from the president - home - ieee broadcast technology...

IEEE

From the PresidentGreetings BTS mem-bers. As I am writ-ing this column, wehave just completedthe 57th AnnualBTS Symposium inWashington, DC.This year’s eventwas highly success-

ful thanks in no small part to thework and effort put forth by Sympo-sium Chair Guy Bouchard, TechnicalProgram Chair Ed William and Soci-ety Administrator Kathy Colabaughand the team of people that workedwith them to insure an excellentevent. It was extremely gratifying forme as BTS president to hear so manyof the attendees and presenterspraise the quality of the event andexpress their intention to return again

next year. As a person who believesthat one of the fundamental reasonsour society exists is to share andexpand the knowledge of the mem-bership. This event and the com-ments clearly indicate to me that weare on the right track.

Day one of the Symposium focusedon using the broadcast DTV signal formobile and pedestrian applicationswhich are being investigated globally.The concept of delivering content topeople whenever and wherever theyare doesn’t appear to have boundariesas people look for ways to occupytheir transit times between work andhome, between appointments andwhenever they have spare moments. Itappears that the voracious appetite forinformation and entertainment is a uni-versal constant and the appeal of

The 57th AnnualIEEE BTS Broad-cast Symposiumthat concluded onNovember 2, 2007was by all accountsanother big suc-cess. Congratula-tions and many

thanks go out to symposium chair GuyBouchard and technical program chairEd Williams for another great and veryeducational three days.

It is also great news that we havea new venue for next year’s Sympo-sium. It will be held on October 15through 17, 2008 at the WestinAlexandria. This is a brand new hotel

opened in November 2007 and locat-ed in the Carlyle section of Alexan-dria, VA USA. In view of thedifficulties we have had in recentyears in finding appropriate facili-ties this looks like a great choice.Our Society Administrator KathyColabaugh toured the hotel recently.While it was still under construction,Kathy reports that it will be a terrificlocation for the Symposium withnearby Metro and Amtrak stationsand a short Metro ride from ReaganNational Airport. It should also beeasily accessible for those whointend to drive since it is just off I-495. You can check it out on line at

The technologies to deliver information and entertainment to audiences worldwide, at home and on the go.

From the Editor

continued on page 2

ISSN 1067-490X

Volume 15, Number 4, Winter 2007

untethered delivery makes wirelesstechnologies, including traditionalbroadcast fertile ground for innovationand experimentation. It is curious thatbroadcasting, one of the oldest and

continued on page 3

InsideIBC 2007 is the Biggest Yet . . . . . . . . .3

The 57th Annual IEEE BTS Broadcast

Symposium is a Great Success . . . . . .5

Keep Your Professional Edge With

Innovative Courses From IEEE . . . . . .8

Jennifer Barbato joins the BTS as

Publications Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . .8

Japan IEEE BTS Chapter Activity

Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Joint seminar of IEEE Russia North-

west BT/CE/COM Chapter . . . . . . . . . .9

Taipei IEEE BTS Chapter Activity

Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

United States Digital Television Sys-

tem- 462 Days to go . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

IEEE G2.2 RF Standards Committee

Measurement Test Methodology

Field Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Work Moves Forward on ATSC

Mobile/Handheld Standard . . . . . . . .16

More on Longley-Rice: Error Codes

Decoded, Out-of-date Instructions,

and An Updated Free Wrap-Around .18

Redefining HDTV-Again . . . . . . . . . . .21

A Tale of Two Camera Tubes . . . . . . .25

15th International Conference on

Telecommunications ICT 2008 . . . . . .28

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society

Constitution and Bylaws . . . . . . . . . .30

IEEE BTS Organization . . . . . . . . . . . .35

btsNL_winter07.qxd 1/14/08 9:11 AM

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Newsletter 2 Winter 2007

Newsletter Deadlines

The BTS Newsletter welcomes con-tributions from every member.Please forward materials you wouldlike included to the editor [email protected]. Here areour deadlines for upcoming issues:

Issue Due Date

Spring, 2008 January 20, 2008Summer, 2008 April 20, 2008Fall, 2008 July 20, 2008Winter, 2008 October 20, 2008

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Newsletter (ISSN 1067-490X) is published quar-terly by the Broadcast Technology Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electron-ics Engineers, Inc. Headquarters address: 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY10017-2394. Sent at a cost of $1.00 per year to each member of the Broadcast Tech-nology Society. Printed in USA. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY and atadditional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to: IEEE BroadcastTechnology Society Newsletter, IEEE, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08855.

