[opendtv] Re: I Doubt Bob Miller is Serious

  • From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:10:34 -0700

speculation in response to an assertion; that's better than a mere whine.

John Willkie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Aitken" <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 1:30 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: I Doubt Bob Miller is Serious


> A reasonable/reasoned speculation on Bob's part.
> I cannot/will not confirm nor deny.
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
>
> Regards,
> Mark A. Aitken Director, Advanced Technology
>
> ***********************************
> Sinclair Broadcast Group
> 10706 Beaver Dam Road
> Hunt Valley, MD 21030
> Business TEL: (410) 568-1535
> Business MOBILE: (443) 677-4425
> Business FAX: (410) 568-1580
> E-mail: maitken@xxxxxxxxxx
> Text PAGE: page.maitken@xxxxxxxxxx
> HTML PAGE: 4436774425@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.newscentral.tv
> www.sbgi.net
> ===================================
>
> "America will never be destroyed
> from the outside. If we falter
> and lose our freedoms, it will be
> because we destroyed ourselves."
>
> ~ ~ ~ Abraham Lincoln ~ ~ ~
> ***********************************
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
>
> This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
> confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this
> email message is addressed.  If you have received this email message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and
> destroy the original message without making a copy.  Thank you.
> ***********************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: