[opendtv] Re: I Doubt Bob Miller is Serious
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:24:05 -0400
I have to retract one thing I said below. In 2001 when Sinclair along
with ourselves and Channel WNYE did a demonstration of COFDM I did
complain or whine as John describes it that the FCC would not allow us
to show COFDM to the NYFD or NYPD. That STA was asked for by the DoD and
was for the use of WNYE's (PBS) digital station.
The denial was conveyed to me by the station manager so I do not have
first hand knowledge of it. It might have been that the station was just
antsy about doing it or even asking for permission. I attributed it to
the FCC and that made it all the more surprising for me when later we
asked for an STA and experimental and got them no problem.
So I did whine at least once and maybe with no basis. But at that time
just after 9/11 and not long after the height of the 8-VSB/COFDM debate
it was easy to expect that it was the FCC denying our request. And I
still think it was. In other words the FCC allowed a very specific short
term request by the DoD and denied that anyone else but the DoD and FEMA
could witness it.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller wrote:
>John Willkie wrote:
>
>
>
>>Since shortly after he appeared on this list, I've been trying to figure out
>>if Bob Miller is either a fool, an ill-informed agent-provocateur or an
>>aggrieved entrepreneurs. The evidence on the latter point has always been
>>contrary; entrepreneurs of my experience (and I am one) look for every
>>opportunity to make their business work, not spend their time whining in
>>public about perceived or real slights.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>It is one thing to be in the water and trying not to drown and another
>to be contemplating the entry of same. We are in the contemplating
>phase. There were plenty of opportunities to drown that we have missed.
>
>
>
>>List members might recall an exchange between Bob and I a few months back
>>over whether one could use COFDM via tv translators and Low power television
>>stations in the U.S. I asserted that one could use COFDM via tv translators
>>and LPTV, and Bob said that the FCC told him that he couldn't.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Couldn't and can't.
>
>
>
>>Just last night, while looking for ammunition in a discussion I'm having with
>>the chief scientist at Triveni Digital, I was diverted. I couldn't find the
>>FCC document I needed, but I started to -- finally -- read the FCC's decision
>>last fall about LPTV and TV translator dtv transition issues.
>>
>>Bob has maintained -- with his usually aversion to facts -- that the FCC has
>>prevented him from adequately testing COFDM in the U.S., and has never given
>>him an even break.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I don't remember ever complaining about not being able to test COFDM in
>the US. We have and easily could get an STA or Experimental license
>almost anywhere there is spectrum and the FCC has expedited such for us
>in the past. I think it took a couple of weeks to get an STA and part of
>that time may have been our fault.
>
>Have no idea what you mean by "even break". Never asked the FCC for that
>and I doubt if they have ever given anyone an "even break".
>
>
>
>>What I realized in while reading the LPTV report and order is that the FCC
>>plainly called Bob Miller's bluff. In that proceeding, they clearly asked
>>for comments on whether to permit alternative transmission schemes on digital
>>LPTV/tx translator stations, and invited interference studies. There was
>>interest by some proponents to permit cellular-radio transmissions on LPTV
>>facilities.
>>
>>The key issue here is how do you protect 8-VSB (and, for a few years, NTSC)
>>transmissions from COFDM? By inviting studies, the FCC was essentially
>>saying "we'll be liberal in granting Special Temporary Authority to conduct
>>these studies."
>>
>>List members will also recall that Bob did have several opportunities --
>>previous to the FCC request -- to test COFDM transmission in New York City
>>and environs. Apparently, these were not tests but demonstration -- or the
>>tests were strongly negative -- because no test results were submitted to the
>>FCC. NO WONDER THEY WOULDN'T EXTEND HIS STA's: he wasn't doing research, but
>>demos. The FCC has no rule provisions to permit long-term demos.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Where do you get your facts John? You who always suggest that others
>play loose with facts make them up faster than they can be refuted. We
>NEVER had any cause for complaint with the FCC regarding STA's,
>experimental licenses or the extension of either I think we could have
>extended our STA indefinitely. We were demonstrating and testing but not
>for the FCC and definitely not to prove non interference of any sort.
