RAW TRANSCRIPT 
June 17, 2015.
1400 CET.
ITU.
International symposium on the digital switchover.
(This text is provided as a realtime service and is not to be copied from any live event.  Please contact Caption First if you would like to receive a properly formatted transcript of this event.)
 
>> Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for being back to session 3.  Despite this very short lunch that we could grant you, I trust that more people are coming in, in a few minutes, but we have to start, otherwise we will run over too long.
So, we are approaching session 3, and the session Chair of session 3 is David Wood.  You have already seen him in the first video.  So David is chairing this session on technologies for television.  David, please.
>> DAVID WOOD: Thank you, yes, hello, everyone.  I have a different jacket now.  So that is how you recognize me.  I'm David Wood, I have the privilege to Chair working party 6C and our hope was this afternoon, we could outline the frontiers of system technology in Study Group 6 for you.  By the end of the afternoon, by the end of this session, you should have a knowledge of where the frontiers are in these three areas, image technology, sound technology and integrated broadcast broadband.  We have three speakers for you.  I'm also joined at the table here, I think we have more up here than down there, but anyway, the colleagues who are giving demonstrations outside, so after the presentations, we will invite them to spend a few minutes to tell you what you might be missing if you don't have a look at the demonstrations outside.
With that, I'll turn to our great, in image technology, Paul Gardiner, tell us about the frontiers of video.
>> PAUL GARDINER: Good afternoon.  Thank you very much for coming back, those of you who have come back.  My job is to give you a introduction, overview to some of the challenges that we face in video terms.  I'm going to briefly look back at how digital video has changed over the last more than 30 years amazingly.  Some of the challenges we face in image technology going forward, and try to give you a glimpse of where we are going after HD TV, what is next on the horizon.
I have about 15 minutes to do this.  Let's get moving.  Except my screen has gone blank.  Oh, dear.
It will come back in a moment hopefully.
>> DAVID WOOD: They have all gone blank.  (chuckles) there we are.
>> PAUL GARDINER: I must have pressed the wrong button.  Let's remind ourselves that the digital technology in the environment has long preceded the transmission to the home that we heard so much about this morning, that we have to go back to the early 1980s when we had the first worldwide discussions which eventually agreed to a famous worldwide standard, Rex 6011982.  That was dealing with standard definition 525 and 625 line television in component digital form.  It was a world first because we had a unique worldwide agreement on a common data rate for both 525 and 625 flying worlds, and we had scheme with 27 mega samples of video per second and a rather complicated connector which had a pin for every bit.  But things moved on.
Before long, we had a serial interface, 270 megabits which made life more practical with a single cable, made it easier to interconnect stuff.  That run at 270 megabits.  Since then there have been a evolution to cover more high‑resolution formats.  In the ITU‑R in working party 6C and its predecessors, there have been a number of important recommendations over the years, dealing with a range of image formats.  I'm not going to list, describe every one.
But one of the key ones which came in the early '90s,  '93, was HDTV studio format for production and international exchange.  That was another milestone and it was a common image format, 1920 by 1080 pixels.  Since then there have been other important recommendations which have been agreed within the ITU‑R.
I'll come back to talk about the UHDTV, req 2020, in a moment.  But let's not completely forget free DVTV.  One thing the ITU‑R did provide in the last year or two was something that will stand the test of time and that is a interesting report on the principles for comfortable viewing of stereoscopic free DVT, it turns into the psychophysical aspects of viewing and things you take into account for comfortable viewing.  Maybe we will come back to that in a few years time when hopefully free DTV will have another resurrection.
Meanwhile back to the UHDTV world and req 2020.  That took five years of discussion in the ITU‑R, but it built on the foundation of the common image formats, and went up in multiples of 1920 by 1080.  We have two high‑resolution formats still, 3840 by ‑‑ no interlace, that was a big breakthrough to at least say good‑bye to interlace and other features, frame rates, options go up to 120‑hertz.  Wider color gamuts and more bits per sample in the studio environment.
The trend has been to increase the spatial resolution, and to illustrate the advances since the world of standard definition, 525, 625, if you consider pixel array, you have a representation here of the standard definition format up to the HD format, 1920 by 1080 and along comes UHDTV at the lower level, 3840 by 2160.  For a truly immersive environment, the ultimate is the HK format.  That is something that is very suitable for very large screens and will give you a truly immersive environment to fill your field of view.  Applications on small devices, not just large screens.  But there is more to, to give you a better illustration of the advances in spatial resolution, looking on the left there, you can see an image extracted from a standard definition.  On the bottom left you would hardly know it's a cyclist, and the one on the right, that is a extract of the roof showing how the roof tile is not very well, not much resolution when you blow it up.  If you go to HD, you can now know it's a cyclist and that the roof tiles begin to look more like roof tiles.
Of course once we come to UHDTV, things improve again.  There will be another step up in resolution from the high‑resolution to HD format.  One advantage is extract HD formats from that and provide a good service to HD audience.
Resolution is one factor.  But for image quality, there are other important factors as well.  In the studio environment, we have a trend to code the samples with higher bits with more bits, 8, 10 and now 12 bits for UHDTV is available.  Frame rate options have been increasing.  We now have up to 120 or a hundred or 120 frames per second, in UHDTV.  You see a demonstration of the improvements in frame rate at the end of the corridor here.
Not everybody thinks that frame rates must go up.  Some people in the artistic community think 24‑hertz is the right way to do things.  It is a interesting debate about frame rate but nevertheless, the technology allows a choice of higher frame rates.
We had a improvement, much wider color gamut in req 2020, to show you a illustration of the sort of improvement.  The small triangle represents the conventional HDTV color gamut.  The larger triangle represents 2020.  The range of colors that 2020 can now display is pretty well matched to the natural world.  There is not much that you can't see, and you can see certain colors, there is Siams and greens with UHTV and req 2020 you can't see.  It is much more film like, natural in appearance.
But there are other factors as well.  The dynamic range of the signal and the display comes into play.  In fact, the original cathode ray tube had a range between, greater than most displays have today, 40,000 to 1.  But in the future we will have displays which can have remarkable dynamic ranges, maybe a million to one or thereabouts.  True blacks and quite high peak whites.
But generally, the displays are now much brighter than they were a few years ago.  The brightness originally were restricted by what cathode ray tubes could do.  But now with new technology the peak display brightness is able to be very much higher.
One of the basic issues with the existing television system, including HDTV is that it was designed for reference viewing environment where displays had a peak brightness of 100 per square meter.  That has been with us for a number of years.  Meanwhile even the best TVs have typical brightness of two, three or maybe more than 300 per square meter.  The way the camera captures the image is designed around the original reference display, 100.
What happens is that very bright parts of the picture become clipped, because you cannot convey the full range of brightnesses in a natural scene, with the existing television systems.  What this means is taking an example of an image here, they typically have a football or rugby stadium or sporting event where part of the scene is in daylight, part is in shadow.  While the camera can capture a wide dynamic range, would have capability of capturing 13 or 14 stops, you cannot convey that to the home directly with the current system.  You end up clipping the whites, losing the detail.
If you were to try to expand the brightness, you would end up with other problems as well.  The high dynamic range system would aim to deliver much more detail in the high brightness areas of the picture.  That is what we call HDR or in the ITU‑R terminology, extended image dynamic range television.
I can't demonstrate that with the limitations of displays we have in the room on the projector here, because we don't have the displays in this room with the high brightness that we will have in the home hopefully within a very short time.
But this is an example of an image which has been nicely graded for conventional displays.  Notice the sky.  It is blue, yes, but there is no ‑‑ you wouldn't think there was a cloud in the sky.  It looks like a gray day.  But the high dynamic range image of that would be able to convey the clouds, the detail, the blueness properly.  It will be much brighter picture than you see with this display.  Compare the standard dynamic range and the high dynamic range picture.
That is a simulation.  But the real thing would contain more sparkle, be more life like.  That is an interesting new technology which is now under study.
To make that work, we do have to make some changes to existing television system, because the original way we capture the image does mean that we are limited in how much of the brightness range we can capture.  If we were to try to increase the range of brightness using existing system, we would end up with banding in the high brightness parts of the picture.
We need to find a slightly modified way of capturing that in the camera in order to get it back to the home.  We could do it.  We have many more bits in the signal.  But that would increase the studio bit rates which increase delivery bit rate for home.  We are talking about starting a new way of transferring the image that would be more perceptually based to capture detail in the white areas, high brightness areas as well as dark areas of the picture.
That is where we are heading at the moment.  We certainly do have ultra high definition television.  It is coming.  Especially in Japan, Republic of Korea and other places are seriously talking about delivering it to the home.  But as well as the extra spatial resolution of new HDTV we have a new feature in the active study at the moment, which we sometimes call HDR, high dynamic range or in the ITU‑R we have been calling it extended image dynamic range television.  That is on its way.  We have to take into account the number of issues to do with compatibility, with existing studio operations, and how to convert the color gamut between the wider color gamut of the UHDTV formats and existing HDTV formats and understand more about technology bits.  It is a interesting area of study.  But it does promise much brighter highlights and more realistic pictures.
Almost 3D like, without the glasses, they really have much more impact.  There are issues over display brightness and power consumption.  We have to consider how much more power might be needed to deliver this and whether we have to think green at the same time and right balances.  There are interesting issues to consider for viewing comfort, if we have pictures with bright highlights.
All this is under study now within working party 6C.  We are working towards maybe a primary draft recommendation, draft recommendation and it's a big topic of considerable interest.  It will be one of the main topics on the agenda in our July meeting.
Finally, the audio has a big impact on how we perceive the quality of pictures.  That is the next speaker to describe.  The future of video is interesting and definitely has a bright future.
  (applause).
>> DAVID WOOD: Thanks, Paul.  You will have his presentation on the website.  You will be able to look at those things in detail, and impress the people at your next cocktail party.
Let's have a look at the frontiers of audio or is it frontiers of sound?  I'm never sure.  But Christophe Chabanne, you have the floor.
>> CHRISTOPHE CHABANNE: Hi, everyone.  I'm going to talk about next generation of audio, and where we are going beyond surround sound and what we have had over the last ten to 20 years.
First of all, I want to cover immersive audio.  Making things more immersive than they have been so far with surround sound, and there has been reasons behind this effort that started about four, five years ago.  It came from the cinema side, where 3D movies were successful.  It was bringing people back in movie theaters, and the cinema industry realized that the technology has tremendous value, because it brings people in theaters and they can have more revenue.
In our conversations with them, it was very clear that the industry was ready for new technologies.  They were thirsty, and they wanted to have some more technologies.
The first thing that we spoke about was 7.1, that is what they requested.  That was the higher end of the consumer side and always been a bit of a battle between the home theater world and cinema world.
7.1 was the higher end.  They wanted to do 7.1 and we have done that.  It's been released, movies have been released, but it has been extremely difficult because 7.1 and 5.1 you had two separate hard drives in order to distribute and they were going to the wrong theaters and they were missing channels.
There was not a right solution.  Plus the incremental benefits of 7.1 over 5.1 is noticeable, certainly not significant, sometimes did not play very well.
As a whole, we all had to start thinking on what we were going to do next for surround sound.  After many discussions with content creators, discussions with exhibitors and trying to keep it in a realistic frame, we ended up, we as industry, not just the company I work for, we worked on a new dimension, so height elevation was the new dimension, being able to bring things up and down in the room and creating that spherical experience.
Enabling new artistic possibilities also, that was a major driver of the whole next generation audio work.  Having discussions with mixers, with movie directors and understanding what they were missing, what was really a frustration for them when it came to authoring and the way they wanted to express their art.
There was many legacy issues or legacy limitations in movie theaters, that we had to overcome in order to bring the experience to another level.
So making it more flexible and simplified, 7.1 attempt was also very key.  Once we had this package in place and there has been multiple forms of this package, it became basically fully justifiable.  The industry was excited, and they said let's move forward, let's try to mix experiments and eventually release movies.
To understand the next generation immersive audio, I want to make sure that we have background around channels.  The definition of a channel is a signal that is assigned to a predefined speaker.  I know my left speaker is going to be there, my right speaker is going to be there, center, etcetera.  I mix all my tracks in my movies.  I bring them into that specific speaker, in the case of movie theaters you have arrays of speakers.  You don't have single speaker per channels.
When you go to objects, because that is the new buzzword around next generation audio, object audio is a big thing.  An object as opposed to have multiple tracks that are mixed down into a speaker feed, you now keep these tracks independent.  You assign them positions, so they move around the room.  They have XYZ coordinates.  These coordinates and this unique track is sent over to the playback system and the play back system can now know exactly where the sound should be in the room.  Depending where the speakers are, it will optimize the room and maximize the room.
That is the benefits of objects audio to be able to describe things, to be able to adapt things to any environment and playback system.
Here is an example of what happened in cinema.  You can see there are many configurations, cinema configurations but that is one of them.  You see the overhead speakers that have been placed.  Each of the speakers are addressable individually.  They are no longer arrays.  You can have an object through all of them.  When you have cinema with 16 speakers in the past with 8 of them being coupled, you now have a proper full 16.1, if you want, system instantly.
In cinema so far, immersive audio has come in two major formats.  One is a hybrid channel and object based system.  Channels have plenty of benefits.  They are very efficient in carrying information.  When you have a scene for example with a stadium, and everybody clapping, you don't want to have 10,000 objects of people clapping in order to rebuild the stadium.  You want to put that into channels.  Objects have benefits as well in being more accurate and more controllable.
The other system is also channel‑based.  It's only channel based, it brings different, slightly different configuration with different layers.  I think there are interesting things in this format as well.
The choice of channel is efficient.  It is reassuring to the industry who is slowly moving towards object audio but might want to keep going longer with channel based yet still enjoy next generation audio.
Look at what happened in cinema.  We today in the cinema industry have 1500 screens.  If you combine the two formats and their supportive screen it's 1500 screens worldwide and 300 movies.  The next generation audio started about three years ago.  It went pretty fast, very quickly these movies started being released and pretty much all the top movies are being released in next generation audio.
In the home, having this vast amount of content coming from the cinema world has created a big pull in the home.  People want to bring technologies to the home, bring the same experience to the home.
Blu‑ray disks have already been released in various formats.  Video games are jumping in.  So you can have video games in next generation audio with fully immersive environments.  The initial next generation audio system is leveraging existing code ex, deploying new code takes a while.  It takes a long time.  You have to author.  You have to distribute and transmit and decode.  It takes a while to get established.  As the initial step, these next generation audio and object audio have been able to travel through existing codex which enabled instant release of new types of content.
Another thing that was a big thing is practicality.  When you saw that picture of the movie theater, with speakers all over the place, it is difficult to bring that to the home.  I have a understanding wife and she is not happy about what I'm bolting on the ceiling and everything these days.
But it is just not convenient.  It is not realistic to push things very far, even if we look back in the past, 7.1 versus 5.1 adoption was dropping like a rock.  Very little 7.1.  Fair amount of 5.1 in the household.
Some people have been looking into the development of new types of speakers that enable overhead speakers without having them there.  A interesting thing of next generation audio in cinema and what it has done to the home, not even in object audio for the home but 5.1 is having free the cinema world to author new content without limitations, and then you have the new content that is being next to 5.1 for backward compatibility or DVD release.  You realize that in the past they were afraid of pulling elements in the surround sounds.  Today they are able to pull that in cinema and when that exact same release in 5.1 comes to the home, it is more intense.  The energy is more distributed around the room and less screen centric overall.
It has been an interesting turn of event of 5.1 standard 5.1 benefiting of new generation of audio system, although it's not object based.
All these early adoption of object audio and next generation audio, they are small in terms of size.  But they are very important in solving the chicken and egg problems.  If we want to push these technologies further and have more people enjoying next generation audio, you have to have these basic install base that will allow you to actually start looking to broadcasting, looking into streaming and all these things.
Another thing beyond cinematic content, that is what we have been talking about so far, cinema, but there is more types of content.  One of them being live events, and that is a big thing in broadcast, when you look into sports or live entertainments.  There are many things you could do in there with objects audio.  It is a challenging environment because in the cinematic content you are in post‑production environment.  You have full control of your tracks.
They are clean.  They are well recorded in the studio.  When you start placing a microphone in the stadium, it is very difficult to capture just the commentator.  You will capture the crowd and about everything around it.  It is an additional challenge that occurs in sports.
The other challenge also with sports when it comes to immersive is every sport is different.  Stadium is one thing, you get reflections from the stadium.  When it comes to golf it is completely different.  Tennis or formula one.  It is a new exploration every time in sports as opposed to cinematic content where you are able to create something flexible enough for about every movie, because the production process was the same.
When it comes to end point, we have many types of end points.  But multi channel is what we have been talking so far about.  But there are two other categories.  At first I wrote stereo devices, but it's not the right description.  If I wrote it as devices, with self‑contained speakers, it is a device that has speakers in it.  It is more broad.  That would include potentially mono phones or tablets or anything like that.
The other kind is headphones.  That is also something very interesting when it comes to objects audio, because headphone rendering using the way to bring perceived sound spatially using time delays and HRTS has been locked to the channel world, where you have fixed position and you have to deal with only five positions in order to attempt to hear something.
When you deal with object audio you have coordinates.  You can recompute things on the fly.  You can make much more realistic headphone experience, so that is an interesting area that the industry is looking at.
I spoke about immersive audio but there is another one which is very interesting, personalized audio.  It is a interesting use case, because you are not addressing the multi channel crowd.  You are not addressing the people who are willing to put wires and speakers everywhere.  There is a cost to that.
Personalized audio, here is the difference.  Immersive is about dynamic spatial information.  You are moving an object with its spatial information and you use the speakers that you have around to maximize its rendering.  The objects come and go in movies, there is something flying by, airplane flying by and it's gone.  The object goes away.
The consumer is experiencing what the content creator did and has no control over the movie.  In the personalized world, it is quite different, because you now have as a consumer control over what you are listening to.  You have different ways of managing the content.  You can choose what you want to hear.  It becomes quite a different thing.  It is also not dependent on the complex multi channel system, mono device or stereo device will work just fine.
These objects in personalized audio have relationship between each other.  They can actually say, I'm an object and I'm linked to this sort of objects.  If you want to mute me, you are going to have to mute others with it or you might have commentators objects.  You have two separate commentators.  You want to choose one language or the other.  But they are mutually exclusive.  They have to know the relationship when it comes to one another.
Here is a easy example of personalized audio.  You are watching a game.  You are rooting for one team.  You are saying, I'd rather have, I want to hear the crowd of my team, I'd rather have a biased mix.  I want to hear the overall stadium, but I'd rather have a biased mix, I don't want to hear people when they score against my team.  You can choose between one team or the other.  You can send different microphone feeds to your end device.  You can build up the experience that you want.  Or you say I want to neutral national broadcast, and I'll choose the overall balanced experience.
The last pick might be commentator, you might want to turn the commentator off if you are with friends watching TV and you are doing your own commentators.  Or you might want to have someone biased as well and be happy when the referee calls something against your own team.  When you start combining, you get something interesting.  You have soccer games where you have commentators and crowds and you can adjust the crowds bias.  You might have formula one where you might have immersive audio along with selection of team radio that you want to listen to.  In terms of entertainment, like dance or singing competitions we see on TV, you might be able to watch the performance of the candidates, or you might say, while I'm watching that, I want to hear what the judges are saying while the guy is singing.  I'm going to turn on the mics of the judges.
You have interesting use case to make TV a lot more interesting, more interactive than it has been so far.
That works for cinematic content, where you might have directors' commentary or descriptive audio for hearing‑impaired people.
Another aspect of object audio and it's the last part, you can make content accessible and manageable.  You can have a single authoring process with multiple languages and you are sending your channels, sending your objects and you want to send a French track, German track and Italian track.  The person who is watching will choose or by default based on where the receiver is based directly you might decide it is going to be this.  But you have ability to do that more efficiently than sending multiple times.
Descriptive audio, visually impaired, I mentioned that, target dialogue enhancement, as an example, if you have objects and you have identifications objects, you know what is dialogue, you will be able to process dialogue differently and in a better manner than you would have if you would have had to try to guess when dialogue is occurring.
That is important for aging populations.  You can try to compensate for hearing loss over the years.  There is plenty of interesting things on that.
Finally, geographical playback dependency, that is an interesting use case, where you might have the exact same content and you have, you are playing a TV show, you are broadcasting a TV show, you have music rights for Europe but music rights for another continent are not the same.  You might have two tracks and depending on the geographical location that you will be playing this content, the system will automatically select the right one, the ones that is allowed in the country you are playing it in.
Challenges, here is the fun picture.  The eyesore.  That is the scary part, if you look at the top pink arrow there, supposed to be red but it's pink, cinema was one single ecosystem.  You author for cinema.  You encode.  You put down on the hard drive and put in the movie theater and it plays.
It was straightforward.  When it comes to the home, you have cinema content that is being translated for the home.  You have live content.  You have games.  User generated content, people with camcorders.  All these elements will go to all sort of devices, headphones, laptops, cell phone, you name it.
At any point of the ecosystem of the capture author encode transport decode render, you can jump from one device to the other.  It becomes extremely complex.  It's something that we are looking at a lot because it's sometimes stressful for content creators to say I'm creating my content in a system like this, how can I know how it's going to sound like on the other side, if it can go anywhere and I don't have the render in my room because I don't know where the render is going to happen with object audio.
It's a challenge.  In order to try to overcome the challenge, we need to define a common language and making sure that there is a core way of defining next generation audio, yet we need to leave room for future innovations.  We can't just define next gen audio in a locked manner.  We have to enable further innovations from all sort of companies.
Allowing the content community to proceed with confidence is what I mentioned.  Lastly, as I mentioned, so far the next generation audio has been traveling through the current ecosystems using legacy codex but obviously we need to deploy a new generation of audio codex specifically designed for next generation audio and will be efficient and flexible, etcetera.
These are big tasks, and it's something we need to take on.  To summarize, that is this picture.  Next generation audio is about immersive, personalized, accessible and manageable content.  As of today the immersive object based surround sound is here, process for supporting the content is being distributed and sold.  Personalized aspect and accessible and manageable aspect is being developed as we speak.
A lot of discussions are taking place with content creators, studios, broadcasters, content providers, and we are trying to optimize these and make sure that it suits both consumer needs and content creator needs.
That is it.
>> DAVID WOOD: Thank you very much.
  (applause).
We have sparkling pictures of course and then the personalized content at the point of use.  Now let's have a look at the world of integrated broadcast broadband with the Chairman of working party 6B, Mr. Yukihiro Nishida, you have the floor.
>> YUKIHIRO NISHIDA: Thank you, Mr. Wood.  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  You may not be aware of the name integrated broadcast broadband IBB system.  It is a difficult name to understand.  But let me explain.
IBB stands for integrated broadcast broadband.  This is a hybrid system, combining broadcast and broadband technologies.
As you can easily imagine that through the broadcast channels, we can develop high quality content.  On the other hand, over the broadband channels we can deliver personalized or interactive services to the audience.
This IBB system, hybrid system is combined, both broadcast and broadband features within the broadcast services.  Also, the current television sets are much more than a receiver for broadcast TV.
And also, you can already experience that advances over broadband networks, through the broadband networks you can already receive various content and even personalized services.  IBB system exploits this new technology and services within the broadcasting services.
As I already mentioned, networks have advanced rapidly over the years.  One is very high‑speed capability.  At your home, I think you have already enjoyed high definition television over the Internet.
Also technology has been enhanced, this means at the server side instead of the receiving side, the server can process even very heavy processing, like personal recommendation, etcetera.  Also, the cloud computing is much more popular now.  Also the so‑called social network service, and this is a combination with web‑based service, is also available.  Furthermore, at your reception side, you may have a different reception devices.  Of course, you have a main television set, but in addition to that main television set, you may have some tablets or smart phone.
Those devices can be used with the main broadcast services.  In this case one technology called communication is made possible.  In this slide both the main television set and the second screen devices are described.  You can see the server.  There are two possibilities.  One is the communication by a delay server and the other is the possibility to even communication directly between the main television set and your second screen devices.
This is the typical IBB system structure.  As you can see on your left‑hand side this is broadcaster's facilities.  Of course, at your broadcaster, broadcasting facility, you have a server ‑‑ yes, you have a server, and also that you have associated service provider.  So you can have two servers, one in broadcaster and the other in the service provider side.  On your right‑hand side, you have a main television set, in addition to the companion devices, like tablet or smart phone.
Yes, of course, from the broadcasting stations, broadcaster delivers various television service, and in addition to this television service, the broadcaster delivers various applications.  And also in this case, the application control signals to the home.  And at the same time, from the service provider, the different types of applications are also delivered.
And over the broadband networks, the communication between the reception side and server is also made.
