SMPTE Meeting Presentation

Layered Division Multiplexing: Basics Concepts, Application

Scenarios and Performance
Pablo Angueira, PhD - IEEE BTS Distinguished Lecturer
Associate Professor, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Dpt. of
Communications Engineering, Bilbao Faculty of Engineering. Alda. Urkijo S/N, 48013
Bilbao, Spain.

Written for presentation at the

SMPTE Sydney 2015 Technical Conference & Exhibition
Abstract. This paper presents Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM), a technology that may be
used to provide a flexible multi-layer system transmission by means of spectrum overlay. This
technology can be used to simultaneously deliver multiple program streams with different
characteristics and robustness for different services (mobile TV, HDTV and UHDTV) in one RF
channel.
In Layer Division Multiplex (LDM) the signal to be transmitted consists of a number of different
independent signals superimposed together at different injection levels to form a multi-layer
signal. Each layer can have its own characteristics. The top layer is the most robust one, which
has a negative Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) system threshold value, and can be used for robust
mobile service. The lower layer(s) can be used to provide fixed high data rate services, such as
multiple High Definition Television (HDTV) and Ultra High Definition Television (UHDTV). For
example, DVB-T2, or an alternative design of a high data rate transmission system can be used
for the second layer. The upper layer signal can be a separate program, or be used for delivering
supplementary bit rate to be combined with the lower layer signal to provide additional features or
achieve higher quality of service (e.g., scalable video coding and placing audio on upper layer for
extra robustness).
Keywords. Digital Terrestrial Television, DVB-T2, ATSC 3.0, Layered Division Multiplexing,
Cloud Transmission, UHDTV, SHEVC, Mobile TV.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily
reflect the official position of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), and its printing and distribution does
not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. This technical presentation is subject to a formal peer-review
process by the SMPTE Board of Editors, upon completion of the conference. Citation of this work should state that it is a SMPTE
meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2011. Title of Presentation, Meeting name and location.: SMPTE. For
information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact SMPTE at jwelch@smpte.org
or 914-761-1100 (3 Barker Ave., White Plains, NY 10601).

Introduction
Efficient and flexible use of the spectrum is one of the engineering research areas that has
driven more efforts during the last two decades. First with the analogue to digital transition
and the adoption of standards developed during the 90s, and later with the development of
second generation broadcast standards during the first ten years of the XXI century, this
topic has become more and more relevant to broadcasting [1][2]. At the same time, other
communication sectors have increased the pressure for further spectrum attributions to
broadband wireless access [3]. Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) is a flexible multi-layer
system transmission technique aiming for a better use of spectral resources.
LDM uses spectrum overlay technology to simultaneously deliver multiple program streams
with different characteristics and robustness for different services (mobile TV, HDTV and
UHDTV) in one RF channel. The system allows the delivery of multiple layers on the same
broadcast channel (spectrum overlay), where each layer is associated with its own injection
power level, and lower-layer signals are recovered by means of signal cancellation
techniques.
This feature provides a wide range of possibilities for flexible use of the RF channel,
enabling the broadcaster to mix different services with independent and differentiated
robustness. Inserting a second data stream below a desired signal has been implemented
before in the legacy ATSC DTV system [4][5], which is called hierarchical spectrum re-use or
spectrum overlay technique. One of the beauties of LDM is the implementation simplicity.
The additional computation power requirements for the second layer are OFDM demapping
and subtraction.
The use of hierarchical structure for delivering multiple streams is not new in broadcasting
and has been proposed previously. Nevertheless, none of the existing proposals allows all
streams (layers) to transmit using 100% of the time and 100% of the television RF channel
bandwidth. In comparison to Time Division Multiplex (TDM) system (the US mobile TV
standard, ATSC mobile), frequency division multiplex (FDM) system (Japanese TV standard
ISDB-T), or combined TDM and FDM system (DVB-T2), which either transmit data in part of
the time or part of the RF channel bandwidth, LDM has the advantage on the total
aggregated data rate and better time-frequency diversity.

