benefit both ends.

Table 10. Values and issues for the M:N Distribution Service Model

Role Values25

Content

Service Provider

- Lower cost

- OTT-like access to QoS/Performance managed distribution services

MNO - Increased demand from services that require multiple Subscriber

Bases

- Increased demand from smaller and infrequent services

Device Vendor - LTE Broadcast can extend to larger devices, e.g. TV sets

End User - Multiple services and operator independence

Content Services

Demand

Aggregator

- Increased demand from services that require multiple Subscriber

Bases

- Domain specific focus

Shared

Broadcast

Facilitator

- Increased demand from services that require multiple Subscriber

Bases

- OTT-like access to QoS/Performance managed distribution services

Planning Broker - Potential integration with aggregator and facilitator

Wholesale trader - Potential integration with aggregator, facilitator and planning

broker

Individual MNO

Broadcast

Facilitator

- Potential growth to multi-operator roles

Role Issues Type26

Solution27

(see previous models)

In summary, the M:N model can be seen as a conjunction of previous models. It clearly distinguishes

the Content Demand Aggregator, Planning Broker and shared Facilitator roles in the “centre” of the

ecosystem. We also distinguished a Trader role that takes risk in buying capacity. Multiple combinations of these roles

are conceivable for both existing as new players. Most studied uses cases are expected to logically evolve eventually to this

model when achieving scale. So the M:N model can be seen as an end-state or as a desirable starting point for kick-starting

the development of an LTE Broadcast ecosystem.

5.2.6 Dedicated LTE Broadcast network

Another way of exploiting the LTE Broadcast feature is to set up a dedicated Mobile Network

infrastructure specifically for broadcasting purposes, see Section 4.3.3. This can be either a physical


network or a virtual network. A dedicated virtual network can be considered a special case of the

M:N or 1:N service model for distribution in which broadcast capacity is arranged. The deployment

of dedicated network still requires technical development in standardisation and further

development of the business proposition and related organizational matters.

Mapping Content Services to Distribution Service Models

In this section, we reason on the applicability of the presented distribution service models to the

services defined in the Use Cases. In this section relevant considerations on technical issues,

business and organisation will be discussed.

5.2.7 Stadium

The rights for sports events are typically partitioned in elaborate ways. An example is that the venue

owner has the right to display uncut content within the premises; premium sports channels have

acquired the rights to broadcast matches live from the association of primary division soccer teams

and national broadcasters have the right to broadcast summaries. In this Use Case replays of

highlights in the match are broadcasted within seconds from the event. This would not be possible

via other means, because the content volume is too high and the population is too dense. To receive

the highlight, the visitor must have a suitable phone and an app, provided by the stadium’s media

partner. Visitors must pre-register and payment is included in the ticket-fee. The footage is provided

via direct connection to the operator’s local LTE Broadcast deployment. Technicians from the

stadium’s media partner and the MNO have made this custom set-up. The service is only available

within the premises.

It is also conceivable to have local deployments for multiple operators. These will basically be copies,

but broadcast will be within different spectrum. If the scope is expanded to have service reception in

other premises, e.g. watch football match of stadium A in stadium B then the existing rights are

probably not sufficient. If multiple matches must be available, e.g. via multiple channels, then the

content is aggregated and distributed. This does not affect the local set-up of the broadcast, but the

feed will come centrally. If the reception scope is beyond the premises, the planning complexity

increases. However, the geographic areas and timeslots are fixed. So, the stadium deployment can

gradually expand to a network of venues, with either local or central directing of the footage.

This service can be compared with, but is essentially different from, dedicated apps from the soccer

club or the app from the premium sports channels. These are typically OTT and cannot provide this

density, although operators are working on increasing indoor capacity. OTT services are typically

available to all subscribers to different providers and access control is done in the app and in the

server.

Initially, the stadium case can be realised following the bilateral model in which the stadium and a

specific MNO create the service. However, from the perspective of the MNO the investment does

not only include local technical investments, but also centrally in the network management as well

as organisational and procedural changes. Consequently, the MNO would logically seek for other

stadiums or concert venues to exploit the capability and return the investments (M:1). Conversely,

from the perspective of the stadium or event organiser, it is unlikely that the customer base is a

subset of the subscriber base of this specific MNO and the stadium would naturally seek to reach the


unserved customer base as well (1:N). Following that rationale, we would eventually see an M:N

broker model to serve this Use Case.

5.2.8 Large sports events delivered via MNO based service

This content service would typically follow the integrated distribution service model; the content is

acquired and available to the MNO and play-out and distribution is controlled by the MNO. The

areas are thus also chosen by the MNO. However, in the eventual case where all operators

broadcast the same content and simultaneously over their individual networks in the dense areas,

then a large proportion of the spectrum is consumed and additional efficiencies could be achieved

by a generically available broadcast channel. However, this is an isolated service that seems

unprofitable for a single event and the M:N model would fit, because additional Content Services are

gathered.

5.2.9 Mobile IPTV

This Use Case has two subcases; one where a few TV channels are continuously provided in dense

areas and another where a package of channels is broadcasted on national scale via a dedicated

network.

5.2.9.1 Mobile IPTV on hotspots

This is the content service as already deployed in Seoul by KT and it typically follows the integrated

distribution model. The content is acquired by the MNO (and thus not open to other broadcasters)

and the service area and subscribers are all controlled by the MNO. Linear content, that would

benefit from LTE Broadcast distribution in terms of density but is not part of the portfolio of rights

acquired by the MNO, cannot be broadcasted. If the number of views per TV channel is dynamic and

the MNO decides – in coordination with the non-portfolio TV channel broadcasts – on

unicast/multicast switching, then this use case would, from the perspective of the MNO, move

towards the M:1 model. The MNO would perform all the described coordinating tasks. In case other

MNOs also offer the LTE Broadcast feature, this is likely to be replicated to eventually merge into an

M:N model.

This service can be compared with OTT TV apps. These however have no managed quality, have

delay and will falter when demand is high, e.g. during large sports events like the Olympics.

5.2.9.2 Mobile IPTV and radio via dedicated network

If a substantial package of linear TV content is to be distributed nationally using LTE Broadcast to the

different subscriber bases of each of the MNOs simultaneously then the total spectrum requirement

would be too substantial to sacrifice other mobile data use. Therefore, for this scenario we assume

that additional spectrum for this purpose is made available. Subscribers should be able to receive

their linear TV content from one facility that is generically available to all subscribers. This is the 1:N

model. If such a facility has to be open to other TV channel broadcast, e.g. a mix of national and

commercial players, it would evolve to become an M:N model.

5.2.10 Supporting a range of smaller scale and less frequent content services

In the Use Cases described above, we have seen Content Services that require relatively steady and

predictable stream of data that altogether might form a basis for enabling the LTE Broadcast feature

in networks. The distribution service models of the Use Cases above already provide different

content service requirements. As discussed in the Use Cases workshop (see section 5.1), there is a


larger set of content services that could potentially benefit from LTE Broadcast distribution, but

these services are relatively small in terms of data or region or are infrequent. Many of these

Content Services will require access to all MNOs’ Subscriber Bases. These should be aggregated and

coordinated, e.g. by the M:N model.

Table 11 below summarizes the applicability of the Service Distribution models to the Use Cases.

Some of these are somewhat unfamiliar at this point and are therefore briefly introduced here:

• The ‘Paid Media Service’ is the class of Content Services that provide (paid) live media and

VoD, e.g. reporting on sports events. These are now available typically OTT or in the home,

using decoders. These parties’ customers benefit from better quality, so the service provider

or its customers are expected to be willing to pay for managed distribution. We foresee an

incentive to achieve managed distribution over all networks from the content-driven

perspective. From the network-perspective we see an incentive to engage other ‘heavy’

content services in such an agreement. Thus we expect M:N eventually.

• Digital Signage is a service in which multiple billboards etc. are provided with the same new

content instantaneously. This service can be managed using subscriptions to one network, as

the billboards contain the SIM. This has some similarities with other M2M type of

applications, but this broadcast is unidirectional communication. Since this service itself shall

not provide the business case justification for enabling LTE Broadcast at the MNO, additional

services need to be aggregated and probably attracted by the MNO.

• The “Enterprise Channel” Use Case (not listed), allows broadcast of content within a large

corporation. Large companies are typically served by a single MNO and this type of service is

similar in that respect to the ‘Digital Signage’.

• In the “Tourist Guide” use case, a media tour in a high-density city or a museum is

repetitively (pro-actively) broadcasted (as a file) to tourists. This service needs access to all

subscriber bases but will be too small to justify LTE Broadcast enabling, and can thus only

supported by the M:N model. Note that these tourists will still need an App to receive and

use the content.

Table 11: Mapping of smaller use cases to distribution service models.

In the discussion of the applicability of the distribution service models above it appears that some

services probably naturally evolve towards the M:N model, whereas others would be sufficiently

facilitated by either the 1:N or the M:1 broker model. Even in the case that the business case for LTE

Broadcast is positive in a single integrated service or bilateral agreement, then, given the rationale


discussed above, realising an M:N broker would allow for multiple services and thus increase

business value. The single integrated or bilateral models are limited in their scope of applicable

services. Realising the M:N model can be seen as an ecosystem facility. It is important to note that it

would not exclude bilateral business agreements from being realised.

5.3 Mutual dependency in starting the LTE Broadcast ecosystem

In the previous sections, we introduced a number of different models for distribution of Content

Services by means of LTE Broadcast. Each of those Distribution Service models has its own

characteristics and applicability – from the perspectives of the MNOs and from the perspective of

the Content Service Providers.

In Table 12 below we present an overview of the presented Distribution Service Models and the

relevant assets and roles. This illustrates that in different Distribution Service Models, roles are

probably filled or integrated differently.

Table 12. Overview of Distribution Service models, assets and roles.

Asset/Distribution

Service Model

Integrated Bilateral M:1 1:N M:N

Key proposition Out of the

home;

enhancement

of MNO

content service

portfolio

QoS/

Performance

enhancement

of CSP’s

content service

Filling the

MNO’s LTE

Broadcast to

capacity

Reach to all

subscriber

bases

Versatile

content

service

distribution for

multiple MNOs

Content /Content

Rights

Acquired by

MNO

1 CSP CSPs 1 CSP (or joint) CSPs

Content Aggregator n/a n/a MNO,

independent

or large CSP

n/a Independent

or large CSP

Planning Broker MNO internal MNO internal MNO internal Trusted 3rd

Trusted 3rd

Facilitator Owned by

MNO

CSP or MNO Probably MNO CSP or

independent

CSP or

independent

Wholesale Trader n/a n/a Independent

or large CSP

Independent

(MNOs JV?)

Independent

(MNOs JV?)

LTE Broadcast MNO MNO MNO MNOs MNOs

Spectrum MNO MNO MNO MNOs MNOs

Enabled Devices Spec by MNO >= 1 Device

Vendor

Spec by MNO Many Device

Vendors

Many Device

Vendors

Subscriber Base MNO MNO MNO MNOs MNOs

Customer Base MNO CSP CSPs CSP CSPs

We identified business values that can be derived from the models and issues that these models

bring forward. We introduced three new roles in the multilateral models: the Planning Broker, the

shared Facilitator and the Content Services Demand Aggregator. In the analysis of the issues we have

illustrated that these new roles as well as the more complex models solve many but not all issues. In

the previous section, where we analysed the applicability of specific Distribution Service Models to

support specific Use Case classes, we derived that the M:N model can be seen as an ecosystem

facility. The most prominent remaining open issues are presented in Table 13.


Table 13. Most prominent remaining technical, organisational and business issues in LTE Broadcast ecosystem.

Issue

Technical • What are QoS/Performance characteristics of LTE Broadcast distributed services

that can be achieved in practice (e.g. that could be agreed in SLA)?

• What are the architecture and components required for a (multi-operator) facility?

Is a shared facility achievable technically?

• How can switching and flexibility with broadcast/unicast capacity be achieved?

• What are the technical requirements for the services in the cafeteria model (See

1:M)?

• How can end to end service delivery administration be achieved? (datacount,

tracing views)

Organisational • How can we deal with multi-service and multi-operator planning complexity,

including unicast to broadcast offload and additionally triggered traffic and new

services?

• What processes are required for enabling and support of LTE Broadcast? In end-

user devices, but also in OSS?

Business • What are the business cases for the separate roles and for the ecosystem as a

whole?

• Does the business case require really new services or do the Use Case services

suffice?

• What is the expected cannibalisation on the unicast datacount based revenue?

• Is the expected behaviour to consume services linearly sufficient?

• What is the willingness to pay from the different perspectives, including end-users?

• How do we deal with legacy devices? How can we speed-up uptake of new devices?

In theory all Distribution Service models could coexist, for instance because the services are

instantiated in a specific order and without coordination: an MNO can have a bilateral deal with a

larger commercial TV station also trading part of its LTE Broadcast capacity for broadcasts in

stadiums and tours at museums. That would really depend on whether the evolution will be content

or network-driven. The content-driven evolution will naturally emphasize multiple network

facilitation and support the larger as well as the set of smaller, infrequent and yet unthought-of

Content Services. In all cases a substantial penetration of LTE Broadcast capable devices will be

required. Regardless of the evolution path, it can be asked if there is still need for separate bilateral

agreements or MNO specific services and facilitators if the Aggregator, Planning Broker and

Facilitator roles are up and running. In other words, can the evolution of the LTE Broadcast

ecosystem be coordinated to achieve the most viable state as soon as possible? Because of its broad

applicability and expected key requirements from both Content Service Providers as well as device

providers, we argue that for launching an LTE Broadcast ecosystem, the M:N model including the

three new roles provides best chances for viability. So, this is a clear ecosystem objective.

Nevertheless, some issues are still open, which renders the realization of an LTE Broadcast

ecosystem locked. The essence boils down to both Devices and Networks needing attractive Content

Services and vice versa. In the next section we propose a roadmap for launching the ecosystem and

addressing the open issues.


In this section, we have recapped the envisaged LTE Broadcast ecosystem and its relevant roles. We

have listed the business values these roles might derive from availability of LTE Broadcast. It is clear

that the use of LTE Broadcast will open up some challenges. Some of these challenges can be

addressed by the newly identified centre roles (Facilitator, Planning Broker, Content Demand

Aggregator), but the central issue is that investments on both supply and demand side are

intertwined. These challenges play out differently in the different Distribution Service Models and in

the different Use Cases, but the M:N model can be seen as a desirable ecosystem facility. How can

the LTE Broadcast ecosystem be evolved?

6 A roadmap for launching LTE Broadcast

The previous chapter has analysed how LTE Broadcast can be deployed in several service business

models that involve Content Service Providers (CSPs), Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and

brokers. In this chapter, we construct a roadmap for the development of a stable ecosystem for

versatile content distribution based on these service business models. Then, we propose a practical

‘Next Step’ on this roadmap.

6.1 Towards a stable LTE Broadcast ecosystem

6.1.1 Versatile content distribution

The main challenge in developing a roadmap for LTE Broadcast is to construct a critical mass from a

set of use cases that have different technical, business and usage characteristics.

Stadium use case

There have already been a number of trials with LTE Broadcast for live video distribution in stadiums.

The stadium (or concert) use case is well-scoped in many respects. The end user content service is

clear, as it is directly linked to the stadium event. The event is scheduled and at a fixed location. The

frequency range in which LTE Broadcast is used in and around the stadium is probably also fixed.

Moreover, as there is only one antenna site (or at most a few) involved, there is no need for precise

timing synchronisation across the mobile network. Compared to distribution over local Wi-Fi (n/ac)

networks, which could be seen as a competing technology, LTE Broadcast has the advantage that it

offers a guaranteed quality. The business case can be assessed by the MNO and the stadium

operator. The stadium use case has already been trialled, also in the Netherlands, and could be

launched commercially in one or two years. All in all, this makes the stadium case an attractive

stepping stone for the early part of our roadmap. The stadium use case approach can also be used

for events at other venues, as long as they are scheduled and the distribution is limited to a fixed,

geographically focussed location.


Mobile TV use case

The Mobile TV use case has promise too but requires further analysis to determine the most

attractive end user propositions and technical implementations. As noted earlier, offering a full TV

service (25+ channels) may be difficult because of the large capacity it would take up on the mobile

network, particularly in areas where the current capacity for voice and data is relatively small. This

may be a motivation to offer a smaller set of TV channels or to focus on broadcasting of other

content types, such as national or local events. Alternatively, one could reduce the required capacity

by deploying a mixed LTE Broadcast – unicast distribution system that dynamically switches between

the two delivery modes. In the long term, we envisage that there could be a dedicated LTE Broadcast

network for Mobile TV, or tower overlays that combine DVB-T2 and LTE technologies. An open

question is how Mobile TV will be adopted by users. It needs to fit the end users’ viewing behaviour

and faces competition from on-demand streaming content from YouTube and other services. If LTE

Broadcast is positioned to serve fixed TV sets as well, then the match with existing viewing

behaviour is clear for this portion. Summarizing, the (mobile) TV case can take many forms, with

differences in scheduling, location, capacity use and service content. All variants have their merits,

but together they do not provide a clear scope.

Range of other use cases

There is a range of use cases for distribution of content from CSPs that vary in frequency, geographic

location, viewer density and scheduling, such as digital signage, tourist guide and enterprise channel

(section 5.1). Although these use cases are reasonable well-scoped, at this time our expectation is

that none of them individually justifies the investment for a large-scale LTE Broadcast system.

Looking at these use cases, the stadium case is probably the only one for which a viable business

case for roll-out can be readily developed. To come to actual service offerings for the other use

cases, economies of scale and scope need to be unlocked that cannot be achieved through

deployments for individual cases. This is where we foresee that a broker can have a valuable role. At

the same time, we do not suggest that a broker is the only way forward to a more extensive roll-out

of LTE Broadcast. For example, the stadium use case together with an innovative new use case (or a

scaled-up version of one of the “smaller” use cases) could turn out to be a strong driver for roll-out.

The fact that we do not see this use case now does not mean that it cannot develop.

6.1.2 The LTE Broadcast distribution service broker

The broker brings economies of scale and scope that stimulate LTE Broadcast deployment, by

performing one or more of the following functions:

• Aggregating content offers from multiple CSPs. The broker abstracts the demand side for LTE

Broadcast capacity by bundling all the demand from the content providers. It deals with all the

variations from the CSPs in required capacity, scheduling, geographies and densities and

translates it into an aggregated semi static request for capacity.

• Aggregating network capacity from multiple MNOs. The broker abstracts the supply side of the

market towards the content providers by making (wholesale) deals for LTE Broadcast capacity on

an aggregated level with the individual operators. It prevents the CSPs from having to negotiate

and organise an LTE Broadcast service with each individual operator.