In this way, the IBB, within the IBB system, both broadcast services and those applications services are delivered to the home.  At the reception site, yes, you can find some very technical terminology.  But simply stating, that television will show not only use of television services but also those applications delivered from broadcaster or service providers.  Furthermore, those second screen devices, like a smart phone and tablet, will be connected to your main television set.
And by doing this, the audience can enjoy more rich service at your home.
Broadband application has two types of services.  This application types is defined based on application life cycle, providers by different means.  In this case life cycle of application means when to start or stop those applications.  The first type of application is called service associated application.
The second type of application is called stand alone applications.  In the first type of application, called service associated applications, this is the broadcast centric application.  This is a part of IBB service.  This application can be tuned by a user at an arbitrary time.  In this case, as you can see, you have seen in the previous slide, broadcaster needs to deliver application control signals over the air.  And also some technology is required for the synchronization between the service and those applications.
In the second type of application, called stand alone application, this is a kind of resident application or downloadable, downloaded application.  This is not usually considered as a part of IBB services.
This type of application includes as a widget or third party applications.  Here you can see several examples.  This shows the basic type of applications.  On the upper side it is application launcher.  On the left side these are the examples from the HDTV services, and on the right‑hand side, these are the examples from the hybrid services.
On the down side, you can see one type of application, that is very common, that is a programme guide called APG.  This shows another type of application.  In this application, you can see a second screen, like tablet.  This tablet is used in association with the main screen.  The third type of application is for barrier free TV.
As you may know well, the increased accessibility to broadcast services is one of the very important topics even in ITU.  Now both ITU‑T and ITU‑R have been working on the technology for increasing the accessibility to services.  And I believe that such IBB system is, has a very high degree of potential for increasing, to increase accessibility to services.
Here, we can find two main examples of such accessible service.  On the top, it is a designer application.  The designer images are sent through the Internet, when you watch the news programmes.  On the down side this is a tech service.  In this case those can be adjustable in size or in color.  In this way, the audience can have a much more increased accessibility to broadcast services, in particular for those people with disabilities.
This is another type of application.  Please note that this application, these are from the service from the broadcast but these are just trial basis.  On the left‑hand side, in this application, this is a kind of multi view type of application.
When you watch television, in this case a baseball game, through a broadband channel, the different view of this baseball game is delivered.
So the audience can access to an arbitrary cameras on your screen.  In the case of on your right‑hand side, this is a second watch programme and each player is attached to the, maybe the name of those players, and those graphics are just delivered over the Internet.
But in both cases, the precise synchronization technology is required for the frame by frame basis.  So it requires a very high degree of technology for synchronization.
Finally, this is done with a type of application, this is for high definition television associated with IBB service.  As you can easily imagine, the ultra high definition screen has a very large number of pixels, as it was a large screen.  On your screen, ultra high definition television, various types of contents can be displayed.
This example is a golf tournament programme, and in the left‑hand side case, in addition to the main golf programmes, the audience can enjoy some video on demand programme, and even a game programme, golf game programme on your screen, when you watch the golf programme.
And also on the right‑hand side, this is another kind of application, where you can find the scoreboard, and even the course map of the golf.  Also on the very right‑hand side, you can see some subtitles, a small window, as there was a small window for social network social.
In this way, on the ultra high definition television associated with hybrid service, such a very rich content can be enjoyed by users.
In ITU‑R we have developed various recommendations and reports.  This slide shows the first types of recommendations on requirements.  There are two recommendations.  One is general requirements, and the other is a technical requirements.
These recommendations have been jointly developed  between Study Group 6 of ITU‑R and Study Group 9.  This is system recommendation.  The first one is recommendations dealing with architecture of IBB system, and the very latest recommendation, I think today is the final day of the approval process, and I hope that this recommendation can be approved.  But this recommendation deals with IBB systems specification.
Currently, this recommendation contains information about three IBB systems.  One is HDTV and the second is hybrid cost and the third is, it's the small TV platform.
This recommendation also provides some information for system selection guideline.  The third type is a report, this report contains much information other than as recommendation.  This report contains information on HDTV ... they are already contained in one recommendation.  In addition to them, the information about ginga is already contained in this report.
Here you can find a comparison of those systems currently contained in one of the system recommendations.  As you can see, there are many similarities between, among those three systems.  For example, every three system now has the same application environment called html 5.  And also those applications can be delivered both broadcast channels and broadband channels.  Regarding some delivery protocol, every system now supports but only hyber cast support transport.
And also the various Internet based protocol are supported, and regarding video format and audio format, you can see some divergence.  But they are already, those formats are already standardized mpg so IBB system is a solution for connected TV.  This provides a combination of TV, broadcast services and services delivered by broadband.  The IBB systems also provides features and functionality required to provide feature‑rich broadcast and Internet services.
Also, as I said, this IBB system can offer improved accessibility to TV for those people with disabilities.  The IBB capable receivers have been spread around the world.  I believe that new IBB services will be developed by utilizing various IBB functions.
ITU‑R has developed a recommendation report jointly by Study Group 6 and ITU Study Group 9.  I hope that IBB systems will be spread around the world.  Thank you very much.
  (applause).
>> DAVID WOOD: Thank you very much.  So we will have sparkling pictures with amazing quality and definition, we will have immersive and personalized audio, personalized to the point of listening audio, we will have connected content with some amazing opportunities there for creating synergies between broadcasting and broadband.
I like the name, didn't you, next generation audio, because it sounds like audio that will happen after I retire.  We have a few minutes.  The idea was to ask the people who gave demonstrations if they could briefly in a few words as they can, because otherwise Mr. Dosch will pull my Chair away if we go too late, say a few words about what you can see from the demonstrations, and starting from, is it Wily at the end there?
>> Yes, thank you, David.  Good afternoon.  The EBU is offering here four demonstrations, two of them in collaboration with DVD.  The demonstrations, all of them, they show what is already possible with DTT delivery, the terrestrial platform, digital terrestrial platform.
It is about showing that some ideas and some beliefs are wrong.  The first one, DTT cannot offer interactive services, this is wrong.  And what Mr. Yukihiro Nishida showed is the proof, and one of the demonstrations show you a live reception of DTT with HBBTV services already available.  If you like, you can see them live.
The second demonstration it's about showing that DTT can also be received on portable, portable devices, like iPads, tablets, and smart phones.  This was already, this was always thought that is not possible, but it is possible.  We show a way of converting the DTT received signal into IP and distributing it in indoors, through wi‑fi, and this makes it possible to receive, to display and watch the DTT services without having a DTT tuner in the mobile devices.
The third and fourth demonstrations in collaboration with DVD they show the capacity versus quality issue.  It has been thought that with DTT because it's terrestrial and has limited spectrum and no ‑‑ that it is under pressure still, that either you have capacity or you have quality.  In fact, with the available technologies now, you can have both.  One of the demonstrations show you two UHDTV programmes transmitted live in this room, in the room in fact outside, in one megahertz, DTT channel, two UHDTV programmes.  The other demonstration shows 7 HDTV programmes in one 8 megahertz channel.  Both are using HVDC techniques and they are both available now in the devices.  Thank you very much.
>> DAVID WOOD: Thank you.  Andy, could you tell us as briefly as you can what is available outside?
>> Yes, thank you, David.  As Chair of the Rapporteur group that was mentioned, Paul mentioned looking at extended image range within the ITU, we have a couple demonstrations.  This are over the far side.  Keep heading towards the vending machines.  You will find us in the corner.  You can't miss us.  Incredibly bright TVs.  We have two demonstrations.  One is a hybrid system, developed by the BBC and HK from Japan, the other is a system developed by Dolby, initially for cinema and now into television.
It's, these two are systems we are looking at within the Rapporteur group, to see what is best for all applications of broadcast television.
One other small demonstration next to it is something we did a little while ago but is worth looking at, what is the impact of high frame rate on the systems.  We have a demonstration there showing the difference between 60 frames a second and 120 frames a second acquisition and reproduction.
That is it.  But head right over to the vending machines to find us.
>> DAVID WOOD: They will be free drinks over there I guess?  No (chuckles) Stefan.
>> The idea is we would not be happy if we have speakers on the ceiling.  We concentrate on the personalization of the audio.  We have a demo of a sports event where you can select different languages, you can have dialogue enhancements and different mix, different balance between the background, ambient and the dialogues commentary.  And also we have the possibility to create a experience than normal TV environment.  It is outside to the right.  No vending machine, no free drinks.  Just audio.
>> DAVID WOOD: Thank you.  Christoph, you want to say a few words?
>> CHRISTOPHE CHABANNE: I'm going to have a demonstration, Stefan is covering the personalized side of things.  I'll be showing a iPad immersive audio over headphones, things I talked about, clips that have been offered and mix music and movies and things.
>> DAVID WOOD: There is a fantastically similarity if you like of vision to the future coming from the audio companies.  It's wonderful really.  Wish we had it in other areas.  No, I didn't say that.  (chuckles).
But yes.  Please go out and have a look in the coffee break at all of these demonstrations.  Take your cameras with you, because when you have seen them, you will know, you will understand the frontiers of audio.  I'm afraid I have to finish now, because I was told so by Christoph and we will just wish you a good afternoon and I'll hand back to Christoph.  Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, David.  You have covered the ten, 15 minutes that we have lost in the morning ‑‑ recovered.  So we thank you and all the presenters here for this support.
Now, I think it's time for coffee break.  And I would like you to come back, if you wish, at 15:50, 10 to 4, for the last session, which is then directly followed by the closing round table discussion.
Thank you.
>> DAVID WOOD: Coffee and see the demonstrations.
>> Yes.  Pick up the coffee and go with your coffee to the demonstrations.
  (break).
  (standing by).
  (standing by).
  (standing by).
  (please stand by.  The meeting will begin momentarily.)
>> Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon again.  We have to resume the symposium, because we really have to, for two reasons, we have to make, we have to take profit of the fact that the interpreters are still here.  They are going to leave us I think at 17:30 or 17:00 even.  Then we have to close or we would like to close punctually at 1800 to give you a little bit more opportunities for networking outside, and maybe also see one or the other demonstration.
Let's go straight into session number 4, the last session of today, which is entitled, building a sustainable ecosystem for digital TV.  The session Chair is Simon Fell from the EBU.
>> SIMON FELL: Nice to meet you all.  Director of technology and innovation at the EBU and one of my teams here today, Peter Mac Avock will be first up.  We have a interesting session from a number of different perspectives.  We also have Mark Richer from the U.S. giving developments.  Vincent Grivet from TDF to tell us what is next because he is the Chairman of the commercial module.  We have David Barrett, Chairman and Rapporteur group broadcasting spectrum requirements from the ITU, because spectrum and DTT go hand in hand, as we all know.  And we are all very keen to make sure that DTT does continue to grow and evolve as time goes on and it needs spectrum to achieve that.
Finally, Jochen Mezger from IRT programme distribution Chair for the CTN mobile group, which is the group looking at broadcasters' requirements as regards mobile technologies such as 5G, etcetera.
We will have a Q and A at the end.  We will go to our first speaker without further ado, Peter Mac Avock, in charge of distribution at the EBU.
>> PETER MAC AVOCK: Thanks very much.  Welcome.  I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the organizers, particularly Christoph Dosch and many of my colleagues in the EBU who have worked hard both to put the programme together, and to put the many demonstrations that are on show outside, at least some of them together.  They are interesting and worth a visit.  It would make everybody's life more interesting if you had a look.
The first question I have is the global importance of DTT.  I come from the European Broadcasting Union.  We are European.  So apologize if this is focused on Europe.
First question you ask is, DTT vital?  The answer is probably no, not vital in the strict sense but it is a efficient way of delivering content to mass audiences.  There are a number of facets to that.  No other platform promises the same population coverage as DTT, and that have been borne out in the many studies that have been used in various debates around the world regarding importance of DTT versus other distribution means.
We have done work in the EBU to understand how important it is, and if you look at the population coverage, you will see that most of the European countries have a population coverage of more than 95 percent of the population with the DTT platforms.
These compare favorably to figures associated with DTH direct to home satellite cable and IPTV and all of the data seems to suggest that DTT remains a vibrant and very efficient way of covering these huge swaths of population.  We have heard of similar stories from different parts of the world earlier today as we looked at the situations in the different countries.
If no other platform promises the same population coverage, could we extend that to the cases around the world of the various different DTT success stories or otherwise.
