Editors' Commentaries

By Dale Cripps

May 4, 1999

Convergence And The 8-VSB Modulation Debate

While the theme for this year's NAB was convergence, it was the least focused of any in my 15 year history with the show. The blur was best described by FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: "We seem to be moving from atomistic markets, with highly distinguishable products and services, into markets that are characterized by continuance of products and services, with lots and lots of highly splintered and fragmented market segments. But in each of these market segments they are really part of a broader differentiated product market in which prices and qualities of the goods and services in other splinters in that market have a very substantial effect on the viability of a business in one splintered market."

If you got that, you understand this year’s NAB.

Once unsteady on their feet, this year’s Internet crop moved stridently in the hallways both courting and repelling broadcasters with "incomprehensible" words and strange body language. Once barred from the door, cable personalities spoke this year at honors luncheons. DBS organizations sported big booths on the main floor (which augmented their high-profile speaking engagements). The dot coms of the world snapped their suspenders and told the world from NAB pulpits how it would go with digital TV. Multimedia seemed to surround the entire city, and through it all the NAB’s unflappable President Eddie Fritts sent the resounding message to all that DTV broadcasting was the big new kid on the block to beat. Mark Cuban of Broadcast.com seconded that, saying that it would come as a PC, but looking to the world like a DVD player with a remote "for instant ordering," of course.

Even with the unique "Fritts-spin," seasoned local broadcasters looked old and gray as they ogled in disbelief all the ultra-new digital landscape stretching endlessly and boundlessly before them. They struggled - some more than others - to figure out just what the benefits for digital might be to them (besides staying in business). They didn’t invent it. They didn’t ask for it. Did they? "It’s social engineering by the FCC," grumbled the GM of the Albuquerque NBC affiliate (who sat next to me at the FCC Chairman’s breakfast). Not only need he transition his principal facility to DTV involuntarily, he has more than 100 translators serving distant locals to consider. "There is no way I can afford to replicate that service," he sighs. "My audience is not into data." His loyal viewers residing in small rural communities, he laments, will lose their local connection to Albuquerque when NTSC is terminated. His investment in DTV is going to mean nothing but red ink. Still, like good children obeying parents, he will do DTV to satisfy the FCC mandate...even if he doesn’t understand the business reasons why.

E-Commerce, of course, holds fresh promise, and it is within every drop of mist struggling to become rain. Transactional business does look good, especially from older audiences, who like catalog ordering. Kids can download fast MP-3 music files and video games, mom can get the latest in weather, dad can check the traffic and grandma will draw down the life's works of Martha Stuart in a matter of moments. PC's with TV cards are cheap means for receiving DTV signals and 95 percent of business PC users could be acquiring them like they do a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM today--DTV being just another feature of the PC. "Soon it will be just a chip instead of a card," offers new billionaire, Broadcast.com’s Mark Cuban. "Not only can they decode the DTV signal so you can watch TV, but more importantly bits are bits. These TV stations with digital spectrum can distribute 19.4 megabits per second over-the-air or through a cable. They don’t have to be just for picture, but can used for anything. Bits don’t discriminate."

While data had been the holy grail a year ago, the last 6 months saw that vision fall to bits since no one could come up with a plan that didn’t cost more to produce then it could generate revenue. Prior to the NAB the winds again changed and the talk of the NAB was all to the glory of data. Even
Chairman of the FCC William Kennard said in his breakfast address that data was the most likely killer app for DTV (which brings to question whether mobile reception is part of the killer "vision").

One felt a certain compassion for the old point-to-multi-point veterans as they strained to "see" how they can still be the local prince(s) of this new generation of point-to-point communications without losing their once noble identity in life-the mass distributor of bulk programming paid for by a local or national advertiser. But it was obvious in talking to the broadcasters that they were not the ones to figure it out. That task is being left to those who have just recently solved their own acne problem.
Like youth itself, interactive television remains a world of confusion (but there are some interesting things working in the background that I will address in forthcoming HDTV NEWSLIST missives.) and will come of age, as we all do.

This was certainly not the year in which powerful broadcast executives declared in booming voices that they had all the answers. They didn’t even show up. Not one traditional network chief was spotted in public. Nothing was said by any of them as to how or when they would provide enough programming to sustain any H/DTV movement. They sent instead men and women to sift through the desert sand in hopes of finding a nugget of new hope - something they could understand and employ simply, and without sinking their ship for the trying. While doing this sifting, untimely magazine articles hit newsstands to pound on the big network managers in typically overstated dark language saying that their loss of still more market share and growing audience disaffection was "threatening" (though in many cases the networks still have greater audience numbers - even greater than in the "golden" era - due to the increase in population. Advertising revenue is up double digits.)

Ted Turner said for himself, and for the missing broadcast execs, "Stop the erosion madness. Don’t make any more channels. There are enough already!"

But Broadcast.com’s Cuban offers the ultimate in fragmentation &endash; user supplied content from cheap digital home equipment uploaded to Broadcast.com for redistribution through local TV outlets! Everyone is a channel! "There are going to be millions and millions of hours of user-generated content hosted on the Internet," informs Cuban. "It’s easier to adapt when you go with the masses." Err, who’s got the remote?

We more-simple folk could say that it was clear from this year's show that widescreen is the display for whatever this new fizz-biz is, and perhaps even flat panel will come to both office and home as the ultimate destination for all them thar bits. Digital is like fire. From it you can maybe make bread or a car that goes 160 MPH. The choices are nearly limitless...and that is the central problem as well as the chief virtue.

For those who still see themselves in television, every manner of production tool you need for entering or furthering the digital era was in Las Vegas, except the best and brightest coming out of college. Those budding talents are going to the more exciting culture of the Internet to become instant millionaires. I won’t get into the amount of this new equipment found there in Las Vegas, nor the qualifications of it since Mark Schubin sends out his excellent reports on such matters weekly. There were "solutions" in crapshoot town for everything...except for a new raging debate over the DTV transmission standard. Many were not anxious to see me take note of this debate, hoping I and others in news and analysis would let it go away unnoticed. But this one will not go away, and if permitted to fester, threatens to endanger the entire DTV movement. It must be put to rest ASAP with a single authoritative answer that provides renewed confidence to the "technically challenged" managers so they can move forward with DTV without further concern or delay. All success for DTV hinges on confidence, and the power that such a confidence produces. The proof of that comes from the shaking knees one sees with every ripple of opposition to the digital status quo. "This ship has sailed" is the typical means for quieting troubled waters, but those with memory of CBS color wheels disagree.

Here is the issue that won’t go away: A question over the utility of 8-VSB modulation in dynamic multipath environments has been raised, and the notion of substituting COFDM modulation has been proposed. Further tests to compare 8-VSB with COFDM have been organized in Boston for May/June of this year. The question is: Is this meaningful, or just "so what?" Nat Ostroff, Vice President of Sinclair Broadcast Group, ran a somewhat informal test of in-home indoor reception of 8-VSB looking for signals from his Philadelphia transmitter. The results were "surprising" to him and definitely not to his liking. The "tests" were conducted to see if the coverage with 8-VSB in the inner city, where dynamic multipath is greatest, was equivalent to their existing NTSC coverage. This was done close in to their transmitter (within ten miles) in seven homes. The signal was lost to all but the most carefully managed antenna placements. The conclusion drawn by Ostroff was that there simply had to be a better way to get those terrestrial signals to the H/DTV receivers in these ghost-haunted regions. If nothing changes, 8-VSB is not satisfactory for their business. Something has to be done before he is ready to commit to a $100 million DTV investment. He does not rely upon consumer adaptations or their extra efforts to secure DTV signals, and worries further that multiple DTV receivers in the home would require multiple solutions--like many rotating roof antennas.

A large majority of DTV people questions the validity of his "tests." A vocal group in Europe and the U.S., however, are adamant that he is right. The results fly in the face of other reports from more formally conducted tests (though indoor rabbit ear tests have not been documented to my knowledge). Ostroff answers with, "Sinclair may be the only network that really cares if DTV works and is successful! Many others are lost in a dream world that ignores the reality. We are also highly motivated to see success, and to see it ASAP. We have committed to this goal both financially and emotionally and have put our professional reputation on the line."

Ostroff has spoken previously on behalf of COFDM. Had he gone into these "tests" with prejudice? "Not in the least," he declares in forceful terms. "I was open minded. We have 60 stations and a $100 million dollar investment in DTV that we must make. We, nor anyone like us, can afford to lose one single viewer as long as that is preventable. I would embrace 8-VSB if it was replicating my inner-city NTSC coverage." Ostroff is not worried yet over the cliff effect that is inherent at the fringe with any digital scheme. He is more anxious about reaching the heart of a community where dynamic multipath conditions most occur. These are the consumers most likely to use indoor antenna rather than buying cable or DBS feeds.

Ostroff took his findings to the FCC. Bruce Franca said he was hearing nothing from Sinclair that the FCC had not expected to hear.

Is Ostroff pointing only to COFDM, or is that merely a symbol for any alternative that will give him better performance? Ostroff says COFDM is just a candidate, but one far enough along and should be considered. He believes the first evaluation of COFDM in this country was flawed, or insufficient. Here, strong disagreement occurs with those in support of 8-VSB. "We evaluated COFDM very carefully," offers Ren McMann. "We found it to be a good system, but not as good, or equal to 8-VSB for the US environment," says Nvision’s Birney Dayton. Zenith, the prime developers of 8-VSB, offers a mountain of data to show why 8-VSB is superior for use in the U.S environment in terms of power consumption and payload.

Has Ostroff raised a serious question then? Or, has he used his position to defame an infant and vulnerable technology in order to slow or stop the business of DTV engagement in the USA for his own purposes? "What are his motives?" asked those in support of 8-VSB. "How self-serving are they?"

Before hearing his responses, 8-VSB supporters gladly inform you of his motives: "Sinclair is not in the financial position to advance into DTV in the first place. Look at their stock price and business performance of late. It's not the technology. It’s their money woes and a tactic of delay and, perhaps, scuttling the whole thing.

"Look at Acrodyne (which Sinclair recently acquired a 32 percent interest in this public company)...that transmission company needs time to catch up technically. They want a delay. They are also losing tons of money."

Ostroff answer, "We invested in Acrodyne, a public company whose future DEPENDS on the success of DTV. I am the Chairman of its board. Do you think we would do such a thing if we wanted a delay?"

Ostroff bristles strongly at each of the opposition's charges, "I resent the implication that Sinclair has any other motivation except to get it right the first time! There will not be a second chance. The people who are making such claims need to search their own motivations for hiding a major flaw in the standard. The tests that we have performed have now been confirmed by several other independent broadcasters and a research lab. We are not kidding 8-VSB is a failure as a commercial product and will kill over-the-air DTV if allowed to remain in place. We will do everything we can to either get it improved now, or get it thrown out. We believe the very future of the digital rollout for over-the-air broadcasters is at stake. You can quote me on this!"

He adds, "We ARE a public company and people should be very careful what they say in their attempts to discredit us." As for Acrodyne, he explains, "When Sinclair acquired its interest I needed to write down some of the surplus inventory in order to get a clear picture of where that company stood. It is doing fine and this loss recently reported is no more than a reflection of this write down, not a reflection of on-going business conditions." As far as Acrodyne being technically up-to-speed, Ostroff points to transmission demonstration made at the NAB where both HDTV and NTSC were emitted from one transmitter. He also points to the fact that Acrodyne will get the lion's share (at fair market prices) of the Sinclair DTV transmission business, which is not inconsiderable. Finally, Ostroff says that it is not his business to stop DTV or injure anyone who wants to pursue that business.

Some go so far as to say Ostroff has emphasized COFDM to indicate that he has found the mobile reception of data business as the killer app for DTV. He laughs, "I don't think the data business means much in the first place. I certainly wouldn’t confuse the issues. Television is our core business and it is that business we are seeking to make as secure as possible. What I am worried about is making a deal with cable. What leverage am I going to have for insisting upon 'must carry' if I am not received in the inner city in the first place?" All have, or should have the same concern. Cable consultants advise their clients that where reach is extended by cable, the cable company has every right to charge the broadcaster for that carriage.

Those resorting to technical responses to Ostroff’s challenge say that his 8-VSB tests lack the good science of a formal investigation and should not be taken seriously by the industry at this time. Other broadcasters - and there are now more than 50 radiating digital bits - have not been complaining of this shortfall, at least publicly. Also, adaptive equalization in the receivers has yet to evolve to any sophisticated maturity. The 8-VSB is unarguably more subject to dynamic or moving multipath conditions, but highly tolerant to a static multipath. With adaptive equalization, the dynamic multipath problem is said to be largely revolved. Ostroff says that things like this move slowly while invention comes suddenly. This furthering of adaptive equalization is not invention, but evolution, and the time it takes to advance it is not on anyone's side.

One who played a major role in the standard’s setting for DTV offers a layman’s understanding of adaptive equalization. "Remember," he informs, "when you first got a modem it maybe did something like 12k. Now a modem operates at 56k. All of that speed increase is due to adaptive equalization." He leaves me with the impression that with DTV we are little more than at the "12k" stage. If that holds up Ostroff has, at minimum, gained a national platform to encourage hard work in developing adaptive equalization for 8-VSB receivers with his threat of revolt.

Some, myself included, think that the high visibility he has achieved on this subject was his principal motive and made the means for getting his message heard by the recalcitrant manufacturers. Advancing the art of adaptive equalization may be the easy way out of this potential dilemma.
Considering Moore’s law, it may be that a dual chip is made affordable for receiving both...that is if a complete agreement cannot be reached on one. The FCC could make that adjustment or addition to its rules after testing for interference, etc.

Those in support of 8-VSB along with broadcasters already using it offer up credible reports (CBS, WRAL, and others) that it works just fine. Most of these reports are based not on typical indoor use, but rather with outside vans using mast antennas moving about a district. Indeed, 8-VSB was selected by a coalition of U.S. broadcasters, their equipment suppliers, and by TV set makers. Would they, the question must be asked, be a coalition likely to shoot themselves in the foot with a multi-billion dollar investment that would discourage the whole of the digital transition?

Experts say that these two good and efficient systems (8-VSB and COFDM) are differentiated by philosophical approaches in their design rather than one employing superior physics over the other. In a 6MHz channel the 8-VSB does carry the greater payload (19.3 Mb/s) using less power than can COFDM (Ostroff claims 18.4 Mb/s) in the same channel. COFDM manages dynamic multipath by using many carriers as contrasted to 8-VSB's single carrier. But the many carriers require added error correction overhead, which takes from the payload (over the 10, 20, or even 40 year life of this system its a lot of data!). With COFDM you have far less antenna grief (a whip antenna has proved to work) and, as we said, more immunity to dynamic multipath. With 8-VSB there is directionality in receiving antennas and it may never be suitable for mobile reception - something interesting for the data side of DTV (but of little value for the core business of standard (H)DTV programming (except in Asia for public transportation reception).

((NOTE: We have one HD client who is lucky enough to have three DTV transmitters in his community. To receive them on his 8-VSB HD receiver he has placed three directional antennas in his attic. Other clients of our HDTV Magazine say they are not able to get a signal in their house yet without resorting to major efforts, but once these efforts are done, they say its all worth it.))

Ostroff has invited any and all willing to a "fry off" in Boston this coming May/June using both 8-VSB and COFDM systems radiating from the same geographical location. He thinks that this is the only way to gain clear understanding of real world conditions. How will the science of these tests be done? Some - including the DOD- have offered their own templates.

"Any delay caused by these activities could cost us three years or more," advises ACATS Chairman Dick Wiley. Wiley has no doubts regarding the superiority of the 8-VSB system selected under his guidance. Most agree with Wiley and think a delay caused by any tampering with the standard at this late date would suck the remaining wind out of the DTV sails, causing the ship to drift aimlessly, or even to capsize.

"This is my concern," says Wiley. This concern is the heart of most opposition to Ostroff more so than his conclusions. Fear that if one part of the standard is opened, all parts get preyed open (such as interlace being omitted, or layered coding introduced, etc.), and there could be no closing the door again considering all the rapid changes coming one after another into a debate, and then into a formal consideration (very time consuming consensus building).

Ostroff answers: "All I can say is if 8-VSB is as good as COFDM then there should be no problem with a ‘fly off’ The shrill voices of protest represent those who are afraid of a fair test of their representations."

Many just toss up their hands saying it is utter suicide for H/DTV to try at this late date to make such a major change to the one thing set in stone by the FCC in the ATSC standard submission. Smelling blood in the water, those who have wanted to make changes to the ATSC standard have sharpened their teeth and show them sparkling in wide smiles.

Sinclair is not a member of the ATSC and recently withdrew from membership in the NAB.

For a more in-depth report o the NAAB please join Dale Cripps and his new HDTV online service at: http://web-star.com/hdtv/hdtvnol.html.