Concept description
System foundations
In LDM the transmitted signal is formed by superimposing a number of independent signals
at desired power levels to form a multi-layer signal. The signals of different layers can have
different characteristics, i.e., different coding, bit rate, and robustness. For the top layer,
however, such characteristics are chosen to provide a very robust transmission that can be
used for mobile broadcasting service to handheld devices. The bit rate is traded for more
powerful error correction coding and robustness such that the receiving signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) threshold is a negative value, e.g., in the range of -2 to -3 dB [6]. The negative SNR
value indicates that the system can withstand combined noise, co-channel interference and
multipath distortion powers that are higher than the desired signal power. Such a low
threshold makes the top layer highly robust against co-channel interferences, multipath
distortion and Doppler effects.
There is one immediate use case for this technology. In this case, the system is based on a
Single Frequency Network (SFN) where all transmitters broadcast a signal composed by two
(or more) layers. The LDM signal is composed of one robust upper layer for mobile and
portable services and a second layer transmitted with an injection level dB below the
upper layer. The lower layer will have a configuration suitable for high data rate services
(HDTV, UHDTV) to fixed receivers. With appropriate cancellation and/or demodulation
2

techniques, the receiver is able to detect, demodulate and decode both layers, which is
equivalent to frequency re-use the 6, 7 or 8 MHz RF channel twice.

Use case hierarchical spectrum

The hierarchical spectrum reuse consists of two synchronized signals (frequency, power,
and probably also time) broadcasted on the same RF television channel. This is possible
due to the robustness provided by the LDPC code and cancellation and/or demodulation
techniques at the receiver. With this approach, it is possible to inject a first signal, stream A,
and on the same channel, another signal (stream B), where stream B could be a DVB-T2 [7]
signal or some other signal format. In principle, there is not any restriction for the second
layer choice. Nevertheless, if the second layer is based on OFDM, with the same FFT size,
symbol period and pilot pattern as the upper layer, the receiver implementation will simplify
significantly. In this report, it will be assumed that the second layer (stream B) is a DVB-T2
signal, which has the same RF channel bandwidth, is frequency locked, and clock
synchronized with the upper layer signal (stream A).
The spectrum efficiency of the stream B can be around 2 to 8 bit/s/Hz with an SNR threshold
of 6 30 dB depending on the selected DVB-T2 mode [8] (T2 limited to 256-QAM). The
combined multi-layer system spectrum efficiency will be about 2.5 - 8.5 bit/s/Hz. For an
8 MHz TV band, the total expected data rates are in the range of 15 to 40 Mbit/s, with about
3 to 4 Mbit/s very robust data for mobile service and the rest for fixed multiple HDTV
services or even UHDTV-4k service if HEVC coders are used [9]. It should be mentioned
that injection levels between data streams are flexible, as well as the modulation and
channel coding applied on each data stream for different reception robustness requirements.

Transmitter and receiver block diagram

Figures 1 and 2 show a Layer Division Multiplex system diagram. At the transmitter, the
signals of different streams are superimposed with specific injection levels, after being
separately formatted and encoded. A third data stream C could be further injected at e.g. 5
dB, below the stream B. In this case, Stream C has also the same RF channel bandwidth as
that of the other streams (A and B), and will be frequency locked and clock synchronized
with the other layers.
At the receiver side the initial blocks after the antenna are the same as the standard OFDM
receivers. These include: the RF front-end (tuner), IF system and Automatic Gain Control
(AGC), carrier recovery, time synchronization, and equalization. For an OFDM modulation
system, for simplicity, all layers should use the same size of FFT, same guard interval length
and same in-band pilots.

Figure 1. LDM transmitter and receiver diagram.

Figure 2. LDM receiver diagram.

On the other hand, different modulation schemes can be applied on different layers or even
on different data carriers in the same layer. The physical layer pipe (PLP) concept used in
the DVB-T2 system can also be applied on each layer. Actually, the multi-layer approach is
equivalent to a layered PLP.

