FCC Denies Sinclair's COFDM Petition: The 8-VSB vs. COFDM Modulation Battle, Part 1

by Dale Cripps
Friday, February 4, 2000

The FCC sent a letter today to the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Wasington attorney denying the Sinclair petition for the inclusion of COFDM in the ATSC standard. This denial is subject to review in two months time when the whole of the DTV transition is up for review. The FCC put out a newsrelease just hours ago saying they had denyed the petition.

Immediately following the news release Sinclair's PR chief, Mark Hyman, sent out a note to reporters saying, "We have not yet seen the actual language of the order and will refrain from making a detailed statement until we have had an opportunity to review it. In the meantime, we standby the remarks we made in response to the MSTV resolutions passed on February 2nd."

On Tuesday of this week the Association for Maximum Service said they "will back the current U.S. digital TV modulation standard, 8-VSB, and urge federal regulators to dismiss Sinclair Broadcasting's request to add the European Standard COFDM as an option, according to a source familiar with the group's board vote Wednesday. MSTV's directors voted to back 8-VSB after reviewing results from the group's recently completed comparative tests. MSTV directors said the issue should be revisited if 8-VSB does not continue to improve as expected. Sinclair argues that 8-VSB is unacceptable for indoor reception."

In the February 2, 2000 note, Sinclair expressed its gratitude that MSTV had "reviewed all available evidence, agrees with Sinclair and recognizes that implementation of the 8-VSB standard has been inadequate. Like Sinclair, MSTV understands that receiver and chip manufacturers have been unable to design and produce 8-VSB equipment that works, and MSTV states that if improvements in 8-VSB performance do not materialize, this standard should in fact be revisited. While Sinclair believes that COFDM represents the best hope for a successful DTV transition, Sinclair appreciates that many in the broadcast industry currently believe that the 8-VSB standard can be fixed. Sinclair is supportive of MSTV's call for additional testing of COFDM and other alternative DTV modulation technologies, and hopes that these tests will begin soon. Sinclair looks forward to working with MSTV in the future as it tries to answer within a reasonable time period the critical question: Can the 8-VSB standard ensure ease of reception and reliable over-the-air DTV service in the United States?"

Sinclair has been vocal in their criticism of receiver development for the 8-VSB standard, claiming that such improvements are not guaranteed to occur, and everyone could be left to suffer. Some believe their entire campaign has masked another motive, which is to engage aggressively the mobile wireless market. "Wireless" has become the buzz word of the last few months. Japan is reportedly ahead in some of this work. A few broadcasters are certain that their future is brightened by mobile applications, and have been convinced that the COFDM serves that better than can 8-VSB due to dynamic multipath immunity feature of COFDM. But all note fairly that such immunity comes with a power disadvantage, which could be large enough to offset any gains in a still untried mobile business. Of course, that power disadvantage was also in great dispute by the opposing sides.

Critics of mobile applications for broadcasters say that the overhead needed to insure stable reception must come from the payload of the signal, which could foreclose on HDTV transmissions. Without going into great technical detail here, there are methods for hierarchical division of the payload so that one part of the signal can be devoted to the TV programming without a payload tax, and the other made more robust for rapid mobile applications, albeit, with a much smaller payload.

The cost of the inclusion of COFDM was viewed by most in the industry as utterly staggering. If COFDM were to be included, then which version of it? Both Europe and Japan have competing COFDM-based systems and each (and perhaps still others) would have to be free from interference from or to each other at suitable power levels, as well an not interfering with 8-VS and NTSC. The interference immunity was said to be not as likely in some of the lower frequency allocations, but again, nothing said by either side of this tug-of-war has escaped a full-blown dispute.

Sinclair had structured their request so that the burden of noninterference compliance was placed on the shoulders of the individual broadcasters. But the FCC has always been the arbiter of such things since its inception, indeed, that was the reason for its inception. All of the time that would be needed to evaluate any newcomers that came flocking to a newly open standard was thought to stretch, at a minimum, to three years. Sinclair has said that if the industry better understood the circumstances, and since most manufacturers also make COFDM equipment, there would be an easy and rapid transition or inclusion without the laborious and time consuming need for testing or other causes for a delay. Few agreed. They wailed that the end of DTV for America was in sight if this standard were to be re-opened. The only "wise" thing to do was to not open it, they pleaded. Robert Graves, Chairman of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), said that as much as $2 billion had been invested by various manufacturers to date with their believing sincerely that the FCC's stamp-of-approval meant something to stability. Graves predicted that as many as 200 business could be driven under by a delay or change in the standard. Others said that the international credibility of the FCC was at stake. Bob Graves found his task of marketing 8-VSB to other regions of the world an increasing nightmare. Prospects around the world were e-mailing him following every utterance from Sinclair asking for additional clarification.

CEA President Gary Shapiro draws most of the credit to CEA for saving the standard. They were the only organization to petition the FCC for the dismissal of the Sinclair petition. "We were the only ones," he says victoriously. CEA had been highly critical of Sinclair's motives from the start. Suspicions were aroused in the industry by a speech given by Nat Ostroff almost two years ago. That was the first time anyone had broached the idea that the standard was questionable and that the COFDM was better. He also said multicasting was a better use of the digital spectrum. By the National Association of Broadcasters' (NAB) convention of last April a nasty hostility began to break out between Sinclair and those in support of the 8-VSB standard. The growing impression was that industries who were once historical partners in launching broadcast services were now coming to be at serious odds with one another. The enmity escalated from there as events unfolded.

Gary Shapiro's plan of attack proved to be the better one. He drew from the time-tested Washington campaign strategy of impugning the motives of your opposition. In press releases and private communiquŽs Sinclair was said to have a financial problem that was being exacerbated by the requirement to meet the FCC deadlines for re-equipping their 59 TV stations. "They have a financial objective in their delay tactic," was the idea convered to those in Washington and in broadcasting circles. Sinclair bitterly denied such charges and condemned CEA for "spreading such untrue rumors, even suggesting that legal remedies may be needed to stop anyone from defaming a publicly traded company. Ostroff went on the offensive denouncing CEA and ATSC as being out-of-touch with modern requirements and self-serving, even anti-broadcast. The battle became shrill. All attempts at constructive dialog between the two camps fell dead upon mention. At one point Sinclair disinvited CEA to their now-famous July test in Baltimore. Sinclair also disinvited Zenith, who had at one time been invited. Zenith said they would like to attend the test but only if they could help Sinclair with the methodology for testing. Sinclair said they would not allow that from a partisan in the process who would be motivated to advantage themselves with their own methodology. Zenith said following the test that no results were valid with just three data points when already thousands of data points had been measured from earlier testing done when the standard was being officially evaluated. Zenith continued to believe that Sinclair had alternative motives. Finding fault in 8-VSB receivers, they indicated, was only a cover. Reconciliation between the two camps was out of the question. The two technical systems--COFDM and 8-VSB--have no common grounds in silicon design for combining their strengths, It had to be one or the other. Sinclair pushed for both to allowed as an option in a new FCC Ruling. Manufacturers moaned over the notion of two modulation systems in one receiver. While a broadcaster would chose one or the other for his signal modulation, the receivers would have to be made to accomodate with both. That cannot be done without costs. Some who aregued for inclusion said that cost would be only $20 or $30 added. The manufacturers said that any cost which was not fully necessary or a selling feature is one that slows the growth and volume of a market..

European "friends" of Sinclair got into the act, seeing an opportunity to cut a major slice of a new pie. They jumped on the FCC petition bandwagon unofficially with a message that one world standard was better than two, and especially if you could receive it!. In this era when lots of 20,000 units are odered, the price remains little changed with more volume. The argument for a global standard on that basis alone appeared transparent to those closer to things governing economies-of-scale. Technical forums on the Internet had a daily dose of heated proaganda proclaiming the virtues for both system. It became unrelentingly shrill, and often obnoxious. Some posts in the forums were no less than insulting, often misleading, while some managed to the mark and provoked serious thought.

