Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FCC and Sinclair

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:19:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sinclair is one of only a few true OTA broadcasters at heart. Most other
broadcasters caved to Congressional and special interest pressure and
voted to keep 8-VSB in 2000. At that time 67% of broadcasters said that
they favored COFDM but voted under massive intimidation to stay with 8-VSB.

Sinclair never gave up and pushed for the fixing of 8-VSB. They never
wavered even though they were tarred and feathered by the ignorant
masses for the last four years.

Now Sinclair can claim a victory and it is all theirs. They were
responsible for providing the impetus for better 8-VSB tuners when
Zenith and every other proponent of 8-VSB was claiming that generation
1, 2, 3 and 4 were all but perfect. In fact I remember press released
from 1999 that said that generation 2 8-vSB receivers had solved all
indoor and mobile problems. I can only imagine the hyperbole that will
accompany the PR of these latest Zenith receivers.

Especially how they will compare them to generation 4 receivers. I
expect that zenith will claim amazing multi digit improvements over
their already "perfect" 4th generation. They have done it before. No
memory, no shame.

As Bruce Franca, acting chief of the FCC engineering and technology
office said, "Sinclair deserves kudos for pushing development of 8VSB a
few years ahead of where it would have been otherwise, and for pointing
out where 8VSB still needs to go."

8-VSB still has to go a long way to compare with where COFDM has been.

There is still that Linx chip.

More about : fcc sinclair

Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:19:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YVMxc.27371$Tn6.6901@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Sinclair is one of only a few true OTA broadcasters at heart. Most
other
: broadcasters caved to Congressional and special interest pressure and
: voted to keep 8-VSB in 2000. At that time 67% of broadcasters said
that
: they favored COFDM but voted under massive intimidation to stay with
8-VSB.
:
: Sinclair never gave up and pushed for the fixing of 8-VSB. They never
: wavered even though they were tarred and feathered by the ignorant
: masses for the last four years.
:
: Now Sinclair can claim a victory and it is all theirs. They were
: responsible for providing the impetus for better 8-VSB tuners when
: Zenith and every other proponent of 8-VSB was claiming that generation
: 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all but perfect. In fact I remember press released
: from 1999 that said that generation 2 8-vSB receivers had solved all
: indoor and mobile problems. I can only imagine the hyperbole that will
: accompany the PR of these latest Zenith receivers.

========================
Only BOOB can flip-flop defeat into a "victory"
http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_200468_72.shtml
==============================
:
: Especially how they will compare them to generation 4 receivers. I
: expect that zenith will claim amazing multi digit improvements over
: their already "perfect" 4th generation. They have done it before. No
: memory, no shame.
:
: As Bruce Franca, acting chief of the FCC engineering and technology
: office said, "Sinclair deserves kudos for pushing development of 8VSB
a
: few years ahead of where it would have been otherwise, and for
pointing
: out where 8VSB still needs to go."
:
: 8-VSB still has to go a long way to compare with where COFDM has been.
:
: There is still that Linx chip.
:
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 12:59:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> Sinclair is one of only a few true OTA broadcasters at heart. Most other
> broadcasters caved to Congressional and special interest pressure and
> voted to keep 8-VSB in 2000. At that time 67% of broadcasters said that
> they favored COFDM but voted under massive intimidation to stay with 8-VSB.

Facts? Links? Sources? All I see there is one big unsubstantiated
claim. What exactly was this "massive intimidation"? Did they
threaten to kill their dogs or something?
Related resources
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 4:17:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message news:<6j2mp1-ifs.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
> > Sinclair is one of only a few true OTA broadcasters at heart. Most other
> > broadcasters caved to Congressional and special interest pressure and
> > voted to keep 8-VSB in 2000. At that time 67% of broadcasters said that
> > they favored COFDM but voted under massive intimidation to stay with 8-VSB.
>
> Facts? Links? Sources? All I see there is one big unsubstantiated
> claim. What exactly was this "massive intimidation"? Did they
> threaten to kill their dogs or something?