Difference with hierarchical modulation

LDM can be understood as a generalization of the hierarchical modulation technique. In the
recent history of the broadcasting, there are other systems that have previously considered
merging two components on the transmitted signal in the form of hierarchical transmission.
For instance, DVB-T [10] and DVB-NGH [11] have some working modes based on
hierarchical modulation, which enable two layers of the same information message to be
transmitted with different robustness.
Nevertheless, the LDM scheme offers some substantial differences when compared to
DVBs hierarchical modulation. First, in LDM, the lower layer insertion is done at cell level,
and therefore, it allows having different transmission chains for both layers. That is to say, in
a layer division multiplexing system, the upper and lower layers may have different time
interleavers. This is a clear advantage as both layers are targeting different services, and
therefore, they have different requirements. In the classical approach, the modulation is
done at bit level, within the BICM, and thus, from there on both streams share the same
transmission modules. Second, the constellation associated to the lower layer injected
constellation point (DVB-T2) does not have to share the same quadrant as the upper layer, it
depends on the upper layer constellation and on the injection range. An example of this
concept is shown in figure 3.
Figure 3 shows, on the right, the lower layer constellation for a 64-QAM signal, where for
each quadrant a coded colour has been assigned. Thus, the green colour is associated with
the upper left quadrant, whereas the black colour marks the lower right points. The figure on
the left shows the multi-layer constellation when a QPSK signal for the UL and a 64-QAM for
the LL have been added with a -3 dB injection level. It can be clearly seen how some points
of the legacy layer constellation cross to other quadrants, and therefore, this is not the case
of a classical hierarchical modulation.
Furthermore, in the classical concept of hierarchical modulation of DVB systems, only QPSK
modulation can be used for high priority bit stream, and only 16-QAM/64-QAM for low
priority bit stream. In contrast, the idea of Layer Division Multiplexing would allow any
modulation on any layer, where modulation schemes among layers are independent.

Besides, in DVB systems, the injection levels of different layers are fixed values, whereas in
the LDM system, the injection levels are flexible.
MultiLayer

1.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5
-1.5

-1

-0.5

Lower Layer

1.5

0.5

1.5

-1.5
-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

Figure 3. Multi-layer constellation example

The optimization of the injection levels (difference between upper and lower layers) and
different constellation cancellation, demapping and decoding is still a topic for research.

System capacity discussion

It should be pointed out that the main advantage of a spectrum overlay system with layered
transmissions is the spectrum efficiency. In the proposed system, all streams (layers) are
transmitting using 100% of the time and 100% of the RF channel bandwidth. In comparison
to TDM-ed systems (ATSC mobile), FDM-ed systems (ISDB-T), or combined TDM and FDM
systems, which either transmit data in part of the time or part of the RF channel bandwidth,
the spectrum overlay system has the advantage on the total aggregated data rate and better
time-frequency diversity [13]. Meanwhile, higher data rate can be traded for better
robustness via error correction code. The flexibility of selecting injection levels between
layers is another tool to set the robustness.
From a theoretical point of view, the capacity analysis for LDM using two different streams
needs to be analysed. The following equations show, first, the upper layer capacity designed
for deliver mobile services, and second, the lower layer capacity which is defined to offer
UHDTV.

m
CUL B log 2 1

f
N

(1)

CLL B log 2 1
N

(2)

where m and f are the mobile and fixed layer power value respectively, being m/f the
injection range and N is the overall noise power. It should be noted that this approximation is
based on the assumption that co-channel interference can be treated as a regular white
noise [12]. The other two main options for multiplexing mobile and fixed services are TDM
and FDM. In that case the resultant capacities are:

Cmobile mobile B log2 1 SNR

Ttotal

(3)

 Tfixed
Cfixed
B log2 1 SNR
Ttotal

(4)

