[opendtv] Re: Demand for free DTV rising in Australia
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:32:34 -0700
Barry wrote:
"I find it interesting that there has never been any direct challenge to the
accuracy or validity of the technical arguments and evidence put forward by
yourself and Bob. I noted that some who I thought should be interested,
showed no interest in seeing Bob's COFDM demo video."
Unfortunately 8VSB wasn't retained on its technical merits. This was more
about cashing in on the Grand Alliance's Intellectual Property Rights and
for others, about controlling how the US markets receive and PAY for
programming and for others, how to best maximize profits on the sale of CE
products and for the government, how to best achieve the earliest possible
revenue from spectrum auctions. Delays were unacceptable to these
politically powerful interest and the 8VSB/COFDM debate interfered with
those agendas**.
I first joined the Digital Television planning process in 1980 at a meeting
in Monterey, CA and which continued for many months in Washington, DC.
Opendtv's Craig B. was also involved. It was an international collaboration
to discuss development of HDTV products and which also led to the formation
a sub group to investigate the possibility of broadcasting higher definition
video. Our current DTV development evolved from this group.
Over these past 25 or more years I constructed ten television stations from
Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston down to the rural likes of Opelika,
Ala. These projects often included digital studios and DTV transmitter
facilities. During that time I was involved with MSTV, NAB and represented
our company at ATSC. I also attended the 1999 Sinclair tests and later the
NAB/MSTV meetings to review the second 8VSB/COFDM tests.
My point is that I feel somewhat qualified to address issue relative to the
systems technical merit and to also provide historical insight as to
"business" developments. At one time there were numerous others on this list
more experience than I, who have dropped out of the discussion. John S, Bob,
and I are the final holdouts that actually have a Horse in this race and
Craig provides experienced insight. Some others are proselytes who simply
treat this as a debating society and seem uninterested in hard information,
such as Bob's video, which runs counter to their position. These debates are
repetitive, circular in nature and have lost relevance. I've concluded that
I continue to participate from my purely masochistic tendencies.
** There was a short period, immediately following the FCC's approval of our
DTV system, when the industry was optimistic and the creation of alliances
between Broadcasters, program suppliers and manufacturers placed the systems
development on a fast track. Early adopters purchased large numbers of
receivers and networks begin broadcasting. However, unsatisfactory
performance reports from early adopters and broadcast station caused serious
concerns which motivated Sinclair to conduct tests in 1999. Shortly
thereafter, the broadcast alliances dissolved and new alliances were formed
that were no longer broadcast oriented.
All the best,
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Barry Wilkins
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 11:37 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Demand for free DTV rising in Australia
Dale,
I accept that the day has long gone where this issue had relevance to the
public and you have no choice but to move forward with 8-VSB.
It is the whys and if onlys that still stir debate. I find it interesting
that there has never been any direct challenge to the accuracy or validity
of the technical arguments and evidence put forward by yourself and Bob. I
noted that some who I thought should be interested, showed no interest in
seeing Bob's COFDM demo video. I have seen it. It was impressive but I lack
a comparative 8-VSB demo. Obviously, ATSC was not developed with mobile
operation a priority but the very thing that makes COFDM strong in the
mobile environment also makes it robust when things in the environment move.
Regards
Barry
On 6/23/07, Dale Kelly <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Barry Wrote:
"Purely from an academic point of view, I would have thought all you
engineering types would always be keen to do up to date comparison
testing
of what has historically been 2 distinctly different modulation
techniques.
How do you actually know where ATSC is compared to the latest DVB-T
receiver
performance if it has not been tested recently. There could be quite a
gap
or none at all".
I'm all in favor of comparative testing, but in an objective
environment -
which does not exist in this particular instance.
The original Sinclair 1999 "tests" demonstrated the inadequate
performance
of ATSC receivers while showing the superior performance of COFDM
receivers.
This was a very fair demonstration conducted alternately using the same
transmitter and antenna systems for both signals. When these facts were
published a political firestorm was created in which Sinclair was
pilloried
by the CE industries and certain of its broadcast sycophants. The
economic/political obfuscation of this issue was successful in
deflecting
the debate.
A later "test" was conducted by NAB/MSTV and was tainted by the CE
industries involvement in its planning and execution. The industry
feared
political ramifications from any recommendation to change modulation
standards at such a late date; a red herring if there ever was one.
I do not believe, in the existing political environment, that unbiased
and
subjective testing can be done and if done, it certainly would not
receive
an objective reception by those who could act upon it.
I now set back and await the opendtv firestorm.
Other related posts: