I think they may have used my chip in Japan. But that's a nifty use of bonding for HD video. They would need to have a few seconds of buffer so they can reassemble the six cellular streams into one isochronous HD stream.
I was recently working on upgrading drone video from NTSC to HD (just 720P) a while back. There was a very nice chip that would compress an HD camera output into an H.264 digital stream. Their existing radio had the needed bandwidth, so all we had to do was get the compression chip on board. It went very well. I think all the military drone operators are now getting HD images back.
It's almost impossible to believe that H.264 (AVC) is now SIXTEEN YEARS OLD. Some of us don't even have cars that old anymore.
But I also remember that, with the editing computer workstations of 2003, the H.264 codec was enough to bring even an enterprise level machine to its knees, especially in a 32 bit environment, which described most systems still in use at the time.
And now H.265 (HEVC) is experiencing the same kind of computational "jet lag" and it also comes with some hefty licensing fees, at least compared to the older MPEG fee schedules.
Hardware mfrs are loathe to get cornered with those MPEG fees.
I remember when JVC changed TWO single header bits on a frame in order to create their own workaround to the MPEG-2 based "HDV" codec so that their hard drive and SD card based consumer camcorders could be price competitive.
The JVC codec was .TOD and all you had to do was rename the file extension and a TOD file would work in any editing software, but it caused a ton of anguish among editors who did not have the engineering chops to understand JVC's cute little parlor trick.
Far as they were concerned, a TOD file would not work, period.
I don't know if anyone is trying to backdoor the H.265 codec but take a look at it, as it is quite astounding, if you don't already know about it. H.264 vs H.265 — A technical comparison.