The COFDM 8VSB thing is a bit more complex than has been reported. The
key advantage to COFDM is that, with the severe bandwidth notching
caused by reflections etc., enough of the COFDM carriers survive to
make a picture. That said, there is a considerable power penalty to
COFDM. The amount of additional power needed is such that it would
have been impossible to allocate all the DTV channels needed for the
country. Even with 8VSB some of the DTV and NTSC stations step on each
other's toes.
COFDM is greatly impacted by impulse noise which makes it unreceivable
in some locations.
My point is that it isn't that one system is all good and the other
all bad. Each has advantages and disadvantages. When 8VSB was being
developed a robust fallback signal was considered that would permit SD
reception under bad conditions. The FCC waved them off that path in
favor of HD.
Where COFDM is being deployed it is being used in a cellular manner
with many low to medium power transmitters. I can't tell you how that
has worked out because most of the articles I read on it talked about
systems in the planning rather than systems in operation.
In the U.S. COFDM is being used in mobile microwave systems where it
is immune to the motion problems that would cause conventional
microwave to break up.
There is a new 8VSB receiver designed by Richard Cita, formerly with
Zenith. The "Lynx" receiver has been tested under severe multipath
conditions. Whether a manufacturer will license the technology remains
to be seen.
Roy Trumbull
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 2:11:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<snip>
Thanks for the insight. I guess this is why HDTV is *still* taking so long
to catch up.
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 6:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Roy Trumbull wrote:

> "Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message news:<6j2mp1-ifs.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>...
>
>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sinclair is one of only a few true OTA broadcasters at heart. Most other
>>>broadcasters caved to Congressional and special interest pressure and
>>>voted to keep 8-VSB in 2000. At that time 67% of broadcasters said that
>>>they favored COFDM but voted under massive intimidation to stay with 8-VSB.
>>
>>Facts? Links? Sources? All I see there is one big unsubstantiated
>>claim. What exactly was this "massive intimidation"? Did they
>>threaten to kill their dogs or something?
>
>
> The COFDM 8VSB thing is a bit more complex than has been reported. The
> key advantage to COFDM is that, with the severe bandwidth notching
> caused by reflections etc., enough of the COFDM carriers survive to
> make a picture. That said, there is a considerable power penalty to
> COFDM. The amount of additional power needed is such that it would
> have been impossible to allocate all the DTV channels needed for the
> country. Even with 8VSB some of the DTV and NTSC stations step on each
> other's toes.

The difference between the power requirements of COFDM and 8-VSB are
mostly a lab phenomenon. In the real world every country that has tested
the two has stated that the difference is insignificant and of no
consequence. At the power levels used in the US both COFDM and 8-VSB
reach the radio horizon with sufficient power.

There is a reason the countries like Russia, Australia and Japan chose
COFDM. There is a reason that promoted Taiwan, Argentina and Australia
to switch to COFDM from 8-VSB. There is a reason why broadcasters in S.
Korea are refusing to go on the air with 8-VSB and BTW they knew about
the latest Zenith receivers. S. Korea is in the process of testing 8-VSB
against COFDM after SIX years having 8-VSB as their national standard.

> COFDM is greatly impacted by impulse noise which makes it unreceivable
> in some locations.

Un-receivable!!! INSANE!!! In Australia a recent test in a very HOSTILE
IMPULSE NOISE environment, heavy traffic, showed PERFECT reception of
1080i HDTV being broadcast NORMALLY by a station in Sydney. The
reception was noted at up to 120 kph at up to 40 km from the station
that was broadcasting at ONLY 30 kW.

What was REALLY NOTABLE about this reception was that the station is not
broadcasting as some low bit rate to insure mobile reception. This
station was broadcasting to what they believe was only stationary
receivers in homes. This station was broadcasting at a higher bit rate
per Hz than 8-VSB is capable of. And yet it still was so robust that it
could be received mobile with a simple omni antenna.

AND NO IMPULSE NOISE RECEPTION PROBLEM.
Go to page 13 at this URL
http://www.dvb.org/documents/newsletters/DVB-SCENE-08.p...

> My point is that it isn't that one system is all good and the other
> all bad. Each has advantages and disadvantages. When 8VSB was being
> developed a robust fallback signal was considered that would permit SD
> reception under bad conditions. The FCC waved them off that path in
> favor of HD.

It wasn't the FCC that waved it was the CEA that wanted to sell HDTV
monitors with large profit margins. As soon as the MSTV test were
concluded in 2000 that said that 8-VSB was "disappointing" they waved
again and E-VSB was back in full development.

> Where COFDM is being deployed it is being used in a cellular manner
> with many low to medium power transmitters. I can't tell you how that
> has worked out because most of the articles I read on it talked about
> systems in the planning rather than systems in operation.

This is a feature of COFDM. It is at the heart of any modern broadcast
system design. The age of full power big stick broadcast towers is over
everywhere but in the US. COFDM can do SFNs and on channel repeaters
NOW and the designers of 8-VSB have been working feverishly to match or
approach these attributes of COFDM. It is becoming obvious at the FCC
that if this is not possible with 8-VSB that its days are numbered for
that alone. Our current system is hopelessly inefficient.

> In the U.S. COFDM is being used in mobile microwave systems where it
> is immune to the motion problems that would cause conventional
> microwave to break up.