To people with modest knowledge of transmission systems, both systems appeared to have their persuasive points. No clear winner or loser could be seen obviously since it was more a matter of ecnomic trade-offs. Had there been no cost associated to anyone for the inclusion of COFDM it would be hard to understand why it should not be included. What became the persuasive argument was that the 8-VSB receiver was not very good. Over 200 witness visited the Sinclair Baltimore test where that was proved to most eveyone's satisfaction. Indeed, the 8-VSB proponents don't argue the fact that the receiver was poor. . Experienced engineers visting Baltimore saw clearly that something was wrong. But what was it? The signal, or the receiver? Sinclair's president David Smith went on record saying that Sinclair's aim was not to prejudge the standard until it was determined if the problem they found in their tests was only the receiver's fault.

Were the Baltimore test valid in scientific terms? They clearly were not as extensive as those FCC procedures. But they were compelling just as done. Everyone could see that there were regions in which enough power was available, but that 8-VSB did not decode the signal to make a picture...but COFDM did. Those test were mostly done in the inner city regions where microreflections of the signals bouncing off buildings play havoc with a decoder. There is no question that these tests, or demonstrations as 8-VSB advocates came to call them, raised serious questions. There is no question that the 8-VSB receiver used in that test--the only one available to Sinclair--was poor. "It's one of those 'crappy' receivers." offered an executive from Zenith. Had that been the ultimate state-of-the-art receiver--one leaving no room for improvements--the contest would have ended and COFDM would be adopted. But that is far from the case.

No one from the 8-VSB camp wanted to say publicly that the receiver used was "crappy&quot in fear of embarrassing a fellow-competitor. That embarrassment could also backwash on them. That particular manufacturer of the poor receiver still had them in the market shelves with a retail tag of about $1000. The 8-VSB camp first met the Sinclair "challenge" with stony silence. They growled and snapped at me behind the scenes for reporting on it--blaming me for perpetuating the case (though the New York Times ran a large piece on it as well).

It must be said in all fairness that what was tested was a first generation 8-VSB receiver. It had little power to handle multipath impaired signals. Acute antenna directionality was also required. Could that receiver use rabbit ears? That was the big Sinclair question. The answer was basically no. Many of Sinclair's 59 stations serve inner city communities where such microreflections are common. The lower-income audiences living in those inner cities might need to use rabbit years to pull in DTV reception. Many apartment buildings make no provisions for an outside antenna. Sinclair, and all broadcasters, need a reason to have their signal carried by cable. That reason has always been centered around the fact that their stations are being received in their service areas. No one gets cable carriage beyond their service area without negotions for that extended reach. If now the inner city becomes a non-reachable service area, the cable companies could charge for carriage, or worse, simply say that the station is not worth carrying. Consumers fed up with a need to fiddle with rabbit ears as they tune to another channel coming from a different geographical spot could not be counted on as loyal viewers..

The networks were all-but absent from the whole controversyt. All continued to incorporate 8-VSB transmission in their own stations. But they had no alternative but to use it if they were to meet the deadline set by the FCC. Most big markets were required to be on the air by November of 1999. The investment in 8-VSB was done, and soon-to-reach 60% of the U.S. population. In the background CBS offered their opinion that 8-VSB was just fine--did just what was expected of it (which was not 100% coverage in inner cities, but about 75%). It was reported, but left unsubstantiated, that NBC had done some tests with results akin to those from Sincliar. Rumors flew around just days before the FCC decision that NBC would through in a major monkey wrench to the process by sending a letter to the FCC asking them to put the Sinclair petition out for public comment. We contacted NBC. They refused to answer several calls.

