Summary

ATSC Chairman Robert Graves defends the organization's open standards process against COFDM advocates who leaked internal committee documents and circulated innuendo about legal liabilities. Graves warns that unauthorized disclosure of work-in-progress harms the integrity of the DTV standards process and violates written commitments made by participants.

Source document circa 2000 preserved as-is

Robert Graves On The ATSC

By Dale Cripps

  • In the "give-the-guy a break" spirit, I asked Robert Graves, Chairman of the ATSC, a question designed so he could respond to some tactics being used in harsh attacks leveled against him and the ATSC. These attacks are coming, in large measure, from the DvB or COFDM advocates, both here and abroad. They have grown increasingly hostile and openly challenge the credibility of the ATSC.

    Mr. Dermot Nolan, an economist living in England, has been a forceful, and, many will argue, quite effective advocate of the global use of DvB. To achieve his world domination vision the U.S. must drop 8-VSB and adopt DvB, or at least COFDM. In a recent series of e-mails furthering his argument that DvB is superior to a "failed 8-VSB," he disclosed damaging content from a leaked document generated by an ATSC committee currently reviewing the ATSC modulation system, and concluded in that same post a suggestion that there are "legal" liabilities arising. In the one circulated Tuesday on the OpenTv forum operated by Craig Birkmaier he ended saying with clear innuendo, "Separately, I am hearing something very interesting about the ATSC and legal liability..."

    This appeared serious enough to me that I wanted to give Robert Graves an opportunity to respond. I do so optimistically hoping to restore some civility into what has become a very nasty challenge. There will likely be things said in Grave's response which do not jibe with your personal experience with the ATSC. If so, take the opportunity on this forum to freely state what it is you find wanting, or what improvements in the institution might be in order. If you concur with his response, hearing of your support might be also welcome.

    I put a "soft" question to Mr. Graves this way:

    "What do you say to those voices from near and afar who are insistent upon alternative technologies for our environment, but who are not themselves part of our process, nor associated with the ATSC other than through "corporate espionage," which they employ while trying to influence the affairs of the ATSC, the FCC, and the American public, even to the point of using innuendo about legal liabilities?


    Robert Graves answered:
    Generally we do not lend undue credibility to these voices by attempting to respond to every ridiculous assertion they make.

    The ATSC standards process is a remarkably open process, governed by detailed procedures that ensure that the input of all interested parties, including nonmembers, is heard and reflected in developing digital TV standards. One of the few limitations that is imposed by the ATSC, and virtually any other standards making body, is that the ongoing work of our subcommittees is not to be publicized outside the group, except under the direction of the ATSC Executive Director or Chairman. We are not concerned at all about parties, nearby or from afar, expressing their opinions about our work or any other related DTV issues, but what can be harmful and disruptive to our open process is when an unscrupulous participant "leaks" some aspect of our work in progress, and this leaked information (or misinformation) is then used in an attempt to slow down or discredit the work that is under way.

    We're not afraid of anyone's opinions-those opinions that have merit can help us, and those without merit can either be rebutted or frequently just ignored. But we are very concerned about any participants in our process who violate the written commitments they have made not to disclose our work in progress. This is harmful to our ability to conduct our work in an open process, and we're trying to put a stop to it. It's a case where one bad actor can ruin the whole process for a hundred honest, hard-working people and the institutions they represent.

    Best regards,

Robert