Comparing the previous equations, it can be observed that both TDM and FDM are scaling
the BW while maintaining a constant value for the SNR, whereas LDM system varies SNR
and uses the full bandwidth.
Figure 4 shows the RF channel usage for the TDM/FDM signal (left) and for the LDM case
(right). In the upper part of the figure it is shown how, in high SNR case, mobile and fixed
services work well for both systems.
However, single layer mobile system wastes some channel capacity. In the lower part of the
figure, low SNR case depicted. In low SNR case, only mobile systems work, and it is clear
that a single layer system wastes some channel capacity, because its mobile service only
runs on a part of the RF channel. Therefore, it can be observed that while the hierarchical
Layer Division Multiplexing allows a complete exploitation of the bandwidth, the other
multiplexing techniques always leave a frequency band unused.

Figure 4. System capacity of TDM/FDM systems vs. LDM system

The injection lever provides another control parameter for broadcasters in LDM system. In a
TDM/FDM system, all OFDM carriers must be transmitted in the same level. So in a 8 MHz
system, if an equivalent 2 MHz is used for mobile in TDM/FDM approach, it means only
2/8 = 25% of power is allocated to mobile service. In a 2-layer LDM system, if the inject level
is 6 dB apart between upper mobile layer, and lower high-data rate layer, it means 80% of
power is dedicated to mobile service and 20% of power is for fixed service. By varying
injection level, the distribution of power to difference services can be controlled. It needs to
be considered that the total power is regulated by the spectrum authority. If injection level is
10 dB, it means 90% power for mobile, while 10% for fixed service. This gives broadcasters
more flexibility.

System Performance
Table 1 shows a comparison between different combinations of LDM and TDM/FDM modes
using DVB-T2, FEFs and DVB-NGH under AWGN channel conditions. The lower layer of the
LDM is DVB-T2. The thresholds have been simulated using the DVB-T2 CSP platform and
an equivalent development tool for Layer Division Multiplexing created by the University of
the Basque Country, CRC Canada and ETRI Korea.
The table shows how LDM is more efficient than current TDM systems. The columns on the
right represent the MODCOD, bitrate and SNR thresholds of an LDM system with two layers.
The first, upper layer MODCOD is QPSK 6/15 and there are three possible MODCOD
configurations for the lower one, ranging from 17.7 Mbps to 32.9 Mbps.The right columns of
the table display numbers for an equivalent TDM configuration, where 25% of the frames are
allocated to the mobile service. In this case, the threshold for a similar bitrate on the mobile
service is higher than 9 dB, whereas the thresholds associated to the fixed service look quite
similar.
Table 1. Layer Division Multiplexing vs. NGH+T2 (values calculated for a 6 MHz channel).
LDM (two layers) vs. DVB-T2+NGH (single layer)
8 MHz RF Channel
Mobile 50%
Capacity

LDM System
Upper
layer
(Robustmod)

Mobile 33.3%
Capacity

Mobile 25%
Capacity

Data rate

SNR
(dB)

Data rate

SNR
(dB)

Data rate

SNR
(dB)

Data rate

SNR
(dB)

3.1 Mbps
QPSK1/4

-1.0

2.5 Mbps
QPSK 2/5

-0.2

2.6 Mbps
QPSK 2/3

3.1

2.5 Mbps
QPSK 4/5

4.7

Low layer w. -4 dB injection

Fixed(T2) 50%

Fixed(T2) 66.7%

Fixed(T2) 75%

Low-rate

17.5 Mbps
16QAM 2/3

14.4

18.1 Mbps
256QAM2/3

17.8

18.2 Mbps
64QAM 2/3

13.5

18.3 Mbps
64QAM 3/5

12.0

Mid-rate

26.3 Mbps
64QAM 2/3

19.0

N/A

27.2 Mbps
256QAM 3/4

20.0

27.2 Mbps
256QAM 2/3

17.8

High-rate

32.9 Mbps
64QAM 5/6

22.3

N/A

N/A

34 Mbps
256QAM 5/6

22.0

LDM: 16K FFT, GI= 1/16, P12,2.