You can see that the prospects for DTT remain very strong, and we are going to hear later on about ATSC3 and developments in the United States.  You can look down to Botswana, where the DTT coverage using ISDVT is pretty high, 85 percent is not bad.  We have a little stalled in Russia, but we have government investment and expansion in DTT with analog switch over plan although postponed from 2015.
We have launch of DTT services in Brazil.  We heard about those earlier.  That is successful.  We have heard about launches in Argentina, Malaysia and elsewhere.
  (coughing).
The message is, DTT is here.  It is here to stay.  It has proved a cornerstone of the development of digital media services around the world.
From any countries, DTT is live television and vice versa, live television is DTT, and if you look out into the future where do we see this developing?
The answer is, it will continue the live DTT linear viewing will continue to erode over time, but the percentages to which it erodes still remain significant.
These figures are taken from the UK.  These figures show the evolution from 2013 onwards, and looking at projections out to 2020.
  (coughing).
You will see there is a rise in PVR viewing, there is a rise in video on demand viewing, there is a rise of other long form viewing on items such as broadband delivered services, and you will see a rise although not significant in short form video consumption.
But the basic message is that Europeans still watch over four hours of TV a day.  I don't know when they watch it.  But they watch four hours of TV a day.
Viewing is forecast to fall, all bad news but still looks like being nearly three‑quarters of all video consumption by 2020.  That is a substantial proportion.  What we are going to see is that there is increasing connect to device penetration which will erode linear viewing figures.  But having said that, linear viewing remains the way in which the vast majority of people consume most of their television.
A few conclusions.  The broadcasters may have obligations and they have many obligations both in terms of content production and in terms of ensuring appropriate balance.  However, the core message is, you still have to reach audiences.  For that DTT is key to doing that.
We are seeing there are more devices and each of the devices becomes more sophisticated and they stress the access networks, because everybody will tell you, mobile phone operator, DTT operator, broadcaster, MNO, they will all tell you the key driver is video.  It stresses the networks, it stresses the devices, higher quality video, longer form video, higher bandwidth video.
DTT could handle all of this to wireless devices, to fixed devices, if it was let.  The key thing is to try and ensure that it is let and it is let going forward, because we shouldn't be hung up on the access network.  We should be hung up on the fact that people want to consume video.
We see that DTT will remain a cornerstone of video consumption amongst mass audiences at least until 2030.  That is the key message we have here.  We shouldn't be afraid of it.  We need to work to try and ensure that we create the conditions that this may proffer.  Thank you very much indeed.  I hope to gain some of your time, Mr. Chairman.
  (applause).
>> SIMON FELL: Thanks, Peter, indeed you did.  Thank you very much, much quicker than I expected.  Now I think next thing is we will handle questions at the end, rather than individually as we go through.  We will hand over to Mark Richer, President of ATSC from America.
>> MARK RICHER: Great to follow Peter, tremendous presentation, agree with everything you said.  Except I hope it goes past 2030, because as a young man and needs to be able to retire, I'll be retired by then.  David Wood might be retired by then.  I saved four minutes.  I did it in half the time.  I get twice the time now, right?  That is the way it works?
As I mentioned this morning, ATSC standard was first completed in 1995, the emphasis on high definition television, a little different here than Europe, multi casting was a secondary thing but being able to broadcast additional channels was important.  5.1 digital surround sound, trying to programme guide, the list goes on.  Everything we have done since then up until recently has been to our on backward compatible enhancements to the first ATSC standard.  But ATSC1.0 as it's now called is 20 years old and it incorporates technologies that are about 25 years old.
In my view, industries prosper by leveraging new technology and broadcasting is no different.  Even when it means going to a incompatible system, as your next step, you have to figure out a way to do it if you want your business to continue to thrive.
Broadcasting needs new capabilities and increased capacity and we need to do it in a way which minimizes the use of spectrum.  We have to be able to do more with less.  That is just a political reality.
This is a revolution for us, appoint a new system that is not backward compatible with enough performance improvement, and services, to make it worth doing that.  ATSC3.0, the goal is to add value to broadcaster services, extend their reach, allow new applications.
Of course, higher quality video and audio, you heard about ultra high digital TV, immersive audio, some of these other things this morning, personalization, interactivity.  The list matches very well with the things we heard in the last panel.
As with most systems, when we think about them, we think about them in various layers, this is a pretty traditional stack here.  You will note that we broke off the piece on the bottom, as the basic file air system I'll mention in a little bit.  And of course our committee is made up to be consistent with those layers for the most part.
We want a flexible robust transmission system, when we look at the physical air, greater capacity, more bits per hertz, ability to trade off capacity for robustness.  This is something that ATSC did not have in the original DTV standard.  It was a good idea.  It probably would not have made much of a difference in our marketplace, but certainly now it has real import in applications.
To be able to enable on‑channel repeaters for robust indoor and mobile reception, channel bonding, using two channels together, operationally even if it's VHF and UHF is part of the goal.  Return channel option for emerging markets, we are looking at.  Of course, last but not least spectrum efficiency.
Where we are, in terms of the physical layer, there is a lot in common with DVDT2 that is one of the messages that I want to leave you with here.  A lot of the basic systems are the same.  That is because DVB has been working closely with us and actually participating in our work.  But of course, you have a new committee, new group working on things in the new environment.  There are things that popped out of it that are a little bit different.
We have spent a lot of time on putting together a bootstrap signal that provides synchronization and tracking of system types.  Recognition of system types.  It is a very robust system.  We have, are specifying nonunifying constellations which provide a little more gain, one DB perhaps, maybe one and a half DB.
And higher modulation orders, order options, layer division multiplexing, I'll talk about in a moment.  A variety of other things.
I think it was Phil Laven who put up a slide earlier today showing similar curves.  You can see that where the yellow circle is, is the single operating point of ATSC, A5 3R DTV standard.  Now that gave us one operating point.  There was a operating point that we were able in that time, in that time frame, made it possible to compress HDTV down to a single six megahertz channel.  It seems easy now but back then it wasn't.
Maximizing a throughput where HDTV was the target.  We are now close to the Shannon curve, Shannon limit, in performance.  Every bit counts.  That is very helpful.
The new system will also have a great deal of flexibility in terms of network topology, as we don't see a high power high tower going away in the U.S. and many other markets.  But we can see for certain applications whether it's mobile and hand held or to increased indoor reception, additional transmitters around the market could be helpful in some areas.
At the management and protocols layer, we used to call transport, we are looking for a variety of things but one of the major decisions we have made is that it will be a IP transport only to be used for broadcast delivery of both streaming and file content.
The sort of philosophy is to think of broadcasting now as part of the Internet, it's a very efficient part of the Internet as Peter pointed out for popular content to many users.  It's infinitely scalable.  But it is part of the Internet.
We believe that broadcasting should now be, continue to be a independent silo and take advantage of as much as possible of the evolutionary speed of the Internet.  It is bigger than broadcasting in terms of technology.  If we can leverage that, the IP area, that is a good thing.
Through all this, because .... all the IP based protocols are easily used in the ATSC3.0 system.
The next layer of the system is the application and presentation layer, that is what the consumer experiences, or interfaces with, video, audio, closed captioning, other accessibility tools, interactivity, personalization are all part of the story.
There is no doubt one of the key goals for ATSC3.0 is carriage of 4K, with possible 8K in the future.  We are also very interested and are studying, I think each of the things that were named in the last session, in terms of image enhancements.  High dynamic range, wide color gamut, pixel depth.  We want to be sure that at least HDTV can be delivered to mobile and hand‑held devices such as tablets.
The assumption from the beginning has been that we will use mpg HEVC which is good since everybody else seems to be using it.  It has a lot of different possibilities in terms of use.  It used to be that the degrees of freedom that we showed for a video in the old days was HDTV and standard definition.  Now we have all kinds of frame rates, spatial resolutions, temporal, color gamut, high dynamic range, all these things are going to give different options for broadcasters and other programme providers to choose from.  And capabilities, because broadcasters are going to have to look, because there is always a cost in terms of bit throughput, and there is also limitations in the number of bits any broadcaster can have.  We all work hard to make sure that is as high as possible, and that you can get those bits with a robust signal.
But you are going to have to think about each of these enhancements and decide where you get the most bang for the buck, both monetarily or in terms of usage of bits.  We are making the world more complicated for broadcasters, but only by giving them more capabilities.  We are also studying layered video coding.  Those of us who have been around a while know layered video coding has been proposed many times.
It has never really proven to be a good tool, but this time with the HD VC tools it may in fact be a good tool to have in the toolbox.  In fact, you might be able to use the scaleability to, for different services such as mobile and fixed receivers.
You heard a lot about immersive audio.  This is a big part of our work.  I won't go through.  You heard it in the last panel.  We think this is very important.  We think personalization of audio is important, especially the ability to raise up the dialogue level for those who are hearing‑impaired.
I thought another good example would be, of watching a political debate and being able to turn down the candidates that you don't like, might be a great thing; which in my case would be a lot of candidates.
We issued a call for proposals in December of 2014, for audio systems.  Now we are down to two of them, one by Dolby and one by mpg H alliance, which is Fraunhofer technical and Qualcomm.  We have gotten test material.  The systems are being evaluated.  In July there will be intensive demonstrations to our committees in Atlanta.  Interactive, we are also interested in.  We are interested in leaning towards using HBTV towards point 0 and html 5 of course, so a lot of commonality with what others are thinking.
If we can work these out we will have very common pieces of our standards.  I think that is great.  We talked about interactive targeted data add insertion as an example.  These are all things that we think are critical to the future of broadcasting.
Accessibility, our focus is on closed captioning.  In the United States it's a very high priority all the time.  Traditionally even in the analog days, the captioning was carried with the video.  The plan right now, the thinking is to decouple it from video and ATSC and making it its own essence and carried as its own data stream.
Doing work on water mark, to identify programmes.  This is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that the interactive data could be lost somewhere in stream, perhaps when it's received on the cable system.
This allows the system to recognize certain video content and reach out through the broadband connection and get that content.
We have a video water mark technology, that's being specified, and was based upon a submission by Sony, and a audio water mark that is based upon a submission from Verons.  We are working also on fingerprinting, and we are trying to stay abreast of what is going on with SMPT in terms of the open I.D. to make sure that we are completory if not compatible.
Advanced emergency alerts, this is of great interest in the United States.  This is a very powerful application, I think of terrestrial broadcasting.
One of the things that it will have, it has to have, is robust delivery, ability to wake up targeted receivers, so there will actually be a bit in our bootstrap that I mentioned earlier, which is again about ten DB, more robust, to wake up receivers.
All these pieces fit together.  We have also been working on the look of the complete ecosystem.  One thing we learned in the original transition it is not just about having terrestrial broadcast standard.  You have to understand how the content gets from production all the way through the chain and make sure that all the features and functions are working correctly.
So we have lots of block diagrams like that.  Our colleagues in the Consumer Electronics Association have formed a group and they are looking at receivers for next generation broadcast television.  We expect them to develop recommended practices and reports on ATSC3.06 receiver characteristics and probably receiver profiles.
Our participation is really high.  We have a number of people from many organizations participating in this specific work.  This was a snapshot we took a few weeks ago.  Many countries are involved, more than the ones on this list.  But I want to note that our colleagues from China are very involved, for the first time.  Our colleagues from Europe, not just Europe but officially representing DVB have been involved and have been very very helpful.  Colleagues from NHK and South Korea and of course other U.S. companies.
So schedule, first it's important to understand that ATSC3.0 is really a suite of standards.  The layers will have multiple standards actually.  Most will move to candidate standard this year.  Candidate standard in AHSC terms means we made the major technical decisions.  We have addressed specification.  We are looking to have it tested and implemented to make sure the technologies part is right, but also to make sure the wording is right, that everybody has the same understanding of what a given section says, so that we in fact do retain interoperability which is the goal after all of a standard.
We hope to see final improvement, approval of each document starting in 2016 and completion of the standard in the first, maybe the second quarter of 2017.
In summary ATSC3.0 is not a backwards compatible system.  It is going to support ultra high definition and immersive audio.  Personalization of both.  Robust delivery to multiple platforms, it has to support the viability of new broadcast models for broadcasters, and it has to be very flexible to accommodate future improvements in developments to the extent that we can do that up front with the new standard.
Thank you.
  (applause).
>> SIMON FELL: Mark, thank you very much.  We will have questions for you after I'm sure.  Now we will hand over to Vincent Grivet from TDF, Chairman of DV BT commercial module.