COFDM is at the heart of almost all modern wireless systems including
ENG (Electronic News Gathering) for use in helicopters and moving
vehicles to deliver live video to a TV station, in the studio for
wireless HDTV cameras, in 802.11 a and g. It is also used in most
microwave systems because it just works.

> There is a new 8VSB receiver designed by Richard Cita, formerly with
> Zenith. The "Lynx" receiver has been tested under severe multipath
> conditions. Whether a manufacturer will license the technology remains
> to be seen.

But the best Linx never worked with dynamic multipath. A non starter IMO.


> Roy Trumbull
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:29:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The one thing I failed to mention was that the COFDM tests in Europe
were in a channel that was 8 Mhz wide whereas the US uses 6 Mhz
channels. The reduction in the number of carriers possible impacted
many of the advantages of COFDM. Have any of the countries you
mentioned used COFDM in 6 Mhz channels?
In one US over the air test using a lo-band TV channel where impulse
noise is common, COFDM flat didn't work. 8VSB was impacted as well but
did better.

"ng_reader" <wilgrow_co@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gLydnR-8mPb4jlTdRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
> <snip>
> Thanks for the insight. I guess this is why HDTV is *still* taking so long
> to catch up.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 5:21:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Roy Trumbull wrote:

> The one thing I failed to mention was that the COFDM tests in Europe
> were in a channel that was 8 Mhz wide whereas the US uses 6 Mhz
> channels.

What European test are you talking about? The test I talk about would be
Brazil (6 MHz), Australia (7 MHz), S. Korea (6 MHz) and Hong Kong (6
MHz). Other countries with 6 MHz are Japan and Taiwan. Japan and
Australia are both doing HDTV.

Australia had 7 MHz but is simulcasting a 576 Pal and a 1080i in that 7
MHz. It has less than 6 MHz for 1080i.

The reduction in the number of carriers possible impacted
> many of the advantages of COFDM.

COFDM uses either 1705 carriers (usually known as '2k'), or 6817
carriers ('8k'). All countries use 8K except the UK which uses 2K. In no
case is the number of carriers reduced because of the size of the
channel whether it be 6, 7 or 8 MHz.

For example the UK has an 8 MHz DTV channel size but uses COFDM 2K with
1705 carriers and has only SD resolution. Australia has a 7 MHz DTV
channel but uses 8K with 6817 carriers and simulcast both SD and HD in
that same channel. Japan has a 6 MHz DTV channel but uses 8K with 6817
carriers and delivers HD to HDTV sets and SD to cell phones in that same
channel.

Have any of the countries you
> mentioned used COFDM in 6 Mhz channels?

See above.

> In one US over the air test using a lo-band TV channel where impulse
> noise is common, COFDM flat didn't work. 8VSB was impacted as well but
> did better.

Tell me more about the VHF channel that didn't work. Most countries
don't use VHF in Europe. I expect you are talking about the pretend
COFDM receiver that was actually a transmitter monitor that was
fraudulently used in the US 2000 MSTV test. They couldn't find a COFDM
receiver for VHF as I remember it.

But even using the transmitter monitor with no front end filters I don't
remember anything about it "flat didn't work" in any test anywhere. Do
you have a reference to the test?

>
> "ng_reader" <wilgrow_co@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gLydnR-8mPb4jlTdRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
>
>><snip>
>>Thanks for the insight. I guess this is why HDTV is *still* taking so long
>>to catch up.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 3:25:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

For more information than anyone has the patience to read, may I
suggest http://www.atsc.org/news_information/papers/2000_vsb_co...
While the report is on the ATSC site the funding was from an industry
group. It shows a mixed bag for COFDM and ATSC. Each has some clear
advantages. COFDM is better in strong signal areas using simple
antennas. At a distance 8VSB holds up better. In the lo-band tests
done in Cleveland there was one grid where there was some 8VSB
recption but no COFDM reception.
I don't know if any followup tests have been set to try out the
improved receivers. One thing I did learn was that the signal
preducton scheme favored by the FCC can and does predict nonsense.

roy547@msn.com (Roy Trumbull) wrote in message
news:<3836dff7.0406140929.729bab4c@posting.google.com>...
> The one thing I failed to mention was that the COFDM tests in Europe
> were in a channel that was 8 Mhz wide whereas the US uses 6 Mhz
> channels. The reduction in the number of carriers possible impacted
> many of the advantages of COFDM. Have any of the countries you
> mentioned used COFDM in 6 Mhz channels?
> In one US over the air test using a lo-band TV channel where impulse
> noise is common, COFDM flat didn't work. 8VSB was impacted as well but
> did better.
>
> "ng_reader" <wilgrow_co@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gLydnR-8mPb4jlTdRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
> > <snip>
> > Thanks for the insight. I guess this is why HDTV is *still* taking so long
> > to catch up.
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 6:20:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Roy Trumbull wrote:
> For more information than anyone has the patience to read, may I
> suggest http://www.atsc.org/news_information/papers/2000_vsb_co...
> While the report is on the ATSC site the funding was from an industry
> group. It shows a mixed bag for COFDM and ATSC. Each has some clear
> advantages. COFDM is better in strong signal areas using simple
> antennas. At a distance 8VSB holds up better. In the lo-band tests
> done in Cleveland there was one grid where there was some 8VSB
> recption but no COFDM reception.