TDM: Fixed 32K FFT, GI = 1/32, P24,4; Mobile 8K FFT, GI = 1/8, P6,2.
All SNR power levels are referenced to the total RF in-band power (of all layers)

Simulations in different propagation channels

The performance of the LDM technology has been tested for a wide range of system
configurations, injection levels, modulation and coding (MODCOD) combinations,
propagation channels and broadcast network structures. The tables below show the system
performance for both stationary and mobile channels. The MODCOD combinations are only
a few examples of the overall test results[12][14]. The mobile channel is the TU6, with
Doppler values ranging from 5 to 75 Hz.
Table 2. Stationary Channels
UL
LL
LL
LL

QPSK
16QAM
64QAM
256QAM

4/15
3/4
2/3
2/3

AWGN
-0.4
15.4
18.9
23.2

RICE
-0.1
15.9
19.2
23.5

Rayleigh
1.3
18.8
21.5
25.7

0dB Echo
0.8
18.7
21.3
25.8

Table 3. Mobile Channels

UL

QPSK

4/15

fd=5 Hz
2.0

fd=5 Hz
2.3

fd=5 Hz
2.4

Lab Tests
The tests on the laboratory have been carried out using two different equipment sets. A first
phase of testing has been carried out in 2014 at the University of the Basque Country using
a prototype transmission-reception system based Software Defined Radio[15][16]. The
second set of measurements were carried out during 2014 and 2015 at the ETRI, using the
first hardware prototype of LDM (see HW Prototype). The lab set-up at the University of the
Basque Country was based on Vector Signal Generators and analyzers as the digital to
analogue and analogue to digital converting modules.

SW

HW

HW

SW

D/A VSG

LDM IQ Generator

SDR LDM Receiver

A/D VSA
RF Output
Matlab
Tx

IQ
Producer

Hard
Disk

Results

RF Signal Recorder
Channel Model Simulation

AWGN noise Addition

Figure 5. Laboratory Test Set-up

The objective of this round of testing was to evaluate the implementation loss associated to
ADC/DAC, synch impairments, real channel estimation, etc. The following figures provide
some result examples. More data can be found in [14].

Stationary Channels

Mobile Channels

Figure 6. Lab System Performance (loss related to ideal performance)

The results are in line with the expectations for a first generation receiver. It is remarkable
that the difference between simulations and lab implementation for mobile worst case is
lower than 2 dB.
8

Field Trials
During 2013 and 2014 a field test was operative in Bilbao (Spain) in order to test different
reception conditions for LDM. A pre-recorded LDM signal was transmitted from the
Banderas Transmission site, currently used to broadcast regular DVB-T services to the
metropolitan area of Bilbao. The test included fixed and mobile measurements. The results
have been already published in [14] - [18]. Figure 8 shows the results of one of the
measurement locations, where empirical data were compared to lab and computer
simulations.

Figure 7. Field Test Data

Table 4. Field Test Data.
Frequency
Transmitter ERP
Antenna
Tx Antenna Height
Altitude (a.s.l)

690 MHz
35.68 dBW
4 Element UHF Pannel
48 meters
216 meters

Upper Layer: 8K, GI=1/32, CR=1/4, QPSK, R=2.3 Mbps

Low er Layer: 8K, GI=1/32, CR=2/3, 256-QAM, R=30.1 Mbps

10

10

-1

-1

10

10

-2

-2

10

10

-3

BER

BER

10

-4

10

-5

-6

-6

10

-7

-2

Lower Layer:
256QAM, R=2/3,
30.1 Mbps
8k FFT

10

10

-8

-4

10

-5

10

10

Upper Layer: QPSK

R=1/4, 2.3 Mbps.

