Sinclair's Nat Ostroff Predicts COFDM Win Over 8-VSB in August 1999 Update

Nat Ostroff of Sinclair Broadcast Group in Baltimore checks in today reporting that they have been "very busy" trying to finish up all of the data taking. The now-famous test (some say demonstration) in urban Balitmore comparing the practical reception of both COFDM and 8-VSB modulations schemes has moved from the inner city to taking reception data at the fringes of their coverage. "This means driving 4 hours each way."

Indeed, it took a full week to get enough sites just for making a proper case. "By the way," Ostroff informs, "there is just no meaningful difference between the two system in weak signal environments. The 3db just doesn't show up as very important when the path is varying 6 to 10 db over short time spans. (what about when it is not varying to this degree?). We now think that the rural viewer can make up any difference with a higher gain antenna or, perish the thought, a preamp."

Sinclair has been criticized for not addressing cautiously the impact higher power requirements or reduced effective reach might be when trading in 8-VSB for COFDM . Some go so far as to say that the Sinclair mix of stations have little growth potential for their suburban markets while others believe that populations in their markets will increasingly grow in those fringe areas. "Use translators if your audience grow big enough," is the typical counter to that argument.

The urban viewer, says Ostroff, won't be able to solve the multi-path problem. He says COFDM can.

How does Ostroff's predict the outcome of his challenge to the US adopted modulation system? "I think we will get a win now." A win would mean that rules relating to modulation of terrestrial signals will be changed to include COFDM. What is the prevailing strategy to achieve that win? Don't throw out 8-VSB, make COFDM an option--something to coexist with 8-VSB in the standard much as 480p is allowed to co-exist with 720p, and 1080i.

That idea "is getting a lot of traction." claims Ostroff, adding,. "This approach will avoid an ugly legal battle and will allow the best standard to win. Of course, I think it will be COFDM. So do a lot of other broadcasters, now. "

We contacted the FCC's Gordon Godfry and asked about the various scenarios which could now arise, including the idea of the inclusion of COFDM with 8-VSB. Gordon grew vague on what might occur with such an initiative, but he did not think it would fly through the FCC if there was any opposition, which is likely. (Important new information, please read).

Ostroff believes the table of allotments issue is bogus. "COFDM can be allowed, and the interference can be managed by each station by lowering their power or changing antenna patterns. In any case, it is not a big deal, and will be proven so very soon."

Godfry was less certain. He does not think the Commission will believe all bits are the same and will want to have tests done to insure protection ratios rather than relying upon competitive industry to solve a problem. That is the FCC's réason de etré in the first place.

There seems to be two ways of achieving action on behalf of COFDM One is fast, the other suffers an indeterminate amount of time.

Under certain conditions the Commission can initiate a change from within their own ranks without public hearings or comments. When trade press and industry forums credibly illustrate to the Commissioners that an error has been previously made in a Report & Order, they can make their own initiative to remedy the problem by making a staff-authored revision of the issue in question. All five Comissioners need to be aligned to the same solution. This is not an act requiring public debate, nor is it made from an industry petition. The Commission may take up the question and make the decision at their own discretion by saying it is in the consumers' best interest.

That appears to be the one chance for a "fast track" decision..There is considerable risk involved. If the Commissioners fail to reach accord or their initiative is politically derailed or preempted by Congress both lost time and momentum damage hopes for the COFDM proponents. They would have to kick start a petition process in a time 6 to 10 months from when the Commission spots the issue on their radar--a time which may not have the same favorable conditions as they are right now. Any improvements in the 8-VSB performance during that time could also make the issue less compelling at the Commission to the point where the question is dismissed as meddlesome.

If a request comes first to the FCC by way of a petition for a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) from the industry, a public process is forced into play. That process will consume an unpredictable block of time. Most guess 3 years at minimum to closure.

In the mean time the 8-VSB could close the gap on receiver performance comparisons to its competitor considerably and nullify the COFDM initiative. The stated advantage of 8-VSB's lower power and further reach would be hard to combat if that system performed just to the point where the TV consumer could deal with it in urban settings. COFDM does not have to be fully matched to make that accommodation.

The Commission's safest position appears to be to do nothing and let the technology catch up, if it can, to its potential, or even anticipate new invention that will extend that potential.

I talked to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt a few years ago when he said (in effect) that the problems he is not able to resolve in the Commission lay solved in the beyond...that is, he relies an his faith in technology to bring it all together sometime in the future. Sinclair is more pragmatic. They have a "faith, but verify (very quickly too)" point of view.

I asked Sinclair's technical chief Ostroff if his formal report on the COFDM tests tests will be out in less than the 45 days, as he previously announced? What's taking so long, many are asking? "You know 45 days is VERY short to put out a real report," he councils, There is a lot of work to be done in analyzing the data and coming up with a good presentation. We hope to publish at the IEEE in September."

Unable to resist a little soft shoe punt, Ostroff asks, "how long did it take the ATTC to publish their Charlotte and Washington data?"

That's all from the Sinclair front for now.

Dale Cripps