"This was very alarming to us. We contacted Sinclair at the NAB and asked if we could participate in the upcoming testing program in Baltimore."
RICHARD M. LEWIS
Senior vice president of technology and research,
Zenith Electronics Corporation
0000Richard M. Lewis is senior vice president of technology and research for Zenith Electronics Corporation, a position he has held since January 1999. In this role, Lewis oversees Zenith's technology initiatives, encompassing research & development, consumer electronics engineering and digital business development. Lewis joined Zenith as corporate director of quality in 1997, was named vice president of corporate development in February 1998, and vice president of picture tube operations in March 1998.
0000Prior to joining Zenith, Lewis spent 18 years at Teradyne Inc. where he held key engineering, operations and project planning positions. He also was responsible for total quality management in the telecommunications division and led five award-winning quality improvement teams. Lewis earned a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Iowa in 1978.
The Interview...
HDTV News: You have seen the controversy brewing where 8-VSB has been pitted against COFDM but you have not spoken out until now? Why not?
Our position has been to take a high road and keep it in the scientific realm, but a lot of unsubstantiated claims have been made. We felt that it is creating a controversy in the industry. We now need to come forward to do what we can for the investors of 8VSB and help resolve it.
(Editor's Note: Reliable sources report that the ATSC has requested Zenith to generate and make available more information to their members in support of 8VSB. We have contacted ATSC Chairman Robert Graves, but as of this posting not heard back to confirm).
In the interest of fairness we think that Zenith should be allowed to examine some of these claims that have been made by Sinclair. We felt the best way to do that is by evaluating the same equipment they used in their demonstration and really understanding if what they are saying is true.
(Editor's note: Richard Lewis has sought a COFDM receiver operating at 6MHz from other CE manufactures here and abroad. Zenith made this request in order to run additional evaluations using it and offer the industry some added data to help calm troubled waters. To expand his search we posted on the HDTV Newslist an open letter from Mr. Lewis to the industry with their request.
So far Zenith has received no cooperation from the manufacturers of COFDM receivers. The explanation is that since both (8VSB and COFDM receivers) are nade by those making the COFDM models, it was of no benefit to them to voluntarily enter into a controversy. For those respecting the notion of Karma, it could be said that Zenith is getting what they deserve for not volunteering their box to Sinclair. But there is more that story, as you will find below from Mr. Lewis' comments. Others in the industry have reacted to the open letter with a clear bias--even hatred for Zenith. One engineer making international waves with his DTV technical Internet forum called Zenith's attempt to gain and evaluate COFDM as a "bullshit smokescreen to further confuse the issues."
What may not be considered by the CE manufacturers is a sympathetic appreciation for the hundreds of companies invested in 8VSB-specific technology for their professional television product lines. They are trying to remain loyal to 8VSB but cannot avoid being drawn into the controversy and materially buffeted by diminish orders. Many TV stations have placed their DTV acquisitions on hold, preferring to wait for further clarifications. Robert Graves, Chairman of the ATSC, groans that the controversy has certainly made it more difficult to do business abroad. There is also an growing view that the FCC will get involved shortly and be forced to re-clock the current transition timetable as they sort things out.
Withholding infomation of any kind that in the end helps the consumer is regrettable. These devices should be made available to any party wishing to evaluate the performance tradeoffs. The responsibility for keeping fairness in an open information system falls upon journalism. Any evaluations not showing fairness in their reporting should be openly discredited by our trade journalists. We take that responsibly seriously here at Advanced Television Publishing and encourage the granting of Mr. Lewis' request.)
HDTV News: Were you invited to participate in the Sinclair "tests" or demonstrations run in Baltimore this last July?
Sinclair passed out papers at NAB stating that they had tested various set top boxes, including the Zenith box, and their conclusion was that the performance was unacceptable.
This was very alarming to us. We contacted Sinclair at the NAB and asked if we could participate in the upcoming testing program in Baltimore.
The discussions with them were on the lines of having Zenith help Sinclair establish the procedures and locations--the methodology, etc., for the testing.
Their answer was a categorical NO, we could not help them.
After that discussion another attempt was made (by Sinclair) to arrange for a set top box to be sent to Baltimore. Frankly, we felt that the methodology was going to be flawed and they already had access to the box. The box had been commercially available since December, so, again, taking the high road and not wanting to get involved in situation that creates controversy was the one taken by Zenith.
HDTV News: Were the circumstances to repeat themselves, but with the benefit of knowing the outcome, would you still be as reticent in coming to these tests? In other words, has more damage been done by not participating than participating even in a "flawed" demonstration?
I think the methodology would still be flawed. We see issues with that. If we are not allowed to add value and help move this thing forward there is not much point in us spending resources.
