Multi‐antenna diversity gain in terrestrial broadcasting receivers on vehicles: A coverage probability perspective

Abstract

This paper theoretically and empirically explores the reliability gain that can be obtained by installing multiple antennas in on-vehicle broadcasting receivers.Analytical derivations reveal that maximal-ratio-combining-based diversity allows a multi-antenna receiver (MR) to achieve significantly better coverage probability than a single-antenna receiver (SR). In particular, the notable MR gains for low-power reception and high-throughput services are highlighted. We also discuss various aspects of mobile MRs, including geometric coverage, volume of the users served, and impact of receiver velocity. To examine the feasibility of MRs in the real world, extensive field experiments were conducted, particularly with on-air ATSC 3.0 broadcast transmissions. Relying on the celebrated erroneous second ratio criterion, MRs with two and four antennas were verified to achieve notable reliability gains over SRs in practice. Furthermore, our results also prove that layered-division multiplexing can cope better with receiver mobility than traditional time-division multiplexing when multiple services are intended in the same radio frequency channel.

Implementation and test results of on‐channel repeater for ATSC 3.0 systems

“…The desired and feedback channels must be distinguished to apply the MRC+ZF beamforming in (9). Fortunately, this prerequisite is attainable because recognizable differences in arrival time and reception power exist between the desired and FI signals.…”

“…A 17.13-Mbps rate service was delivered through 7 The OCR could maintain more than 50 dB of power gap between the occupied band and out-of-band, satisfying the masking regulation in [54] recommended by ITU-R. 8 Validation tests were conducted for the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel transmissions. 9 Corresponding to 46.9 and 10.4 μ s processing capabilities, respectively. CH 56.…”

“…The physical layer of ATSC 3.0, beyond all, achieves 30% better spectral efficiency than ATSC 1.0 (for the same coverage) and provides super robust transmissions as well [7]. Combined with the ultra‐flexible transmission mode selection of ATSC 3.0, such basic features enable a variety of services (e.g., indoor, pedestrian, and in‐vehicle experiences; UHD television over‐the‐air; enriched side‐data for enhanced media; variable datacasting, and local content coexistence), which are of great interest to broadcasters [8,9]. Moreover, ATSC 3.0 was inherently designed to be compliant with Internet Protocol (IP), making itself further versatile [10–12].…”

“…of services (e.g., indoor, pedestrian, and in-vehicle experiences; UHD television over-the-air; enriched side-data for enhanced media; variable datacasting, and local content coexistence), which are of great interest to broadcasters [8,9]. Moreover, ATSC 3.0 was inherently designed to be compliant with Internet Protocol (IP), making itself further versatile [10][11][12].…”