The broker needs to implement these aggregation functions in technical and business interfaces for

CSPs and MNOs. However, the broker needs to be more than a simple intermediary that relays

information between MNOs and CSPs. The aggregation functions have impact in key areas for MNOs

and CSPs:

• Capacity planning in MNO. LTE Broadcast can take up substantial portions of the network

capacity and therefore affects capacity planning. Given the large value of mobile capacity, stable

and reliable capacity planning is crucial for a broker that aggregates demand and supply of

capacity. The broker must preserve the efficiency of LTE Broadcast, the key advantage for MNOs,

and at the same time also preserve the performance (in terms of coverage and quality) that is

crucial for the CSPs.

• Trust between business partners and safeguards for confidentiality. The aggregation involves

services from multiple competing companies, both on CSP side and on MNO side (Section

5.2.5.2). It is crucial to prevent exchange of confidential information. The CSPs and MNOs must

rely on the broker to ensure that this does not occur.

• Support of multiple business models. The commercial considerations of CSPs and MNOs on the

costs they incur and the revenues they wish to receive from other companies and the end users

involved in content distribution are outside the scope of this whitepaper. Nonetheless, we

foresee that depending on the use case and the strategies of the companies involved, different

business models will develop. The broker should not be a limiting factor in implementing a

business model.

These areas are not new: we foresee that there are similarities with the setting up of Mobile Virtual

Operator (MVNO), Cell Broadcast (NL-alert) and Machine-to-Machine (M2M) platform arrangements

by MNOs. We also expect that CSPs can benefit from their experience in setting up distribution

agreements for linear and non-linear content with multiple distributors.

6.2 Kickstarting the LTE Broadcast ecosystem

6.2.1 CSP-driven and MNO-driven routes

Kickstarting and growing the LTE Broadcast ecosystem requires efforts from CSPs, MNOs, the

network vendors and the device vendors. As a first step, we look at the CSPs and MNOs, the actors

that figure prominently in the service business models from Chapter 4. Obviously, CSPs and MNOs

will need to complement each other’s efforts in building the ecosystem, but it is instructive to see

what CSPs and MNOs can do to drive LTE Broadcast from their own side from a simple service

business model to more complex ones. This leads to the content- and network-driven routes in

Figure 15.


Figure 15: The content and network driven routes for expansion of the LTE Broadcast ecosystem.

• Network-driven route. An MNO can start by using LTE Broadcast as a feature to support its

own service offering (for which it probably buys rights to content or TV channels from CSPs).

The next step is to offer LTE Broadcast as a distribution service to CSPs on a bilateral basis.

From the network perspective, the next step can be to offer a broadcast service over

multiple mobile networks through a 1:N broker. Finally, LTE Broadcast can be offered to

multiple CSPs via an M:N broker, removing the need for MNOs to have agreements with

multiple CSPs.

• Content-driven route. For a CSP, the use of LTE Broadcast can start with a first bilateral

content agreement with an MNO. As a next step, content from multiple CSPs can be

aggregated in an M:1 broker to come to a larger and potentially more stable capacity

demand that can be negotiated with an MNO. In a final step, the aggregation of multiple

MNO networks can be added.

Of course, these two routes are somewhat stylised, but they show that more advanced service

business models can be reached in different ways. This important observation will return when the

link between use cases and potential development routes is made in the next section. Figure 16

illustrates how the content and the network-driven route have the bilateral and the M:N broker

model in common. We foresee that in practice, the development of the LTE Broadcast ecosystem

will build on both the content-driven and the network-driven route, connected and supported by a

series of use cases.

Figure 16: Content-driven and network-driven routes towards a comprehensive M:N broker model.


6.2.2 Roadmap linking service business models and use cases

In order to come to a roadmap, we need to link the service business models to use cases. There are

many potential combinations, but we focus on the ones that we think are closest to the needs of

CSPs and MNOs.

In its most basic form, the stadium use case starts with bilateral agreement (a) between a stadium

operator in the CSP role and an MNO, as has been done in the Amsterdam Arena trial. A natural next

step is to extend the coverage in the stadium to the subscribers of additional MNOs. This effectively

moves this case to a 1:N broker model (b). Yet another step can be to extend the service to multiple

stadiums, with content from the individual stadium operators. In this way, a full M:N broker

implementation (c) is reached, that supports local distribution of live video in a number of stadiums.

As indicated in Figure 17, this roadmap is (mostly) network driven.

Figure 17: Roadmaps for the development of the LTE Broadcast ecosystems from the development of the stadium case

(in brown) and the mobile TV case (in green).

The Mobile TV (or radio) case leads to a different roadmap. Depending on the commercial model of

the MNO and the CSP, it can start with an MNO using LTE Broadcast as a feature (A) in its own

service offering. Alternatively, it can start with a bilateral agreement (B) between a CSP that requests

an MNO to distribute its content. A CSP may want to team up with other CSPs and bundle

distribution demands to negotiate a more attractive agreement with the MNO. Alternatively, once

an MNO has the technical and business arrangements for Mobile TV distribution in place for one

CSP, he may want to offer distribution capacity to other CSPs as well. These efforts both lead to an

M:1 broker model (C). On the other hand, it may also be attractive or necessary for a CSP to reach

subscribers of multiple MNOs with LTE Broadcast. This may be the motivation for a 1:N broker (D). In

the end, a full M:N broker (E) can emerge.