>> VINCENT GRIVET: Thank you very much.  Good afternoon, everybody.  I work for TDF, who is the main broadcaster in France.  But here I will speak mostly representing the DVB, the title of my presentation is what next for terrestrial broadcasts.  You may think I have some kind of crystal ball to answer that question.
I don't have one.  But we have a very active working group, working right now in DVB, and I may need that magic thing.  Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So, we have now in the DVB a group which is called CMT, commercial module terrestrial, which is dedicated to try to plan what should happen next with the DVB terrestrial broadcast specification.
The starting point for that is that terrestrial broadcast is a very, very important method and platform to deliver TV to probably certainly more than one billion and probably even more than two billion people in the world.  So definitely, it is a very, very important pillar of the digital and media society.  Within this environment, DVB is the leading standard, sorry to say that, Mark, but I think it's the case.  (chuckles).
And definitely, okay, but I think it's still true so far, DVB is implemented on a billion receivers worldwide, and a very large part of those receivers are terrestrial receivers.
So really, terrestrial broadcast and digital terrestrial broadcast is very important.  But it is evolving in a world which is an open world, where many, many things are happening.
This is why the DVB has gathered the CMT group to try to look at what should happen next with terrestrial broadcast.
We first looked and spent quite a lot of time trying to identify the key factors that are shaping the environment around us, and I'd like to share those factors with you this afternoon.
First of all, we looked at end users, which is quite important, because at the end of the day, I mean there are many institutions and committees and organisations that deal with television and terrestrial broadcast, but at the end of the day, it's a matter of bringing TV and entertainment to people and to make them pleased by that.  So definitely, we have to look at what end users do or are willing to do.
The first thing that we identified and it's been mentioned earlier in the presentation of Peter Mac Avock, is definitely there is a continuous increase in the consumption of video, which means that the on demand video which is very important, it's growing, is much more incremental than a substitution to linear TV consumption and definitely linear TV remains a very, very important form of media consumption.
Second, very important thing, definitely, is the rush to quality.  There is a very very strong appetite of everybody to have quality video on its screen.  You don't want, I mean very few people now would stand the kind of Internet video that all of us found very exciting five years ago, definitely the real TV experience of everybody is going to be HD very soon.  And there is a growing appetite for having even more than HD.  I think this is true in all parts of the world, where the parts of the world where digital TV is new are very very fast to adopt these higher quality standards, and nobody wants to deprive them of that.
The third trend, very important, is that most people are now using a variety of screens.  It is not just about the main TV screen.  It is about having a number of screens, different kind of screens, mostly at home, not only but mostly at home, and if all those screens are in your home, you need to have somehow a home network and a way that all the screens are sharing the signal that is received in a given home.
Again, although a lot is happening within the home, there is also a growing trend and that is the number 4, there is a growing trend that video and TV is consumed outside of the home.  And right now, I think in no part of the world, no part of the world there are satisfactory solutions in place, to bring a real TV experience outside of the home.
And then fifth and last trend on that slide here, there is a growing need or, it's diffuse but everybody understands that more and more things are happening on a TV set, and there is a need on the TV set and a TV experience to have security and privacy, as you want to have with your smart phone and your computer.
Broadcast terrestrial broadcast is also evolving in environment of technology, so it's important to look at the other trends that are shaping the world of technology, networks and business model.  And we have considered 7 important things here.  The first one is about broadband.  It probably is going to be true in not such a long time that most of the people will have access to some kind of broadband, if you have a soft definition of broadband, call it two megabits, three megabits.  But if you think of ultra high‑speed like ten or 30 megabits per second, which is what you need if you want to have a real HD or ultra HD experience, this is not going to happen very fast, even in the most developed areas of the world, and very few countries are seriously believing that all citizens will have a hundred megabits at their home door next year.  It is not going to happen very soon.  It is very costly to deploy such infrastructure to all homes in a country.  This is a very important factor to take into consideration, because if one would too quickly give away on terrestrial broadcast as a way to deliver high quality TV, one would create in effect a kind of second digital divide, maybe you could call it a TV divide, where some people with fiber in the home would have access to HD, and other people would have access to a medium quality TV.
At this point I'd like to share with you a more personal thing.  I happen to live in France, a country which is not underserved in terms of broadband infrastructure.  I happen to live in the central City of Paris, a area which is certainly not underserved in digital infrastructure.
However, I do watch TV on DTT in my home with my TV, and the reason for that is, it was the only comfortable way to have a robust, reliable stable access to HDTV.  France was very well‑known at a certain moment to have about half of the world IPTV subscribers.  There was a growing feeling that IPTV was going to do everything very quickly, and terrestrial broadcast would be needed another one or two years and would go away.
If you look carefully at things right now in France, eight out of ten IPTV set box, setup boxes are connected to DTT.  If you unplug the DTT plug, in a IPTV box, half of them will stop to show TV.  This is just to tell you how important terrestrial broadcast is, even in areas of the world where broadband is quite developed.
It doesn't mean that terrestrial broadcast and TV do not like Internet.  On the contrary, I think it is fair to believe that many, most of the TV sets will be connected to the Internet soon.  Mobile network are developing very fast.  As I mentioned briefly earlier, however, it is probably a little bit too optimistic to believe that a totally unconstrained usage and consumption of video and TV on a mobile phone can happen tomorrow.  There are big progress under ways in mobile networks but probably this is not going to be sufficient to bring immediately the kind of TV usage we would like to have.
The factor number 4 is about the continuous improvements that are expected in coding and physical layers.  Another very important thing is the world that is moving to big data and the kind of digital minded models that are starting to emerge in advertising, in broadcasting, Internet of Things, of course, another very important trend, and the move to global standards.
Finally, we have regulation, spectrum and society, which are not the least important change factors.  I think it is very well‑known that unfortunately, there is less spectrum to be available for terrestrial broadcast TV, so just like it was said before, we have to do more with less.
The good news is that I think we are equipped to do that, to a certain extent.  A second very important thing, and it's probably true in different meanings, in all countries of the world, is that there is a very strong coupling between terrestrial broadcast and general interest objectives.
Very simply, if you decrease the terrestrial broadcast footprint, and reach within the population of all countries, you are going to decrease in the same proportion the leverage that you have to implement general interest objectives.  We believe this is a very important factor to take into consideration.
Then there is a very important factor as well, which has to do with energy efficiency, and definitely terrestrial broadcast happens to be a very energy efficient platform.  I have read recently reports and I have no clue whether they are absolutely accurate or not, but I think they are very strong at catching attention.  There was a report published I think in the UK that projected that in five years, I think, half of the UK's electricity would be used by the Internet and 80 percent of the Internet would be used to deliver video.
I can tell you, because of the electricity bill that my company is paying to distribute TV to half of France, we are not using half of France's electricity, thank god.
So these are the factors.  Where does it take us in terms of the evolution of terrestrial broadcast?  I think it takes us in different directions, where I certainly cannot be final, nobody can be final, even the more that again the DVB's work on that is still ongoing.  But I'd like to share a few possible areas of evolution.
To make it a little bit simple or simplistic, there are probably two directions in which we are trying to go, we are going to try to evolve terrestrial broadcast within DVB.  The first access is the blue and vertical one, and it is definitely geared to service enrichment.  Right now, technically speaking, and I'm very pleased to have heard that from Mark speaking of ATSC3.0, that many things that are now in DVBT2 will be transported in a certain way into our American colleagues' standard.  The terrestrial standard from DVB, DVBT2 is a very advanced and state‑of‑the‑art technology.
For the coming years and I don't know the coming years mean eight years, 15 years, 25 years, like the end of your theory of ATSC1, but technically speaking, there are a few things that needs to be improved urgently in the DVBT2 specification, which by the way is only in its early days of deployment right now.
We are probably, we have much more work to do, and it would be good to do it rather quickly, than not quickly, is this, in this first axis of direction of adapting to the new media use case, and serving them and making sure we serve this new media use case.  If we don't adapt to these new patterns of media consumption, we are facing the risk that terrestrial broadcast would remain an excellent delivery mechanism for one use case, which is linear TV, but would not play a strong role with the other use cases, and we know that one given home or one given person is willing to have everything, and is expecting to have everything from more or less a single source.
I will come back to what precisely could this mean in terms of practical new services.  The second area or axis of development is the horizontal and purple one.  It has to do with capacity improvement and performance improvement.  Again, there is no emergency to move into this direction, because right now we have at least in DVB we have a very state‑of‑the‑art technology and there are possibilities but there is no emergency to move into this direction.
Going back to the first axis, a couple of ideas, and again I want to put a little bit of a disclaimer here, DVB is really in the middle of the thinking process.  We hope to have more precise and public I.D.s roughly at the end of the year.  But what is here on your screen now are only ideas and possibilities, and there is no official message here.
A couple of ideas, so the first one and there is no hierarchy, either, there is no meaning of priority, the first I.D. is to optimize the value and the efficiency, and this can be technical and this can be commercial, of terrestrial broadcast by making a usage of a return channel.  I want to make it very clear that we have no intention to create within DVBT2 or whatever a physical return channel.  The idea is to make usage of another return channel, but to use information that is going upwards so ground to air to optimize terrestrial broadcasts.
A typical use case is that the terrestrial broadcast transmitters would receive information on the reception conditions of all the receivers, and be able to make decisions to adapt the transmission patterns, profiles to optimize the reception quality.
The second one is the local content re assembling, it could be called local content insertion.  We believe insertion was a little restrictive.  We are not too sure about the wording.  The idea is that one given receiver is going to be able to combine objects whether they are files or flows that are received through terrestrial broadcast or through other mechanism, and rebuild locally a certain programme, a certain TV experience, that is specific to one user.
You can think of personalized advertising.  You can think of linking that to the enhanced immersive audio things we have heard earlier, so one home would receive additional audio objects, and would be able to create immersive audio experience locally, that would not be broadcasted.  You can think of many different things.
These definitely have to do with hybrid.  The third area, and there is an excellent demonstration that is not from me, so that is from our colleagues at EBU, there is an excellent demonstration of in‑home distribution of terrestrial broadcast.  If you have five people in the home, that are using five different screens, how stupid, how stupid it is not to make use of the powerful terrestrial broadcast flow that is available on the roof top to feed all the screens of the home.  Right now it is not happening.  I think it's a big mistake and we need to work on that.
Security and trust is important.  Then there is something which is a little bit more futuristic, but which has to do with on‑demand and file casting.  People are moving to an on demand media usage.  Why wouldn't we use the powerful broadcast infrastructure to bring them on‑demand files.
And there are other ideas.  All together, the message here is that we want to build, and that is probably again a higher priority than improving the technology and changing the physical layer.  We want to make sure that terrestrial broadcasts can be the heart of a service rich media proposal, so that it can maintain its value to populations which will not be able to get something else, and also to population who have a choice, so that it keeps a high reach and it remains a very attractive platform for all the stakeholders.
Second direction as I mentioned have to do with improving the core technical performance.  I don't want to be detailed here.  I have much less to tell than my colleague Mark on ATSC3.0.  This is really a more longer term thinking process that is ongoing within DVB.  Definitely there are possibilities to consider some changes and gains in the physical layer.  There will be although nobody can tell precisely about those possibilities, there will be possibilities to have next generation code ex‑beyond HBVC and all together this will help terrestrial broadcast to face in the future a growing demand for services with a constrained supply of spectrum.
But again, this is more longer term.  We see no reason to rush, even the less, that there are two very important tools in our pocket which are DVBT2 and HVBC which are only now in the very early days of their deployment.
As a way of trying to conclude, I just would like to re‑emphasize that terrestrial broadcast is right now and will continue to be a very, very strong pillar, and absolutely key pillar for the digital society and for the mass access to media.
I want to remind that in, and we did within our CMT group, a quantitative exercise to look at supply and demand.  And at some point in time, the result of that report will be published.  But I want to remind that with a simple terrestrial broadcast network, one country can very easily offer 200 megabits per second of an absolutely stable digital pipe.
This is something which has a lot of value, and which needs absolutely to be protected.
I really cannot see, even in developed countries like the country where my home is and my business is, I really cannot think of a attractive digital TV ecosystem which is the theme of our session, I cannot think of such digital TV ecosystem without terrestrial broadcast.  To be absolutely fair, I cannot either think of such digital TV ecosystem without a rich broadband network, whether stationary or mobile.  They need to work together.
DVB definitely is committed to help to develop such an ecosystem which will be, which will have to be very much open to integration with new use cases, to consider at a certain point improvements in the technical performance and potentially also to look at possibilities and option to have a global alignment of standards.