Many think that a great deal of good has come out of the Sinclair initiative. The deficiency in the 8-VSB receiver(s) was certainly brought to light. A response to that weakness was made by at least two important vendors--Motorola and NxtWave. Both have designed adn built equalizer chips that increase substantially the multipath-resolving properties of the receivers. Zenith, in league with Lucky Goldstar, have shown an improved receiver outperforming those other vendors chips. The next generation of chips will make still-more improvements. With the pace of technology it is impossible to foretell what the nth generation of receivers will be able to handle. In an interview with Motorola they claim that today all multipath problems seen in the Sinclair test are resolved with the exception of the more dynamic or moving ghosts. Lab tests published on the web, however, failed to impress Sinclair's vice president of technology, Nat Ostroff, He proceeded after the Motorola and NxtWave announcements with his petition to the FCC. Ostroff advised that he was doing so to keep the 8-VSB feet to the fire.

Ostroff has always had an out in this career-impacting dilemma should it become overwhelming. He can rightly say that he has done all he has knowing beforehand that 8-VSB needed some work at the receiver end, and he was the man to point that out to the world--something he believes the manufacturers have not done, though should have. To accomplish that he had to use the long-cherished tradition of a warrior and induce a bit of economic terror into the opposing side by leveling an unrelenting attack.

Some say that a road to healing and reconciliation is now required and will be best paved with a charitable pat on the back to Sinclair and Nat Ostroff for heroically exposing a weakness that needed fixing. Others are less charitable and believe he has given rise to a costly and damaging campaign for his or Sinclair's own private interests.

Technology is not certainly not slowing down. Even Moore's law is giving away to ever-speedier generations of less costly processing power Just today a report circulated that a chip technology would add as much as a billion times the processing power and speed over today's fastest chips. No one can fully forecast what capability will be inside a receiver in ten years--be it a COFDM or 8-VSB. The signals transmitted will remain the same though how they are processed in the receiver may be as different as a modern automobile is to the old Tin Lizzy. This faith in technology was not part of the reportage coming from Sinclair. They chose to say that the fundamental design of the 8-VSB was always an inferior one for the multiplath handling as contrasted to COFDM. Those working to further 8-VSB are far less pessimistic, though still unable to offer concrete proposals for dynamic multipath handling that would be necessary in rapid mobile applications. The FCC letter to Sinclair bundled up with their news release said that the FCC had faith in technical developments though must "trust-but-verify&quot for themselves with periodic reviews of the DTV transition--the first of such reviews will be in about two months time.

Zenith, the developer of the 8-VSB, is not being stingy with their information on receiver improvements. They have spent time and money touring both the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and more recently in Washington, DC, with examples of their improved receivers. They contrast the old receiver with the new ones and generate a multipath signal as various power rates. The demonstrations clearly shows why Sinclair came to their conclusions, and Zenith is confident that what they are demonstrating just as clearly proves that receivers are now substantially better and certainly meets the requirements established by the FCC's Advisory Committee for Advanced Television Services (ACATS). They have also shown a modified COFDM receiver tied to the same signals and how it is less sensitive to lower power transmission, which equates in the distance the signal carries from the transmitter. The COFDM receiver was also shown by Zenith to be less robust to impulse noise as might be made by someone nearby using a hair dryer or from an automobile ignition system. While Zenith did get a break with the selection of their 8-VSB system,. they are willing to share important information with all of the industry on how to make 8-VSB receivers better. Zenith VP of Technology, Wayne Luplow, says he welcomes anyone seeking their advice.

While Sinclair may have underestimated the strength of the standard, or at least of the protective covering around it at from the ATSC and CEA, the manufacturers are still concerned that the driving force within Sinclair--Nat Ostroff--will not give up with merely a rebuff from one of the 7 regulatory agency of the U.S. Government. There are still three branches of government left to petition or influence. On February 3rd of this year Sinclair went out demonstrating in Washington to Congressional aids both the 8-VSB and NTSC receivers. The aim of the demonstrations was to show to Congress that the most fundamental of the criteria established for the DTV standard--"equal coverage"--of the old NTSC coverage was still not being met. That would be, if verifiable, reason-enough to open the standard. That reason has nothing to do with fast mobile applications or motives to employ it.

Continued In Part 2