-3

10

10

AWGN: Simulated
AWGN: Laboratory
Field Test

-7

10

AWGN: Simulated
AWGN: Laboratory
Field Test
-1.5

-1
SNR (dB)

-8

-0.5

10

22

24

26
SNR (dB)

28

30

Figure 8. Field System Performance

9

Implementation aspects
Latency
For a Layer Division Multiplexing receiver that is designed to receive only the mobile (top)
layer signal, the receiver system can be really simple. Only stream A decoder is required,
without the need of other stream decoders and re-modulators [19]. This single layer receiver
is very simple, energy efficient and can be easily integrated into portable and handheld
devices.
On the other hand, for a Layer Division Multiplexing receiver that can decode the high-data
rate lower layer by means of cancellation, the first step is to correctly decode the upper
layer, re-modulate the decoded data, and then cancel it from the received signal [19]. Once
the upper layer has been removed, the decoding of the second layer signal can proceed.
The exact memory and complexity requirements at the receiver side depend very much
upon the point where the upper layer and the lower layer are combined.
In option 1, the two layers use different time interleavers, which can be different sizes and
structures for different services and robustness. As a constraint, the use of the 2D FEC
increases the receiver complexity, as the time interleaver is most memory consuming. In
fact, the upper layer interleaver latency accumulates for lower layer signal demodulation.
In option 2, the two layers share the same time interleaver. This option reduces hardware
(memory) complexity and latency, since there is not latency accumulation for the decoding of
the lower layer.

Memory
The use of LDPC error control coding can be also very effective in a Layer Division Multiplex
system. Considering a two-layer system, the upper layer is operated at very low SNR (e.g. 0
dB) for mobile reception. When there is sufficient SNR to decode the lower layer signal, the
first layer decoding will have a larger SNR head room than the required SNR. In this case,
upper layer decoding can be significantly simplified by reducing the computation complexity,
truncating the LDPC code length, reducing the decoding latency, and saving memory and
power.
It should be noted that when a convolutional interleaver is used, it can save 50% of memory
and reduce latency by 50%. However, a re-interleaver is needed to recover the transmitted
sequence, which needs another set of memory and delay. There is no gain to use
convolutional interleaver. Instead, the 2D block interleaver can reduce the latency and
memory by 50% in high SNR environments. This is the case for upper layer signal decoding,
when there is sufficient SNR to decode the second layer signal.

Conclusions
Layer Division Multiplexing is a spectrum overlay technology is used to simultaneously
transmit multiple program streams with different robustness for different services in one RF
channel. A multi-layer system makes a more efficient and flexible use of the spectrum, as
each layer fully uses the entire RF channel bandwidth. That is to say, a two layer system is
like implementing two independent mobile and fixed networks in one RF channel. The upper
layer will normally be targeted for robust low SNR mobile services and robust fixed service
with large coverage, whereas the lower layer would be best suited for high SNR, high data
rate services.
Simulations show that a combination of LDM and DVB-T2 outperform a TDM scheme (DVBT2+NGH). In a TDM scenario, it seems reasonable that a maximum of 50% of the resources
(time) would be allocated to the mobile carrier, whereas in the LDM approach there is no
restriction for the mobile/fixed power allocation ratio. Regarding the mobile layer

10

performance gain, it ranges from 1 dB to even 5 dB depending on the assumed time slot
assigned to the mobile layer in DVB-NGH. Furthermore, in the case of the high-capacity
layer (DVB-T2), performance gain can be up to 3 dB.
If fixed services would be the optimization target, the DVB-T2 component of TDM can be
configured to outperform by 2 dB its equivalent in LDM (DVB-T2 lower layer), but in that
case the DVB-NGH component of TDM would require 5 dB more than the LDM upper layer.
Therefore, the main advantages of the Layer Division Multiplexing are spectrum efficiency
and flexibility. All layers transmit information simultaneously using 100% of the time and
100% of the RF bandwidth. It has better time and spectrum diversity to achieve a higher
aggregated data rate and better flexibility on robustness and data throughput on different
transmission layers.
The complexity penalty of this technology is associated to the receiver side. It mainly
concentrates on latency and memory requirements to perform cancellation. Nevertheless,
the degree of complexity will strongly depend on the FEC structure used to implement the
LDM approach. In areas where there is enough available SNR to decode the lower layer, the
number of iterations to decode the LDPCs of the upper layer will be five or less.