If we do such adaptations, definitely if we do the same conference in 2030, I am absolutely sure that we will also be able to acknowledge that terrestrial broadcast is a key contributor to a digital TV ecosystem.  Thank you very much.
  (applause).
>> SIMON FELL: Thank you.  Now we move on to David Barrett, Chairman of the Rapporteur group of broadcasting spectrum requirements at the ITU, going to tell us about the ITU survey.
>> DAVID BARRETT: Yes, thank you, Simon.  This is a short presentation, as a result of a survey which had the aim of trying to provide a global picture of the status of broadcasting, to find out how administrations and Sector Members see digital broadcasting developing in their countries.
While the survey contained responses from both administrations and Sector Members, their responses have been analyzed separately, and for simplicity of presentation, the figures referenced in the slide are based only on the responses from administrations.
This slide provides some of the background to the survey.  It shows highlights of some of the changes that have taken place since the introduction of digital broadcasting.
This is the next slide, and this is the current status of television broadcasting from the responses received from 63 countries.  You can see that together, some 59 countries or 59 of 63 are either operating digital television or planning the introduction of digital television.
This slide relates to the interest that has been expressed in responses for the new enhanced digital television services.  It is based on the 59 countries operating or planning the introduction of digital television.  Of 47 countries operating digital television, 31 are providing one or more HDTV services.  And of the 16 countries not currently providing HDTV, 13 are intending to introduce HDTV.
Of twelve countries planning to introduce digital television, eight are planning to include HDTV in their service provision.  Ten of 59 countries are considering the migration of all S DTV to HDTV, and 19 of 59 countries have either trialed UHDTV or considering its introduction.
This is a rather interesting slide, that came, that I think surprised me, and some other people as well.  This graph shows the, how the frequencies are used for intelligent broadcast and they are changing with the implementation of digital television.
The gray columns are based on the 31 countries with analog operation.  The orange columns are based on the 59 countries operating or planning the introduction of digital television.  Each band used by countries are recorded.  If a country uses band 1, 3, 4 and 5 it is counted for each band.
There is a clear migration from VHF to UHF.  Some countries with current or planned digital operation in 694 to 862 megahertz in this graph included in the orange column on the right are intending to restack into the band 470 to 694 megahertz in the future.  When they do, the N column will be shorter than it is as shown there.
Moving to analog radio, these are the bands that are commonly used by some of the 62 countries responding to this part of the survey for analog radio services.  The popular bands are the MF and particularly the FM band.
When you move to digital radio frequency bands, as a broader ranges under consideration, because now we also have in addition to analog radio bands, we have 174 to 230 megahertz and L band.
17 countries are providing digital radio services in one or more frequency bands.  This was a slight distortion in this graph.  For 174 to 230 megahertz the figure is purely for countries that are providing operational service, whereas for the figures shown for the other bands, include not only those countries that are providing an operational service, but also considering the introduction of digital radio.
You can see that 174, 230 megahertz is particularly favorable for introduction of digital radio.
This is the slide goes on to show the interest in introducing digital radio into a number of countries.  And the options that some of them are considering.  Of the 17 countries with existing digital radio operation, twelve are considering more digital radio, either in 174 to 230 megahertz or another frequency band.
Four countries are planning to introduce digital radio in 2015.  26 countries are starting all digital radio options.  And for a number of countries this includes the different broadcast standards and bands they would prefer to use.  However, again 17 of the 26 countries are specifically starting digital radio implementation in 174 to 230 megahertz.
This slide covers multi‑media broadcasting for hand‑held devices based on responses from 60 countries.  Finally, these are the references to the work that the circular letter relating to the questionnaire, and the preliminary draft report which contains the results on the analysis which has been submitted to working party 6A in document 570.
This presentation in fact only covered a fraction of the information that is contained in the draft report.  I would like to thank all the administrations and Sector Members for their responses to the questionnaire which provided working party 6A and Study Group 6 the wealth of information which can be used to assist their future work.
Thank you for listening.
  (applause).
>> SIMON FELL: Thank you, David.  Very useful survey.  We look forward to seeing the details of that later.  Now we hand on to Jochen Mezger from IRT, general manager programme distribution and Chairman of the EBU project called CTN mobile.  Over to you.
>> JOCHEN MEZGER: Thank you, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I was asked to talk about the relation of the upcoming fifth generation mobile ecosystem and broadcasting.  Why should I do that?  I would like to start with a quote, nobody needs ARD CDF RTL etcetera, this is not a quote from me.  But this is a part of an interview of the Net Flix cofounder Reed Hastings from the U.S. published last month in the well‑known German newspaper.  You can imagine this raises some contentions, and by the way I'm representing ARD and CTF, and for those not familiar with the German market, ARD and CTF are the biggest public service broadcasters and RTL is the biggest private service broadcaster.
What did Mr. Hastings mean?  He addressed not only those three named organisations but he said, he means all the traditional linear TV providers, BBC, NHK, global TV, whatever.  He said it's every linear TV focused company is like a fixed telephone in your hotel room.  It is always there but nobody uses it.
That is my starting point.
Have a look back.  Back then, in former times we had linear TV, linear radio, it was usually shared, a shared environment.  It was usually fixed.
Well, mainly fixed.  Well, even in the  '60s we had some mobile television.  This is an example of a Sony.  It is a Sony.  It could receive two TV programmes in 1963 impressively.
Today, we have a bunch of services.  We have not only linear radio and TV, but we have time shifted TV, on‑demand TV, second screen, social media, multi view, data itself with hybrid TV and so on.
The content and the service diversity it increased tremendously.  We have new market models.  Think of Net Flix.  We have global competition.  This is new.  This causes some new distribution platforms, new applications, new services.
When you have a look at the devices, it's not only a traditional TV set, a large screen TV set, now we have portable TV sets, smart phones, tablets, kitchen radios, hi‑fi stereo systems, radio and connected cars PCs and laptops.  Device compatibility are tremendously growing.  The use expectations are growing in terms of quality and availability.
We see demand for network resources increases as well.
What about the use behavior?  We see a change of the use behavior.  But and I think it was pointed out already, we still have a dominant linear viewing.  We have an increase of on‑demand viewing, but for the time being not at the expense of the traditional linear viewing.  Most linear consumption takes place at home.
But what about the future on demand share?  This is for the time being its belief.  I've heard all of the opinion.  So Mr. Hastings says, in the future we have 100 percent on‑demand, others say it will never change.  Others say it is 50/50.
It is a little unclear for the time being.
Is the use behavior changing?  I gathered some statistics.  This is a statistic from Germany and you can see linear viewing is quite stable.  The viewing time, the famous four hours per day, it's still there.
But when you compare to other markets, for instance, this is a diagram from the U.S. and the UK, you see, well, there is a decline.  There is an increasing nonlinear share but when you see how it consists, you see 50 percent of this share is on‑demand and the other 50 percent is digital media recordings.  So it's 50/50 but there is a decline.
We say better safe than sorry.  We have to be prepared.  When you have a look at the users, they want it all.  They don't care.  They would like to have it at home, at work, on the move.  They would like to use it in company, in a shared environment, in private, and they would like to be connected.
And they don't care about technology.  It has to be affordable and it has to be easy to use.  When we compare it and try to match it, what are the requirements of the broadcasters?  I tried to collect them and to gather them.  You see, okay, it has to be, this is our market model free to air, we don't like gate keeping.  We would like to be in the driver's seat.  We would like to have the service integrity.  We don't want to see others changing our programme.
We have to cope with emergency situations, we would like to maintain some prominence, quality of service has to be defined by ourselves, not by others.  We would like to define the region availability.  And it has to be independent of size of the audience.  Ease of use, of course, yes, needed, and low barriers for access.
And the most important issue is, it has to be cheap.  Now you get to be tough.  I have to remind you of the football world championship last year in Brazil.  The German team won that.  The TV market share during this final was literally more than 90 percent.  Why am I annoying you?  The problem was, there were so many barbecues out there, that people watched the final game on their smart phones, on their tablets, on the move, and the problem was, that the stream providers, they had to reduce the data rate in order to cope with the demand.
So we don't have a sufficient solution for such large events.  Thank god it was in Brazil.  There were many times, many hours of time shift.  Next time, it's in Russia, at least for the time being we expects that it's in Russia.  We need a solution for that.  When we check the use cases we have, we identified some use cases of increasing importance, which we cannot serve satisfactorily right now.  These use cases are, for instance, linear TV when we use it on a smart phone or tablet, while we are in a transient environment.  So on the move.
It's the same situation when we look at on demand TV or hybrid TV in a vehicle.  Why is it a problem?  One issue is, we don't have a linear TV receiver built in, in those devices.  This is not a technical problem.  This is a business model problem.  There are solutions.  For instance, outside you can see a solution by NHK.  They have built in ISBTV receivers so it is a business model problem.  We don't have a broadband multi cast mode.  The network capacities are too small for large scale distribution.  We have linear and nonlinear content.  As a consequence quality is not sufficient for large audiences.  Streaming providers have to therefore decline data rates if there is a lot of demand.  Or it's too expensive for users.  That is the problem.
The broadcasters, we are interested in new distribution technologies, if they can help to overcome these problems.  They are of increasing importance.  The question comes up, is 5G, the new upcoming fifth generation of the mobile industry, a solution for our bunch of new services?  Can we meet our requirements and the requirements of the users, to transport these new services in every environment we need?
Maybe.  5G could probably enable those, not adequately served use cases.
First of all, what is 5G?  What is it about?  It's about higher throughput.  They are talking about tens of gigabits per second with low latencies and high availability.  Very dense networks with a lot of connected devices, they talk about millions of devices per square kilometer.
They intend to be more energy efficient.  They intend to reduce the energy consumption by 90 percent.  They intend to be 10 times more cost efficient.  And I think this is maybe the bridge, they are talking about large scale video delivery and hey, come on, this is broadcasting as well.  Large scale video delivery.
And for the time being, broadcast is not or hardly mentioned in all the standardization processes.  Maybe this is a way forward.  What about the schedule, the time line?  Currently, they are collecting ideas on 5G.  They intend to start standardization with the beginning of next year, 2016 onwards.
And, it's intended to have first deployments, one idea is to be, to have a deployment in 2020, in the Tokyo Olympics.  Then a regular deployment onwards of 2020.
This is the time line.  This is just an observation from myself.  Currently I see there is a lot of momentum and support in the world.  There is policymakers, standardization bodies, researching institutes and industry, they are all gathering around 5G and discussing that issue.  I just collected some organisations dealing with 5G, and, well, it's all over the world.
For instance, the European Commission, they spend 700 million Euros for the development of 5G.  They expect another 700 million Euros from the industry.  They call it 5G PP P, public/private partnership.
Comparable initiatives there are in the U.S., in Korea and Russia and elsewhere.  There is opportunity for broadcasters right now.  On the other side, when I have a look at the value chain, there are some concerns coming with 5G.  What about the market models?  I think the traditional market models, they don't work for broadcasting.  What about the regulatory conditions?
They are quite unclear for the time being.  And do we just lose another chunk of spectrum?  Right now 5G there is a prevalence of wireless networks, and is it at the expense of other platforms?  It's dominated by telecos.  Maybe there will be more competition.  I personally believe that the economic viability has to be clarified.
This is the discussion about high power, high tower versus low power low tower.  We cover the whole of Germany with 150 transmitters, in order to do that with low power low tower EMBNS solution we would need 15,000, and the big question is whether this is economically viable or not.  To be honest I have some doubts.
If we do that, a broadcaster friendly design is indispensable.  I would like to make some advertising.  We at IRT are currently dealing with a project, so called IMB5 project, the integration of mobile and broadcast technology of the fifth generation.  We try to investigate what is possible and what are the possibilities and the down sides of EMBMS, when we use it not just for the solution for instance in stadiums or EMBMS is used in stadiums, it is the broadcast mode in the current LD standard but what is going on if we would use this for a nationwide coverage?  We implemented four sites.  We form SFN, single frequency network in order to check that.  It's an FDD base system with 15 kilohertz sub carrier spacing, technology from the shelf with 16.67 prefix, in broadcasting terms.  Ten megahertz channel.  We can use 60 percent of the resources for LTE MBMS.  This is the limitation of the system.  We use Qualcom handsets.  Yes, and we check that.  We can transmit some things, but it turned out, it's premature, I would say.
One could evolve the system but it has to be broadcaster friendly.  There is a consortium.  It's a bridge between broadcasting and mobile.  So we have a consortium together with Nokia.