HDTV News: Let me rephrase to see if I understand. You say no, you would not because methodology would be flawed and you are not invited to participate in constructing methodology. So you would not have a fair assessment and so no reason to support that conclusion. Is that right?
Well, I don't know if it was fair or not. I wasn't there. They had access to our box, and if that is what they wanted to do with their methodology I am not sure it would give you any information that was usable. If you characterize it in a laboratory situation, that is one thing. A number of receivers have been characterized at the ATTC, but doing it in the field with 50 data points is in our mind nor in most people's minds, relevant.
HDTV News: One thing Sinclair wanted to illustrate is that COFDM is workable with minimal antennas. Let's forget the Sinclair tests for a mount and talk about consumers using DTV in all environments. Are you concerned that 8-VSB handicaps you in any way, shape, or form?
No, there is nothing wrong with the standard. The market is already reacting to the need for indoor reception. Sarnoff/Motorola and NextWave have all aimed in that direction when they saw the market needs. That is the beauty of the VSB standard. It is not the fundamental science limitations that concern us. They occur in other modulations standards (as well). There are a lot of plusses to it (8-VSB), and that is being born out.
So, I am not concerned. There is nothing wrong with the standard. There is some better implementation and some lesser implementation of the standard. That is really what we are seeing here.
HDTV News: Are you preparing to advise the consumers regarding thef challenges they may face in reception? Will this be consumer friendly or will they have to go to work in order to get reception?
I think that is the natural forces of the market. We are improving our analog reception every year. I wholeheartedly believe that digital reception will be the same way. Early adopters today are like early adopters have always been...willing to put up with some of the growing pains in the industry. A guy that buys an $8000 television set is an early adopter. He is not going to do it with rabbit ears. Down the road when the price curve drops, the performance will rise. I think the market will be satisfied with all aspects of the product.
HDTV News: I did an interview with Motorola shortly after their announcement. The conclusion reached was, hey, we solved all of the multipath problems, even dynamic multipath problems up to a point--the point being a "walk around" rate, but not the rate produced when in a moving vehicle. I just received an e-mail from LeBon Abercrombie from Papas Broadcasting who insists mobile applications are fundamentally important to their future business model. How do you address that?
.This is symptomatic of the problem here. As one market issue is resolved certain people will raise the next one. That is not unlike most competitive situations where they keep trying to raise barriers to accomplish their goals.
In mobile reception there are a couple of issues. One is that there are a number of transmission schemes that may be better than COFDM. Also, in talking mobile, I think it is a situation where spectrum allocation has to be looked at again. It's a different business model. People that were given spectrum to produce high-definition, and who now want to go to a much lower data rate for mobile reception, could open up a lot of issues.
HDTV News: Let me depart for a moment to more general issues, namely what the standard should do. We all know that HDTV was the first target. Later, the idea of dividing up the spectrum for STDV was established. A debate has arisen over whether DTV can sell itself with SDTV, or does HDTV hold the only allure? What is your view on this?
Our view is that replicating NTSC coverage is the major factor. When I say that I am talking about indoor reception in canyons and I am talking about fringe people. They can receive NTSC in both areas and that's is the most important thing--to get viewers high-quality digital television.
HDTV News: But what is going to drive that marketplace? What is the feature or quality that is going to cause them to go out and lay out some money?
I think that HDTV and SDTV will co-exists. Picture quality of HDTV is a very compelling driver for people. Once people see that technology and experience it...it is stunning, and it makes people want to buy products. In addition to that, I think that the multicasting is also giving people more choice and makes a good choice in the marketplace also.
HDTV News: So, you are looking at the duel attractions--not purely picture quality, not purely choice, but the combination thereof?
I think it is (that way). The great thing about the standard is it allows for different formats and multicasting. I think it is going to be a big hit.
HDTV News: Let me go back to the issue of transmission again. What this transmission controversy has seemed to create is a very unnatural wedge driven between broadcasters and manufacturers. There have been some particularly poisonous talk by some broadcasters with regards to CEMA. Should not this relationship be more in the form of a solid partnership?
We would all like to work closer as an industry. It is difficult for me to comment further.
How would you propose to heighten the mutual attractions so there is more of a partnership or marriage in this business rather than an antagonistic contest?
What we need to do today as an industry is move the market forward by providing content.
HDTV News: Do you think this is now occurring sufficiently with CBS prime time programming, the NFL on ABC, and HBO and Showtime with HDTV movies? Is that enough for consumers to go out and snap up all that you can manufacture?
We have seen a faster implementation and adoption than was legislated or anticipated. So, I see the adoption curve will be moving quickly. Considering how early it is, were are well on our way.
HDTV News: Thank you Richard.
|