>
>
>
>>As one can read in the report and order, NO INTERFERENCE STUDIES WERE
>>SUBMITTED. As a result, COFDM was not authorized on LPTVs and TV translators
>>in that proceeding, but the FCC did leave the door open.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Our argument to the FCC for allowing COFDM use on LPTV stations was
>based on the simply fact that BY DEFINITION LPTV stations can not
>interfere with adjacent or co-channel full power stations or more senior
>LPTV stations. So why not allow alternate modulation systems. If COFDM
>were allowed on LPTV stations it would be their problem to show that
>they are not interfering both in their application and their actual
>operation.
>
>No need for interference studies to show that COFDM doesn't interfere,
>it can't interfere BY DEFINITION. The reason that the FCC would NOT
>allow COFDM had to do with "what if a city somewhere had only one LPTV
>station for local content, the consumer would have to buy two different
>receivers". Which was the official stated reason that we were not going
>to get anywhere. The real reason was that they did not want the
>controversy or the comparison.
>
>
>
>>And, COFDM in the U.S. fans, you have just one person to blame for this state
>>of affairs: Bob Miller. He knew, or should have known -- being an
>>alleged entrepreneurs -- of the FCC request and seen how it could open the
>>floodgates to permit COFDM in the U.S. He's repeatedly told us that
>>he would have no problem assembling the equipment, content and frequencies,
>>he was only being stymied by the FCC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes by the FCC but more by Congress. The FCC could not entertain COFDM
>on LPTV stations after the Sinclair fracas whereas they were considering
>it before.
>
>
>
>>Bob, you have let yourself be punked by the FCC. They clearly heard your
>>complaints, and called your bluff. You either don't have or think you don't
>>need professional assistance with technical and legal matters, and you
>>weren't paying close attention to the FCC and the softball they threw your
>>way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>We have good legal and very good technical professional assistance. We
>do pay close attention to the FCC and that was no softball that the FCC
>threw our way, it was a diversion. And at the time we were not that
>interested in LPTV, something we were more interested in in 1998 and
>1999. We were more interested in getting the transition over and letting
>winners of channels 52 thru 69 use their spectrum with COFDM.
>
>Our STA and Experimental licenses were for the use of channels above 52
>not LPTV.
>
>
>
>>You could have used this opportunity to put forth some good engineering
>>studies, and then the NAB/MSTV crew would have been forced to do their own
>>real studies in response, not the phoney-baloney "studies" they did in the
>>latter part of 2000. You could have created a fray, and very likely the FCC
>>would have had to permit by rule -- rather than by practice and procedure --
>>COFDM via tv translators and LPTVs. Instead, the same proceeding closed the
>>door on COFDM via LPTVs. Just look at what the FCC did permit in that
>>proceeding -- just to name a few: analog into digital, digital into analog,
>>analog persisting on LPTV and tv translators through the end of the
>>transition, LPTVs and TV translators on channel above 51 through the
>>transition, etc, etc. etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>As I have said before while I rail against 8-VSB use on channels 2-51
>and think it is a disaster I do so as a viewer and citizen. As a
>potential business person it makes sense to let broadcasters choke on
>8-VSB while we would use spectrum for mobile above 51. We have no
>burning desire to help broadcasters dump 8-VSB and compete with us
>mobile. Of course 8-VSB keeps that spectrum from being used with COFDM
>for the term of the transition. Catch 22 as Qualcomm is finding out.
>
>And coming full circle we are now interested in LPTV with 8-VSB because
>there is a receiver that is just possible good enough after seven years
>or so of waiting.
>
>Bob Miller
>
>BTW good to see you admit that the FCC does not allow COFDM on LPTV
>stations.
>
>
>
>>I did see a laugher in the FCC document, it described the studies the FCC did
>>on COFDM interference.
>>
>>I suspect -- as usual -- that Bob is just now learning of this squandered
>>opportunity through a posting on this list. If only someone on this list had
>>told him of the opportunity when the FCC created it; if only Bob had read a
>>few FCC documents.
>>
>>So, I remove entrepreneur from my short list. We're down to fool and agent
>>provocateur, maybe I need to add knave.
>>
>>John Willkie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