Acknowledgements
This paper represents a complementary of material compilation for attendees to the IEEE
Broadcast Technology Society Distinguished Lecturer program Tutorial at SMPTE Sydney
2015. The research materials and results summarized here have been developed by three
teams at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU, Spain), Communications
Research Centre (CRC, Canada) and Electronics and Telecommunications Institute (ETRI
Korea). The complete set of results can be found in the references below.

References
[1] Jiang, T.; Li, C.; Ni, C., "Effect of PAPR Reduction on Spectrum and Energy Efficiencies
in OFDM Systems With Class-A HPA Over AWGN Channel," Broadcasting, IEEE
Transactions on , vol.59, no.3, pp.513,519, Sept. 2013
[2] Gozalvez, D. et al, "Combined Time, Frequency and Space Diversity in DVBNGH," IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol.59, no.4, pp.674-684, Dec. 2013
[3] Meintel, B., Broadcast Spectrum Issues in North America, Future of Broadcast
Television Summit, Nov. 10-11, 2011, Shanghai, China.
[4] Rong, B. et al, Signal Cancellation Techniques for RF Watermark Detection in ATSC
Mobile DTV System:, IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol.60, no. 8, pp.4070-4076,
Oct. 2011.
[5] Park, S-I. et al, Augmented Data Transmission for the ATSC Terrestrial DTV System,
IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 58, no. 2, June 2012.
[6] Wu, Y. et al , Cloud Transmission: A New Spectrum-Reuse Friendly Digital Terrestrial
Broadcasting Transmission System, IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 58, no. 3, pp.
329-337, Sept. 2012
[7] EN 302 755 V1.3.1 (04/12) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Frame structure channel
coding and modulation for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting
system (DVB-T2), European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Geneva,
Aug. 2012.
[8] TS 102 831 V1.2.1 (08/12) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Implementation guidelines
for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting system (DVB-T2),
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Geneva. 2012.

11

[9] Bossen, F. et al, HEVC complexity and implementation analysis, IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. Video Technol., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 16851696, Dec. 2012.
[10] ETSI EN 300 744 V1.6.1 (01/09) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing Structure,
Channel Coding and Modulation for Digital Terrestrial Television, Geneva, Jan. 2009.
[11] Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Next Generation broadcasting system to Handheld,
physical layer specification (DVB-NGH). DVB Document A160. Geneva, Nov. 2012
[12] Montalban, J. et al, Cloud Transmission: System simulation and performance analysis,
Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2013 IEEE International
Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 5-7 June 2013.
[13] Zhang, L. et al, Channel capacity distribution of Layer-Division-Multiplexing system for
next generation digital broadcasting transmission, Broadband Multimedia Systems and
Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEE International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,6, 25-27
June 2014.
[14] Montalban, J. et al, Cloud Transmission: System Performance and Application
Scenarios, Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on , vol.60, no.2, pp.170,184, June 2014.
[15] Lee, J-Y. et al, Performance evaluation of lower layer system in cloud transmission for
terrestrial DTV broadcasting, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting
(BMSB), 2014 IEEE International Symposium on, vol., no., pp.1,3, 25-27 June 2014.
[16] Regueiro, C. et al, Cloud Transmission system performance in portable indoor
environments, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEE
International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 25-27 June 2014.
[17] Montalban, J. et al, Large size FFTs over time-varying channels, Electronics Letters,
vol.50, no.15, pp.1102, 1103, July 17 2014.
[18] Gil, U. et al, Cloud Transmission System performance for mobile urban scenarios in the
field, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEE
International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 25-27 June 2014.
[19] Kwon, S. et al, Analysis on two dimensional block interleaver for the cloud transmission
system, Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2014 IEEE
International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1,3, 25-27 June 2014.

12