Anyone want to try that with a REAL COFDM receiver instead of the fake
that was used?

> I don't know if any followup tests have been set to try out the
> improved receivers. One thing I did learn was that the signal
> preducton scheme favored by the FCC can and does predict nonsense.
>
This is the infamous MSTV/NAB test. Words used to describe this test
done in total secrecy include fraudulent, incomprehensible, incompetent.

All other test done in many countries tested many receivers for both
COFDM and 8-VSB and observers were invited and participated in all
phases of the trials. All attributes unique to either modulation were
explored.

In the MSTV test only ONE COFDM "receiver" was tested though other
manufacturers offered to supply receivers including PACE and Nokia. The
ONE COFDM receiver tested was from the Broadcast Technology Ltd. in the
UK. It is a TRANSMITTER MONITOR which is supposed to be hard wired to
the front end of a transmitter to look for interference. It specifically
has no front end filters for this purpose. Receivers must have such
front end filters to perform correctly.

Read what the company whose "transmitter monitor" was used as a COFDM
receiver had to say about any results from the MSTV testing.

"It has come to my attention that my company's product is being blamed
for providing less than optimal performance," wrote BTL managing
director Nicholas Jennings in a January letter. "The fact is that our
product was used in a manner for which it was not designed nor intended,
and the result of this misguided use has led to misleading results and
incorrect conclusions. ...The integrity and validity of the data
collected using our product in a direct antenna connected terrestrial
receiving environment can be dismissed as being irrelevant and
speculative at best."

http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/010205/010205_news_vs...

Roy goes further in his ignorance of the true nature of this FRAUDULENT
TEST. He says that the test showed "At a distance 8VSB holds up better."
NOT TRUE. At a distance Sinclair went back with the same "transmitter
monitor" but equipped it with front end filters and found that at seven
sites where COFDM had failed in the MSTV test in the far field (at the
greatest distances) IT NOW WAS ABLE TO EASILY RECEIVE THE SIGNAL.

What was MOST INTERESTING was that at ONE of those SEVEN SITES 8-VSB had
FAILED.

If the "transmitter monitor" had been properly equipped or if ANY OR ALL
OF THE FOUR OTHER COFDM RECEIVERS BEEN TESTED COFDM WOULD HAVE MASSIVELY
BLOWN 8-VSB AWAY!

The test were also manipulated FRAUDULENTLY by those holding them. They
were to have two phases. It was with this understanding that COFDM
proponents allowed what could only be called rigging the first phase for
8-VSB. COFDM proponents didn't worry because they falsely believed that
even with all the rigging the testing engineers would at least conduct a
fair test and no amount of rigging would help 8-VSB beat COFDM.

Rigging the test to give all the benefits to 8-VSB and not let any of
the powers of COFDM shine would still have COFDM comfortably a winner.

No, the testers had to commit fraud in the form of the COFDM receiver
used and the ONLY one used and in CANCELING the second PHASE where COFDM
was to have some of its special powers demonstrated.

Once the testers had their fake first phase test results and knowing
full well why there what they called "anomalies" with the COFDM results
they sat on these results in TOTAL secrecy for months. Never asking any
questions about why COFDM showed strange "anomalies". Why should they
ask questions, they knew the answers.

An anomaly that COFDM exhibited that was not questioned. At a 30 ft site
COFDM failed but at the same site COFDM worked well at 6 ft. DUHHHH!

This secret and fraudulent test served its purpose to derail Sinclair's
proposal that COFDM also be allowed as a dual modulation with 8-VSB in
the US so that in challenging places like Baltimore and NYC customers
could get decent reception.

The faked fraudulent results after being kept in total secrecy for
months were announced on January 11th 2001, a hurried vote with massive
intimidation of broadcasters took place on the 15th and Chairman Kennard
of the FCC in his final act on January 19th before leaving office
re-affirmed 8-VSB.

A totally shamefully manipulation by those who knew full well that any
real open test and evaluation of COFDM and 8-VSB would have totally
favored COFDM.
!