5G, what do we have to do?  If we would like to do something, one can split the activities into a prestandardization part and standardization part.  Before any standardization, we should check whether there is a fruitful cooperation possible or not.  We should be clarify what are the new market models.  As I said before, I think we have to develop new market models beyond the traditional teleco models right now.  We have to be PSB friendly, for instance free to air.
We heard today there are some other activities and I think we should avoid any struggle between ATSC3.0 and next generation television and DVB and LTE MBMS.  I think it's premature to decide on any future spectrum decisions for 5G.
We need policy support, and we have to clarify the economic viability beforehand.
Then, when it comes to standardization, I would say we have to standardize the broadcasters' requirements which I mentioned earlier.  For instance, we would like to have a SIM card free solution.  We would like to have a one time only distribution.  It's impossible to have when you have for instance three network operators, you distribute your content three times.  You cannot afford that.  It's necessary to have a only one time distribution.
We advocate for inflexible use of high power high tower and low power low tower.  We have to transfer EMBMS towards 5G because it is a 3G and 4G technology.  Any implementation of such a solution will take place in the 2020s, and then the traditional EMBMS is likely outdated and we have to have a new technology in the fifth generation ecosystem.  Broadcasters, they have to contribute.
Greetings to Mr. Net Flix, I believe broadcasters will be needed for a long time and yes, we have to go for the other mile.  Anyway, thank you.
  (applause).
>> SIMON FELL: Thank you very much.  We have had some very interesting presentations covering a lot of ground.  I hope that the audience is still feeling lively enough to give us some questions.  Let's see if we have got any volunteers.  Here is one at the back in the blue.  Roger.
>> Good afternoon, Roger from free TV Australia.  I have two questions.  First of all, one for Mark, and then one for the panel.  Mark, did you mention and I missed the frequency ranges that ATSC3 is focusing on?
>> MARK RICHER: Hello, Roger, nice to see you again.  When you say frequency ranges, do you mean bandwidth?  Or do you mean frequency ranges.
>> Yes, VHF, UHF.
>> MARK RICHER: It will be VHF and UHF certainly.  Same as DTV is now.  We are also going to scale it to other bandwidths, which may be even more interesting, not so much 7 and 8, but if you go lower than that, and how that fits into the broadcaster's portfolio.
>> Thank you very much.  I have a general question, but I also want to provide an observation.
My question, my first question is, what do the regulators think?  I've got migration fatigue.  I started in this process as some of you know in 1997.  We went on air in Australia in 2001.  The offerings that we were proposing were HDTV, and 5.1 surround sound.  But what happened?  We had placed on us regulatory constraints.  Why?  The regulator wanted to migrate analog to digital, so that the public, the consumers weren't disadvantaged.
There were constraints on our transmissions, while there are expectations on our transmissions.  So I see now that there is a push for new image formats, and sound formats.  In 2013, you will be surprised to hear that the repeal commenced to get rid of the simulcast of and SDTV as the main channel to allow us to actually have HDTV as our main programme stream.
But the other disappointment is that after all this time, only 11 percent of Australians have surround sound systems.
So what I'm really asking is:  Do we not only have the business case but with some of these technologies where we see we are losing after twelve or 13 years some backward compatibility, are we prepared for the simulcast that will be required?  And have we a case for the regulators to demand the spectrum access that that will require?
So what strategy do we need to realize the migration to the next generation?  And what message do we have for the regulators?  Thank you.
>> SIMON FELL: Peter?  Vincent.
>> VINCENT GRIVET: Thank you, well, it's a very complex question you have raised.  I'm not sure I could capture all of it, and even the less answer all of it.  I have at least one thought which was maybe a little bit quickly mentioned in my presentation.  And it has to do with hybrid.  I agree with you that the kind of big bang migration from one level of service to another one raised many questions, and maybe are not so likely to happen again.  The good news is we have now those options of hybrid television, and you can much more comfortably think of maintaining for a longer time, a existing level of service and delivering through broadband what is missing to use a new level of service, but where not everybody has the right TV set.
And you will do it like that in a hybrid mode for, I don't know, depending on the pace of adoption, but you may do that for three years, five years.  When you realize that you have the good proportion of people equipped with the right receiver, then you can migrate the broadcasting to the new level of service.  It may not answer your full question again.  But I can at least think of that approach.
>> Peter is going to have a go.
>> PETER MAC AVOCK: I don't know, basically, Roger has posed a difficult question.  It is also multi faceted question.
The basic message is that, as was pointed to we live in a hybrid world.  I think one of the problems that the broadcast industry faces, is that the product life cycles that we deal with both in terms of the investments that broadcasters make in their infrastructure which are pushing out from 10 to 15 years to beyond 15 years at this stage, depending on who you talk to, so they are very long, and you also have the television set life cycle which is a mobile phone is nine months, a television set used to be twelve years, and it's now down to maybe let's say five to eight years, but there is still quite long life cycles.
The inertia in the whole market suggests that you can't simply launch new services very quickly.  But companies like Net Flix and others have come in and said we don't need any of that.  We will just launch with the stack and TV set.  That works for a while.
But it doesn't work forever, because you find that the distribution costs are very substantial.  And the example given is that for 3 percent of viewing in the United Kingdom on iPlayer there is 15 percent of the distribution costs that move with those 3 percent.
And that those counts are proportion to the number of users rather than the broadcast infrastructure.  We shouldn't ignore the value of the broadcast infrastructure.  We need to be mindful of the fact that the product life cycles are shortening in TV, but lengthening in the TV broadcast stations.  We need to ensure that when we introduce new technology we do so mindful of the fact that we can't simply bring out a new TV set every year and hope the broadcast industry will follow.  They can't.  The money isn't there to do that.  New services, yes.  But please bear in mind the product life cycles.
>> I have another one from Mark.
>> MARK RICHER: I think this is a different problem depending on what region you are in, and what each country, but a couple points that I'd like to make is, number one, whatever new service, whatever new technology, whatever new standards there are, you have to be really careful about what your minimum requirements are on the receiver side.
Some problems can be avoided by putting out receivers that have a certain minimum level of capabilities.  That is one.  That may change over the coming years with new technologies.
That is critical.  The second thing is, as we standardize new technologies, we have to make sure that as much as possible they can evolve into the future.  We don't have a crystal ball and it's a challenging thing to do because you put out platforms that you do in the beginning, and those provide some limiting factor.  But to the extent we can put in extra flexibility into standards to provide this evolution, we should do that and we should give that quite a bit of thought.
I think there are answers for Mr. Net Flix.  I'll leave it at that.  I think we are sitting on what he would probably, Net Flix would consider a great solution to his problem of distribution.
>> SIMON FELL: One answer for Net Flix might be that the programmes they wish to sell to their subscription audiences are often made famous on the free to air channels that they see for nothing in the first place.  Anyhow, any more questions from the audience?  Over there.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Richard from LS teleco.  I want to thank you for a very informative day, with lots of enlightening and interesting presentations.
The question I have really is to look ten years into the future.  We heard a lot about 4K and 8K and immersive sound all of which requires far more bits than we can currently deliver effectively with terrestrial television.
Also if we look at some regions of the world, which are not yet switching over, but which have delivery platforms such as cable and IPTV, that serve all of their delivery needs, and are looking at analog switch off instead of digital switch over, I wonder what the panel thinks the situation will be in ten or 15 years time with DTT.  Will it still be a primary platform, or will it be a niche platform for certain types of programming such as public service broadcasting?
>> SIMON FELL: Who would like to take that?  Christoph has a point.
>> I think we are in the midst of the discussion on the so called closing round table.  That is where we are now.  It is also the time, 17:20 when we should start the discussion.  Can we now declare officially that we are entering in this final round table discussion?  And I would like to invite our round table discussion moderator.  The Director Francois Rancy to come here on the podium.  And we will just continue, and another one would be David Wood and then we are complete with all the presenters of session 4 and the head, sorry, the Chair, session chairs.
>> (overlapping speakers).
>> If I can have a go at that question, so thank you, provocative question.  In the European broadcasting union, I think it's fair to say that many, in fact the vast majority of our members distribute TV over terrestrial networks.  It's also fair to say that they have a choice.  In many cases, they moan about the fact that they have to deliver television over many different types of platforms.
  (coughing).
Terrestrial is just one of them.  It happens to be very dependent on local market conditions at particularly in the European context, so the first, if that is the context, the first point I would make is at least in Europe, public service broadcast is not a marginal service.  It's a mainstream service.  It will remain mainstream service.
I don't see the public service broadcaster as being a niche service in ten, 15 or even 20 years.  But that is my perspective.  Others may differ.
The second point I would like to make is that in all of the predictions that we have tried to work out, and admittedly these go to 2020, 2025 but not beyond that, we still retain terrestrial broadcasting as a platform, not perhaps as popular as it currently is in some of the key markets but still a mainstream delivery platform.
We pointed to linear television at least in my presentation of representing even in 2020 at 70 odd percent of the consumption of video, and we see the split depending on DTT cable, IPTV and terrestrial, vary in between the different countries.  We still view it as being a platform in 2020 and that for mainstream services, not niche services as you might, as you pointed out.
That up to 2025, what is going to happen after that, I don't know.  But if I did know, I'm not sure I'd tell you.  I'd try to make some money out of it first.
>> SIMON FELL: Francois, over to you.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you very much.  I think we have similar transition from the fourth and last session of this long day.  I believe three questions we had on the agenda for the last session, two of them have already been discussed very much in the fourth session, efficient use of spectrum, and growth potential for TV broadcasting in view of new technologies.
And the convergence between broadcasting and mobile.
If I may add a few words on that, from my personal angle, I think when we are speaking of broadcasting, we are actually speaking of two things, and those two aspects have been discussed today.  One is the production of linear content.  The other one is the broadcasting of this content on one single frequency to a large population.
So I think we always think of two at the same time.  If you try to decouple them, I would think that the second one is more technical, and it relates to the efficient use of spectrum.  I think the fact that you use a single signal to dispatch to everybody is unbittable from the spectrum efficient point of view.
For this reason, I think it will remain, because spectrum is a scarce resource.
The other aspect of the future, is actually the future of linear content.  I think obviously, it's difficult to think of a future without linear content.  But at the same time, we have to recognize that people also want to be able to receive content that they choose from a large data bank, and that is the way of being able to open their choice.  At the same time, it's clear that they are very much likely to want to see the same content at the same time more and more often.  Okay.
So, I don't believe we are going to find a definite answer to this question.  But I wanted to raise that, we have actually two questions when we bring only one.
When we discuss the convention between broadcasting and mobile service, we are actually looking at the technical side, and obviously 15,000 transmitter will not cost less than one.  I wanted to touch upon the first point which is actually taking us back to the first session.  What is the status of analog to digital and digital to digital transition.  I think hopefully we have made it clear during this day that the fact that we are today on 17 June 2015, 119 countries have passed the deadline, doesn't mean we should have switched off analog transmission today, and those who have not done that are really in bad shape.  It is not at all the spirit of what was decided on 9 years ago in the GO6 conference.  Again, I would like to restate that very firmly.  What has happened last night is the transition from a regulatory regime, where digital transmission had to protect analog transmissions, to a regime where the opposite is true, and that means, that just means that from today, digital transmission can develop their full potential in all the countries of Europe, Middle East, Africa and central Asia.
So I think we should probably conclude that day reaffirming that very positive note, that many countries still have to do, complete the switch over to digital, but not switching off analog is not something of such importance.  It's what is important is to take the right steps, and I think today we have, at the end of the morning, or at the beginning of the afternoon rather, we have benefited from the experience of many countries in doing the switch‑over.  And we consider there are many aspects that need to be covered in the legal and regulatory level, and the political level, and the financial level, the communication level, all these aspects need to be taken into account for a successful switchover.
Obviously, there are situations where a political decision to delay things is much more preferable than trying to proceed when all the red lights are just flashing.
So, I think we have to recognize until many countries who already have switched off analog, the deadline has been postponed once, and sometimes twice, before succeeding, and certainly the situation will differ from one country to another, because many things can defer from political, social, cultural viewpoint which makes things different.
So with this introduction, I would like to ask if you have any more questions before we go to the last part of the day, which is to recognize the individuals which have played a great role in getting us where we are today.