© 2007 IEEE. Information contained in this newsletter may be copied without per-mission provided that copies are not made or distributed for direct commercialadvantage, and the title of the publication and its date appear.

http://www.starwoodhotels.com/west-in/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1718.

As always this is must attend eventso put it in your budget and on yourcalendar.

Also plans are well underway forthe third annual BTS IEEE BroadbandMultimedia Symposium that will beheld March 31 through April 2, 2008at Las Vegas, NV USA. Our plannershave reported a large number ofpaper submissions have beenreceived and that this will once againbe a very informative three days ofpresentations on cutting edge multi-media technology.

While I am on the subject I haveheard some comments and have hadsome discussions relating to whetherthe content of our Fall Symposiumhas become too academic at theexpense of presentations about more“hands-on” subjects. Although atten-dance has been good, it has beenreported that some engineers involvedin the day-to-day operation of broad-cast facilities are staying awaybecause they do not view the contentas relevant to their work. On theother hand there are those, likemyself, who believe that althoughthere is some truth in this, the contentfor the most part is important to theworking engineer and the real issue isthat that they just don’t realize itsvalue. To that end I have suggestedthat we embark of an effort to show

the relevance by providing guidanceto our authors so that they will con-nect their presentations to practical sit-uations if not in today’s environmentthen in where we will be in the future.I have also suggested that we start thisprocess by encouraging some of thepresenters from this year’s Symposiumto write some practical applicationarticles on their subjects for thisNewsletter. I would also like to hearany thoughts on this subject from ourmembership.

In this issue we have an articleabout our new Publications Coordina-tor Jennifer Barbato. Jennifer hastaken over the position formerly heldby our Society Administrator KathyColabaugh. I would like to welcomeJennifer to the BTS family and reportthat she has jumped right in and isdoing a great job. Some of you mayhave had the opportunity to meet Jen-nifer in person at the recent Sympo-sium where she was assisting to keep

everything running smoothly. Onceagain, Jennifer welcome aboard.

Please take note of the Updatedand Approved Constitution and By-Laws for our Society contained in thisissue. These changes are being madeto bring our Constitution and By-Lawsinto compliance with overall IEEErequirements.

Thanks to the hard work and dedi-cation of our contributors and staff weonce again have, I believe, a veryinformative issue with chapter reports,reports and pictures from IBC and thefall Symposium as well as several fea-ture articles that I hope you will findinformative.

As always your comments, sugges-tions, criticism and especially yourcontributions are welcome so let mehear from you even if it just to sayyou got this message.

Bill [email protected]

From the Editor continued

-- On page 9 of the Fall Newsletter, the headline for the BTS Argentina Chapterreport about the FM and TV Antenna Technical Seminar had an incorrect year.The correct year is 2007.

-- On page 10 of the Fall Newsletter, the headline for the BTS Argentina Chapterreport about the AM Transmitter Theory Seminar had an incorrect year. The cor-rect year is 2007. On the first line of the Chapter report, it had an incorrect year.The correct year is 2007.