Figure 17 shows that the overall development of the LTE Broadcast ecosystem can benefit from

mutual reinforcement between routes. For example, the stadium and mobile TV use cases both

contain a step with a bilateral service business model. If this model is used for one of the use cases,

this provides the ground for reuse of technical and business arrangements in the other use case. At

the same time, we must keep in mind that the scope of the bilateral agreements that the support


the use cases probably have different scopes in terms of geographical location, scheduling and

capacity demand. Therefore, extending an existing bilateral agreement to other use cases will still

require attention and effort. The routes in Figure 17 show three service business models where use

cases can reinforce one another: B-a (bilateral), D-b (1:N broker) and E-c (M:N broker). Adding more

use cases will bring additional opportunities for reinforcement. As discussed earlier, the business

cases for the “smaller” use cases are expected to be more attractive when they can build on an

existing broker.

6.3 The next step

Based on the insights and results we gained from this study, TNO recommends a next step which

could bring the ecosystem for LTE Broadcast closer. The goal of this next step is to arrive at

recommendations for one or more LTE Broadcast featured services pilots organized for particular,

suitable live events in the Netherlands. The pilot as such would come after this step and could be

readily followed by a commercial services roll-out. With the roadmap in mind, a focus on broadcast

service propositions for live events is the most natural first step beyond the well-known stadium use

case.

This next step, which is basically a LTE Broadcast exploitation feasibility study, would comprise the

following main activities:

Preliminary Business Viability Assessment: getting a more thorough understanding of the

business viability of LTE Broadcast featured services. A key question is whether important

(national) live events would inspire various associated content service providers to offer

attractive entertainment or information services to visitors which would typically require LTE

Broadcast type of functionality to do this efficiently or to create the ‘live’ experience the provider

envisions. This activity should not only generate interesting service formats and propositions but

also give sufficient insight in perceived value/willingness to pay, likely uptake, etc. Such predictive

characterisation of the demand side combined with a coarse/generic but sufficiently reliable

modelling of service delivery costs (one time and recurring) should help to perform a coarse

cost/benefit evaluation. The activity should result in a viable business model setup for this

category of use cases, with definitions of roles and interactions. If (and only if) the outcome is

promising, four follow-up activities should be initiated, more or less in parallel.

Small Service Concepts Pilot: setting up a small pilot or living lab experiment in which some

promising and suitable (in LTE B sense) (broadcast) service concepts are actually evaluated in

terms of consumer take-up. The pilot focuses on bringing the broadcast service experience to

visitors in a way that the uptake of specific service formats or propositions developed can be

measured in this set-up, allowing statistical evaluations of concurrent consumption of specific

services. In turn, this would allow some predictions of the level of utilization of the LTE Broadcast

feature when offered commercially to consumers. With the outcome, certain results of the

Preliminary Business Viability can be validated and corrected. The pilot could help to raise the

attention level of relevant content providers regarding possible (novel) service offerings during

such events.

Services (E2E) Implementation Issues: this is a major activity that deals with addressing and

resolving various technical implementation issues which are expected to emerge in setting up a


larger LTE Broadcast pilot. The activity leverages the high level technical insights gained in this

Study, but should reach a much more practical, almost hands-on level and should result in

concrete service implementation guidelines, end-to-end. The task assumes the ecosystem and

role definitions recommended in the preliminary analysis.

Services Organisation Issues: whereas the previous activity focusses on technical matters, this

task deals with organisational matters to be dealt with by each of the roles in the envisioned

ecosystem and by each of the foreseen business interfaces.

LTE Broadcast Pilot Recommendations: obtained results should lead to recommendations on

how to set-up and execute larger LTE Broadcast Pilots. This publishable result could look like a

“cook book” with “recipes”. Players in the market could decide to actually organize such a pilot in

this fashion. It could give a further push to the development of an international ecosystem for

LTE Broadcast enabled mobile services.

7 Conclusions and recommendations

In this paper, we have analysed how LTE Broadcast technology can be used to come to an ecosystem

that supports versatile content distribution. The key parties that make up the ecosystem are the

Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), the Content Service Providers (CSPs) and the device

manufacturers. The main findings and recommendations that we have developed are:

LTE Broadcast technology and standardisation

• The introduction of LTE Broadcast technology requires upgrades of MNOs’ networks. It also

requires adaptions to the services that are distributed.

o Media services provided by the MNO itself need to be adapted. In this case, only the MNO is

involved.

o Media services provided by CSPs that are carried over the MNO’s network need to be

adapted. In this case, both the CSP and the MNO are involved.