>> Thank you, Chairman.  A couple of remarks on the third bullet point.  Regarding the conventions, in fact there had been a lot of activities at least within the EU and in the CPT regarding this, regarding the convention, there had been a huge study that the EB, the European Commission gave which result to the fact it was not a technical study, it was also an economic study and mainly that.  And in fact, the conclusion, which is the economic case for the converged platform is not yet made, okay.  There had also been activity in the CPT, preparing a decision on the position of the CPT on the UHF band which was to assess the future of the band, it was so called DG6 reporting to the European communication commission.  And the end is that mobile broadband so far at least is not in a position to replace DTT.
By the way, I would say the potential challenge of DTT may be fix broadband fiber in particular.  But of course, the time by which broadband, fixed broadband suggest fiber will reach the coverage that we currently have in DTT is far from now.  This is why in fact, it's understandable that when analysis of all those things, plan on one hand, GPT6 on the other hand, radio spectrum and policy group of the EU and by the way, it's also the position of the European Commission, and that is the position of the CPT that of course so far the spectrum for DTT has to be preserved, because DTT will be key, at least for 2030 and beyond.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you.  Yes, I think also Mr. Jochen Mezger made a interesting touch on that aspect of his presentation, referring to trials we have been doing with Nokia, and certainly, it is going to have to have reports and discussions, but I believe that in this circumstances, the field trial are really what can get us to really new elements for the decision in the future.  And if field trials show that the technology for mobile broadcasting devices is not right, then there is a need to improve it, because at the end everybody can also benefit from that.
So I think there is from the discussion, I understand there is still a lot of work before convergence of the technology code level happens between broadcasting networks and mobile network.  I can see also that there is a difficulty to that convergence which is a structural one in the sense that in most countries, the regulation of broadcasting is very different from the regulation of Telecom and it's done by different bodies.
As long as you have this difference at the conventions, it will be difficult, even if we can show that technically it's feasible.
Roger, you have the floor again.
>> Thank you.  I would like to offer an observation.  Ten years ago, convergence certainly stretched my thoughts, but it's been replaced by emergence, and the emergence is these devices.  We are now in broadcasting, mobile and many services being pulled by the consumer electronic devices.  Some of you know that I've been involved in the project for the digitization in Thailand and what amazing me and I demonstrated this to working party 6 and Study Group 6 recently, is that if you go out in the streets of Bangkok, look into the buses, the most prized possession of many of the young people is tablet TV.  It's really taken off.
I think we are being pulled by the devices, and therefore, these devices are emerging in all these delivery platforms.  So it's my view, I'm not worried anymore about the convergence issue.  It's the emergence of these devices that is the challenge that I find to the telecommunications operators and the regulator and the broadcasters in Australia.
Thank you.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you, Roger, I think this can be reconciled because these tablets are also in the mobile world, okay, and they are also in the broadcasting world, if they can implement DTT receivers.
I think at the end of the day, what will constrain the evolution of all the systems is the availability of spectrum.  We cannot expect that the spectrum available to mobile services at least over three gigahertz will expand forever.  I think we are close to the limits.  And users which do not take into account the fact that spectrum is a scarce resource will in my mind not go very far in the future.
Chris.
>> I would like to add a little piece of information here.  The broadcast community is well aware of all these intermingling of various devices where people would like to watch television and retrieve content, catch up TV and do their social networking and user, load up user generated content and so on.
And in order to cope with that, Study Group 6 has initiated new work item which we call broadcasting global platform.  That is really the idea on a longer term of course, to think on a very long term how we could achieve that the broadcast signal can be made available on all these devices in the hand or in the homes or in the cars of the public, and having only the need to produce it once.
And then, to adapt it to the various forms of delivery, so that the broadcasters create the content and the content is then available on devices.  That is the vision.  That is the basic idea.  We have just started to collect the requirements for that.  There is a Rapporteur group on that which was created, and that Rapporteur group is currently in working party 6B.  I invite you to contribute to this piece of work.
Thank you.
>> I'd like to comment on that.  There are interesting things going on, you mentioned Thailand, also we have in Germany DVT2 being planned with HEVC, more efficient codec, they are transitioning the transition network aimed at tablet and portable and indoor type devices.  The same thing is being planned in Turkey where they don't have a DTT platform.  They have a analog platform used only for local stuff.  Satellite is the most important platform there but they are planning to go for tablet type devices.  Here is a opportunity for mobile device manufacturers to put receiver chips in there and take advantage of the networks that will be built.  This is not something they are used to, because they often deprecate the FH receiver for radio, often in some parts of the world there is even a D.A. B type receiver in the phone, but that again is not exported to Europe, where we can make use of it.
Quite often, it's not about whether the device can receive the signal or not or whether the network is designed to reach portable device.  It is about what is the ecosystem if you like for making money out of content, and I think the sooner we can get over that issue and start to work together to make combined infrastructure, the better because mobile operators if there is three or four in the country and in many countries right now there are being contracted, I think the UK is the best example of that, they have gone from four, five mobile operators, they are going to three.  So what you are seeing is they are naturally being forced to use the same infrastructure.  Whereas broadcasters have done that for many years.  We have combined on the same transmitter site.  We have used the same infrastructure for delivery.  We need to see a bit more of that efficiency being used in these other platforms to try and make things work better for all.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you, Simon.  Any other intervention before we close this?  David, sorry.
>> I wonder if I could just be momentarily the devil's advocate.  I'm not ‑‑ of course I have a particular view on this, but I think maybe we are not hearing all sides of this discussion about the use of spectrum for broadband.
It seems to me that everybody agrees that on the basis of efficiency, that of course broadcasting is the right thing to do with the spectrum.  But I have certainly heard other arguments as well as that, and I wondered, and nobody has put them, so it might be just good to, if you like, know your enemy, and one of them is the question of which will bring the greatest industry benefit.
This is something that I've heard talked about in Brussels, I'm not arguing for it, but just laying it on the table, that there are those who believe that this is more important than efficiency.
The other thing is that convenience, convenience if you can afford the cost is something that people want and are willing to pay for.  We have the witness of that in Roger's remark about using tablets and so on.
I'm not arguing for the use of the spectrum for broadband but just signalling that hopefully, when you think about this, you have to think about the arguments from the other side as well, as your own very valid arguments about efficiency.  Thank you.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you, David.  I think what economists have been telling us, what is the best use of spectrum, I think is clearly stated by stating the best use is what brings the best benefits, the greatest benefits for the society.
Once you have said that, you get to where it's difficult to quantify, because the benefits could be economic, it could be for the industry, but it could be for the public, and this is in the name of, all regulators have been promoting competition.  But it could be for the cultural benefit of the society, for its smooth evolution towards a more peaceful model or more pleasant model.
When we get to that, it's clear that it's more difficult to quantify.  And of course, when you get to allocate spectrum, you also have to think of the police forces, the protection of the public, the defense department, the scientific community, etcetera.  I think we are still far from letting the economic aspect drive everything when we speak of spectrum because the society as a whole has to be taken into account.
This is the reason why decision on spectrum are taken at political level.  This fact seems to be discovered by many people today, but it has always been the case, I believe.
Yes, please.
>> David, I think if we didn't have broadcasting today, we would invent it.  We probably would call it something slicker, like wireless whatever.  But that may have been one of our biggest mistakes as an industry worldwide, is to continue to call it broadcasting.  That is called marketing, and we are not necessarily great at that, as a worldwide industry that we are, as such a big industry.
I think if we were to invent it today it would do linear things but we wouldn't deliver all content in a live linear way because we don't need to, we don't produce it that way.  It's produced, it's put in a can, and then it's sent out at some time.  Even though we operate all our broadcast stations in realtime, we should be delivering that content as file based content to devices and in that way, we can actually probably cut a deal with Mr. Net Flix and deliver his popular content.  We can solve business problems and public service problems by thinking a little bit out of the box with broadcasting.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you very much, Mark.  I think this is probably the best comment on which we could conclude this day.
My intention, Christoph Dosch's intention when we convened this meeting, this event, was to celebrate broadcasting, and what it has brought to society and what it will bring in the future.  I think this last comment illustrates very much that.
With that, I would like to close this session.  We are just on time.  And go to the final stage of this event, by recognizing some of the people who have dedicated themselves to the success of the G.E. 06 conference.  And who are also responsible for being together today to celebrate this success nine years after.
If I can ask them to come to the podium.
One minute, please.
>> Terry O'Leary, don't hide.  Chris, please come over.  (pause).
>> Yes, of course.  The photograph ... (pause).
>> We need a microphone.  Can we have this microphone, please?  It seems to work.  Yeah, it's working now.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Can you hear me from here?
>> Francois, you can do it here.  The microphone is now working.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: I have the pleasure, starting with Chris deepenback who chaired the first session of the conference in 2004.  Chris.
  (applause).
I will say that once, and then ‑‑ this certificate is awarded to Chris von deepenback in appreciation of your excellent contribution and to the occasion in the global development of the ITU regional agreement on G06.
>> Thank you very much.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Thank you, Chris.
>> This is of course a very nice document, which cause good memories for this conference.  Thank you.
  (applause).
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Now I call Jan douven, also a memorable actor in the conference.
  (applause).
>> Thank you.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Especially since everybody could see him in the distance (chuckles).
>> Thank you very much.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Terrence O'Leary.
  (applause).
Who was the father of the software that we use for planning the G06 plan, and you have seen in the video how completed this was, when this really served the conference perfectly.  Thank you so much, Terry.
>> Thank you.
>> I would like to say, we are working together.  It is too bad ... couldn't be here today.  Anyway, thank you.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: Sam Hi, not only administration within EBU but within the VR and tirelessly worked to make the plan successful.
  (applause).
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: We have other awardees that I would like to mention before we close.  But maybe somebody from the Russian Federation could come to receive the one for our most ancient hero of GE06, referring to professor Mark Kreshofov who completed 92 years this year.  I'm always impressed by the stature of this person, I'm speaking to Mark through if you allow me (chuckles).
>> Yes, absolutely.  I will pass it on definitely.
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: I think he is a carrier of over 60 years in ITU‑R Study Group 6 before it was even ITU‑R and before it was Study Group 6.  I cannot avoid to think when I'm thinking of that, that his work has covered the work of three generations of engineers.  That is really amazing.  So thank you, professor.
>> Thank you.
  (applause).
>> FRANCOIS RANCY: The other awardees could not come today, Ken Hunt, referred to him as one of the two fathers of the software that we use, Nigel Lefling from the UK, Daniel was instrumental in resolving the core problem between Italy, Tunisia and their neighbors, at a telling point in the conference over the weekend until midnight.
The co‑chair of the first session and Chair of the second session.  And Josh who was also chairing one of the key groups in the conference.
So, our recognition goes to all of you, and the ones I mentioned.  With that I would like to conclude this event and thank you for participating or for listening to it.  I think we wanted to celebrate broadcasting and I think we have done it rightly.
Thank you.
>> Can I say a word of thanks?
>> I'm sorry.
  (applause).
>> As Chairman of Study Group 6 I would like to thank you, Francois, for your continued support in preparing for this event, which was I think quite a success.  We had great demonstrations.  I would like to thank all those who have prepared, that have taken the pain to come here, they hustled to make it, to install the equipment and make it available to you.  So thanks to all those who made the demonstrations.  Thanks to all the speakers, of course, who came here to share their experience.
My special thanks would also go to your team, your team is incredible.  And it's not only your team, it's all the people in ITU as well, that I would like to ‑‑ it's difficult to single out a person, but I would like to mention at least one person, and this is Chris Patrick, has tirelessly worked in order to support us all in making this year possible and also Frederick who is the IT specialist who has made sure that we all could have the demonstrations and could have all this facilities here, and all the remote participation.
And then of course the team of Sanjay who did the remote recording, and helped us with the press and did all the press releases and assisted us as well.  I've certainly forgotten many people, Frederick and others.  I would like to point to our colleagues from the web side, who helped us.  This is Yannis and Vincent who helped us here.  Thanks to the interpreter who has left, who have left at 1730.  I don't know whether they will hear what I'm saying.  But anyway, I should not forget to thank them.  I thank you all for your attendance for having come here, for a one‑day event.  It is a big effort to come here for a one‑day event.  I thank you for all your attendance and I hope you can profit a bit from what you have heard and seen here today.  I wish you a very well trip home.  Thank you very much.
  (applause).
  (end of session at 1757)
		       RAW TRANSCRIPT 

Services Provided By:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132
1‑877‑825‑5234
+001‑719‑481‑9835
Www.captionfirst.com
                                   ***
This text is being provided in a rough‑draft Format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
                                      ***