An Open Letter to the Technical Community: Defending 8-VSB and the ATSC Standard

"I have to ask myself, why would a system that went so far as to pass the rigorous trials of becoming a Federal government standard be summarily dismissed without a major and unified effort to try and fix its competitive shortcomings?"

t a minimum the responsibility of a reporter is to remain as objective as possible when studying two or more sides of a question. It is also important to be open minded and even impressionable in order to gain a sympathetic appreciation for one side, then the other. This process hopefully ends for a journalist in drawing a conclusion based upon the strength of the real/factual arguments (not the quantity, the repetition, or the shrillness of those arguments).

Many of the most talented engineers in the world are on this forum (OpenTV). Craig, you should be proud of what you have accomplished. To my recollection, however, no one on this forum has stepped forward with a technical contribution or engineering innovation or initiated a creative culture with the aim to fix the well-publicized 8-VSB shortcomings. Rather, there has been only a steady eroding of confidence in the ATSC system with mostly anecdotal commentary and much negative--even repugnant--characterizations of the current 8-VSB supporters.

I have to ask myself, why would a system that went so far as to pass the rigorous trials of becoming a Federal government standard be summarily dismissed without a major and unified effort to try and fix its competitive shortcomings (if they can be fixed)? Yes, we have all heard rumors, even harsh accusations that the final modulation selection was "hurried" and far too political at the expense of "a better solution." But, like a political election when your candidate has lost, it was still selected as the US standard. I would have expected more concrete support for it. So why is it, I question, that so many are working to toss it out with complete disregard to the lengthy political process which must inevitably stretch before us when doing so? I say "inevitably" because I have contacted the FCC and no one there is ready for a cozy backroom deal where you exchange one system for the other over a few cocktails. These are prime public airwaves in play here that were granted to tremendous criticism to a specific business segment in order for that segment to remain competitive against unregulated pay media, all for the declared mission of preserving democracy for all. Some of that purpose has certainly changed--like incorporating mobile or "portable" applications--as may the system itself change. Each change gives rise to a host of new public issues. A change of modulation scheme will not occur without a new FCC Docket taking, perhaps, year(s) to run its prescribed course. So, I say to myself, well, that is a pretty heavy hit to take without even one single industry-wide effort to try and fix the problem of the existing standard. I would think that fixing the problem of anything adopted by our nation would be the first order of business from our scientific community rather than their kicking it to death in public view. Perhaps all engineers already know that it is a hopeless task, and that is what you have been trying to tell dense non-technical people like me all along.

If 8-VSB were completely bereft of modern merits and had no competitive potential left within it I could understand the abandonment without any further effort exerted. One could easily move on, tolerating as inevitable the time needed for a new FCC process to wind down. But there are respected engineers here and elsewhere who remain strong to this hour in their support of the 8-VSB approach. Are they all part of some devilish CEMA-led conspiracy to overthrow the good business of broadcasting, as Sinclair recently alluded to? Or, is this support stemming from a sincere intellectual integrity and corresponding commitment? At this highly political juncture it is very hard to tell.

I have a scientific paper here from the IEEE Communications Magazine. Mike Tsinberg of Toshiba sent it to me. This paper compares the two modulation systems. The three authors from the Societe Anonyme de Telecommunicacions conclude that with frequency domain equalizers the 8-VSB not only competes well with COFDM, but the nod is given to 8-VSB as the superior of the two systems. This well annotated paper was written in 1993, and Mark Schubin rightly pointed out to me that newer technology and other spectral use objectives have altered the picture since that paper was written sometime in 1992. If written today, the conclusions by those same authors might be quite different.

But I say to myself, hmmm...here is a detailed scientific report/paper from a credible group of experts published in as good a technical journal as exists who say in 1992 that both systems work well, and they even give the edge to 8-VSB. Have things changed THAT much since then, I ask my self, that 8-VSB would be left so far behind that it is now unworthy of any attempt from the better technical minds of this nation to fix it? I am not an engineer. I can't answer this question. But the question does arise, and not only in me.

At an absolute minimum I would expect the brightest of engineering minds on this forum to rise above being product reviewers. I would think they would instinctively connect to their purely scientific roots with, perhaps, a bit of national responsibility included, and put their heads together in full view and make a very best effort to fix the problem to the satisfaction of today's broadcast requirements. I say this not to enrich Zenith, or any other patent holder who might benefit from the "fixing" of 8-VSB. Patent income is not where any of the big money is in DTV anyway. I say this simply as a means to avoid years of delay and expense from a reopening of the FCC process while still satisfying all the current business requirements. There is, after all, no guarantee that COFDM will still be the "be all, end all" by the time the FCC process is well underway, nor even that the business requirements it satisfies will be as they are envisaged today. Now I applaud Dan vogler's spirit of "course corrections," his suggestion to make an option of both modulation schemes still has an FCC process to pass through before that can be realized. We still have to fix 8-VSB to be in business now.

If you say to me that it is NOT the 8-VSB system which is at fault, but rather the receivers that don't work, I ask you why you think then the same manufacturers will make good COFDM receivers for this market anymore than they are making good 8-VSB receivers? In Europe (I am told) they have more manufacturing specifications to meet officially, but that is a much avoided condition here (though NAB is now demanding it). Either we find the fix to the problem--whatever its root--or please tell me now in definitive, bankable terms that I am dead wrong with this view. Tell me in ways I can measure that the 8-VSB system is bankrupt beyond hope of repair, and then let's get on with the business of its public execution so we can bridge this impasse and hour of uncertainty by adopting as swiftly as law permits what does prove to work. It's not fair to the public nor innocent companies wanting to make to a standard to linger in an atmosphere of poisonous doubt. That is no way to enter into the next millennium, is it?

Dale Cripps