CSPs who wish their services to be distributed with LTE Broadcast will need access to a

broadcast-enabled LTE network infrastructure. They can partner with an MNO that exploits an

existing LTE infrastructure. Later on, there may also be options for dedicated broadcast network

infrastructures.

The standardization of LTE Broadcast has progressed over the years and now supports a number of

basic use cases. Certain functions that are needed in more advanced implementations, such as: (i)

service continuity between multicast and unicast; (ii) dynamic switching between unicast and

broadcast based on the density of subscribers that are interested in the content and; (ii) dedicated

100% broadcast carriers, are work-in-progress in 3GPP. Developments towards using more

sophisticated coding and modulation schemes will substantially improve the efficiency of LTE

broadcast in future and open the door for more bandwidth demanding types of applications. As can

be expected, the technical implementations of LTE Broadcast in equipment lag behind the

standardization process. So, it can be expected that patience will be needed before standards-

compliant implementation of the new eMBMS functionalities will become a reality in commercially


available products. On the other hand, the telecom industry may move fast once there is a strong

and urgent market demand for LTE Broadcast.

Use cases and service delivery models for cooperation between MNOs and CSPs

• For the stadium use case, the best-known application of LTE Broadcast to date, the business case

can be readily developed and decided by the parties involved: the stadium owner as the CSP and

the MNO. The Mobile TV use case has promise too but requires further analysis to determine

the most attractive end user propositions and technical implementations. One can think of many

variants that each have their merits, but together they do not provide a clear scope.

• There are many smaller use cases, each with their own specific characteristics in coverage,

timing and cooperation between content providers, network operators and user groups, for

which it is harder to develop a business case. When judged individually, such use cases probably

do not justify an investment in LTE Broadcast for the MNO. When judged together in an M:1

multi-use case combination, the business case may justify investment as the improvements in

coverage, quality and efficiency can generate revenues from a broader set of services and

service providers.

• Most use cases for media services require that the target audience can be reached independent

of their choice of MNO. This calls for a service delivery model that covers all MNOs with national

roll-out: a 1:N multi-operator model. Equally important for reaching the target audience is the

availability of suitable LTE Broadcast enabled handsets.

• The benefits of the multi-use case and multi-operator approaches can best be unlocked through

a broker that removes the need for CSPs and MNOs to establish and maintain a multitude of

commercial and technical arrangements. A broker is not required for the basic versions of the

stadium and mobile TV services, but once a broker is in place, these services can benefit from

broker features, such as multi-operator support.

Kickstarting the ecosystem

• Kickstarting and growing the LTE Broadcast ecosystem requires efforts from CSPs, MNOs, the

network vendors and the device vendors. The more advanced service delivery models can be

developed via content-driven and network-driven routes. These routes can reinforce one

another, as there is overlap between the functions that they rely on.

• The next step proposed by TNO is to conduct a focused feasibility study into the exploitation of

LTE Broadcast enabled services. An important activity in that proposal is the evaluation of

suitable service formats/concepts in a living lab setting. The next step should result in

recommendations for setting up an LTE Broadcast featured services pilot which would precede

true commercial roll-out.


Annex A: Longlist and characterisation of use cases for LTE Broadcast discussed with project group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Usecases --> Socker stadium Ahoy pop concert Amstel Gold Race NPO/RTL/SBS nationalNat. Event

broadcast2nd screen app OTA OS update Tourist Cityguide Amber alert Radio

Cinema -

2nd screen

Lab

els-->

Match higlights are

made available on

mobile device, for

example to playback the

replay after scoring goal.

Camera views from

the stage are made

available on the

mobile devices of

the visitors.

A mass audience

can receive the live

camera coverage on

their smartphone.

TV channels are

broadcasted to

smartphones, 'HBBtv'

interactivity is part of

the service.

TV coverage of a

OS/WC football

event is

broadcasted to

smartphones.

Content is send to

smartphones and

tablets, which is

complementary with

a Digital TV service.

A new OS

release is

broadcasted to

smartphones.

Location specific

content is send to

smartphones and

tablets with

sightseeiing info.

Information(text,

video, photo) is

broadcasted in case

of a missing child,

nationwide or locally.

Broadcasting of

a number of

radio channels.

Providing extra

content(like a

parallel story

line) during the

movie

Service type(cons./prof.) Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer

Stream/File based(primary) File based Stream & File based Stream & File based Stream based Stream & File based Stream based File based File based File based Stream based Stream & File based

Target screensize Smartphone Smartphone Smartphone Phone/Tablet/TV Phone/Tablet/TV Tablet N.A. Smartphone Phone/Tablet/TV Phone/Tablet/TV Phone/Tablet

Sync with other services None None None None None Tight(<500ms) None None None None Narrow(<2s)

Unicast/Broadcast rollover Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Frequency Periodic Periodic Single event Permanent Single event Periodic Periodic Permanent Periodic Permanent Periodic

Planning Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Adhoc Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled

Area coverage size Local Local Region Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Region Region Nationwide Local

User density in a cell Mass Mass Dense Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Dense

Data volume High High High High High High High High Low Low High

User mobility local local regional national national local national regional national national local

Time sensitivity Low(<10s) High(<500ms) Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) High(<500ms) No (>10s) No (>10s) No (>10s) No (>10s) Medium(<2s)

QoS No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

Alternative solutions Antenna array Antenna array Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Wifi Wifi Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Antenna array

Service

Network

Traffic


12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Usecases --> LowlandsTV on

camping/harbour

Situational

awareness

hulpdiensten

M2M status/SW

updates

Narrowcasting &

Digital signage

Inland navigation

info

Weather/Stock

info

Emergency data

serviceNL-Alert

Enterprise

channelMobility

Lab

els-->

Camera coverage of

multiple stages is

broadcasted on the

Lowland area.

TV broadcasted

channels are made

available for

tourists on a

relative small area.

Video and data is

send to emergency

workers for

improving their

situational

awareness.

Broadcast data service

for M2M devices, for

example for status and

SW updates.

Video and data is

send to flatscreens

at shopping malls.

Weather/traffic/eme

rgency Information

is broadcasted to

inland shippers.

Very frequent

information is

send to

devices with

stock/

weather/news.

Sharing data(gps,

heartbeat) with

teammembers.

Information(text,

video, photo) is

broadcasted locally in

case of an accident

Providing

corporate video

content to

employees

Broadcasting

traffic related

data to cars

Service type(cons./prof.) Consumer Consumer Professional Professional Professional Professional Mixed Professional Consumer Professional Mixed

Stream/File based(primary) Stream & File based Stream based Stream based File based File based File based File based File based File based Stream & File basedFile based

Target screensize Smartphone TV Smartphone N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Phone/Tablet Phone/Tablet Phone/Tablet Tablet

Interactivity No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sync with other services None None None None None None None None None None Narrow(<2s)

Unicast/Broadcast rollover Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No

Frequency Single event Permanent Single event Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Single event Single event Periodic Permanent

Planning Scheduled Scheduled Emergency Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Adhoc Adhoc Adhoc Scheduled

Area coverage size Local Local Region Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Region Region

User density in a cell Mass Dense Dense Dense Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Dense

Data volume High High High Low High High Low High Low High Low

User mobility regional local regional national national national national regional regional regional national

Time sensitivity Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) Medium(<2s) No (>10s) No (>10s) No (>10s) No (>10s) Low(<10s)

QoS Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes

Alternative solutions Fixed TVs on site Digitenne/Satellite Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G Plain 4G

Traffic

Service

Network


Annex B: List of abbreviations

3G Third generation mobile communication networks

3GPP Third Generation Partnership Project

ATSC(-M/H) Automatic Television Systems Committee (Mobile/Handheld)

BCMCS Broadcast and Multicast Service

BM-SC Broadcast Multicast Service Centre

CMMB Chinese Mobile Multimedia

C(S)P Content (Service) Provider

DAB Digital Audio Broadcasting

(x-)DMB Digital Multimedia Broadcasting

DTT Digital Terrestrial TV

DVB Digital Video Broadcasting

DVB-H DVB-Handheld

DVB-SH DVB-Satellite services to Handhelds

DVB-T(2) DVB-Terrestrial (2nd

generation)

EBU European Broadcasting Union

EC European Commission

eMBMS Evolved Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service

EU European Union

FDD Frequency Division Duplex

FEC Forward Error Correction

FEF Future Extension Frames

FM Frequency Modulation

FR File Repair

HF High Frequency

HPHT High Power High Tower

HTTP Hyper Text Transfer Protocol

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force

IETF FLUTE IETF File Delivery of Unidirectional Transport

IP Internet Protocol

IPTV IP Television

ISDB-T Integrated Services Digital Broadcasting – Terrestrial

LCD Liquid Crystal Display

LPLT Low Power Low Tower

LTE Long Term Evolution

M2M Machine-to-Machine

MIMO Multiple Input Multiple Output

MNO Mobile Network Operator

MPEG Motion Pictures Expert Group

MPEG DASH MPEG Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP

MVNO Mobile Virtual Network Operator

OFDM Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing

OS/MW Operating System / MiddleWare

OTT Over The Top

PLMN Public Land Mobile Network

PMSE Programme Making and Special Events


PPDR Public Protection and Disaster Relief

(x-)QAM x-level Quadrature Amplitude modulation (x=4/16/64/256/..)

QoS Quality of Service

RR Reception Reporting

SFN Single Frequency Network

SIM Subscriber Identity Module

TCP Transmission Control Protocol

TMGI Temporary Mobile Group Identifier

TV Television

UHF Ultra High Frequency

VHF Very High Frequency

VoD Video-on-Demand

WRC World Radio Conference

versatile content distribution over lte networks, a … · dutch communications and broadcasting...

Documents