*** CORRECTION ***


Winter 2007 3 IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Newsletter

From the President continuedmost thoroughly understood anddeveloped technologies is by many noteven considered a serious player in therace for wireless access, yet many ofthe challenges that are being faced bynew wireless players are ones that areintimately familiar to terrestrial broad-casters. As I listened to the presenters itappeared clear to me that the wirelessrevolution is more an evolution. Thebasic physics that we have been deal-ing with since first sending electronicsignals through the air remainunchanged. What has changed is thatdigitized content can include trainingand error correction to overcome manyof the common problems encounteredwhen sending signals through the hos-tile free space medium and that minia-turization has now enabled extremelycomplex receivers to become handheldmobile devices. If content creators

want to reach this market, it appearsthat the most serious challenges will bemore in marketing and promoting theservices as the technologies alreadyexist and are being refined to deliverthe goods.

There is one change coming to theBTS Symposium that in some waysmarks an ending and a new begin-ning. The 57th Symposium will in alllikelihood be the last one that washeld at the Hotel Washington. Thehotel has changed hands and willsoon be closed down for majorremodeling and renovations and willreopen as a very expensive five starhotel. Although I am sure the newowners would welcome us back again,the cost associated with the facility willbe significantly greater and the onlyway we could afford to stay would beto significantly increase the cost of

attending the BTS Symposium. So nextyear the Symposium will be moving tothe brand new Westin Hotel in Alexan-dria. The BTS Adcom was unanimousin deciding to keep the Symposium inthe Washington, DC area and believethat the new hotel will offer servicesthat are as good or better than thosewe have received in the past. Thenew hotel, offers more meeting spaceand rooms which will provide oppor-tunities to broaden and grow the Sym-posium. So mark your calendars andplan on joining us at the 58th AnnualBTS Symposium on October 15 – 17,2008 at the Westin Alexandria hotel.If there are topics that you’d like tosee on the agenda, send them tomyself or any member of the AdCom.

Bill [email protected]

IBC 2007 is the Biggest YetIBC2007 has welcomed more peoplethan ever before. At the close of theshow the number of visitors reached46,964 which is higher than last year'srecord attendance. Over 1,300 exhibitsfrom over 120 countries made this thelargest IBC ever.

Greeting the news, IBC acting CEOMichael Crimp said: "IBC continues togrow in stature as a must-visit for pro-fessionals from all over the globe whoare interested in the whole breadth ofelectronics communication. We aredelighted to welcome more and more

visitors who are leaders in their field."The demand for more exhibition

space, particularly in the areas of IPTVand Mobile are testament to the factthat IBC is not standing still.

Crimp added: "It is the quality ofindividual delegates and the important

IBC celebrates its 50 year anniversaryin 2007 Pablo Angueira, Peter Siebert, Yiyan Wu and Kathy Colabaugh at the IEEE BTS booth


business links they generate, which isIBC's hallmark. IBC would like toextend its thanks to all exhibitors anddelegates. We hope to see you allagain next year."

IBC is a partnership. The partners

are the six Sponsor bodies: IABM,IET (formerly IEE), IEEE BTS, RTS,SCTE and SMPTE. Each partner hasa Board member to perform thelegal and contractual obligations ofIBC. The Board oversees the policy,

budget and general direction of IBC.IBC returns to the RAI Centre in

Amsterdam in 2008, with the confer-ence opening on 11 September andthe exhibition running from 12 to 16September 2008.


BTS President Bill Hayes, Program Chair Yiyan Wu, and SpeakersWei Li, Nick Fielibert and Shuji Hirakawa prepare to present the

BTS sponsored tutorial on IPTV

BTS AdCom members helping out at the BTS booth in the IBCPartnership Village. L-R Ralph Hogan (Membership andEducation Chair), Lanny Nass (Treasurer), Tom Silliman(Secretary), Ellen Hayes (wife of BTS President) and Bill

Meintel (Vice-President and Editor of this Newsletter)

The IEEE BTS presence in the IBC Partnership Village



Your AdCom at work before the start of the SymposiumBroadcast Engineers from 16 countries attend the 57th

Annual IEEE Broadcast Symposium

Carl Stevenson presents his paper “IEEE 802.22 – ADeveloping Standard for Wireless Regional Area Networks

Providing Fixed, Point-Multipoint Broadband Access” A successful reception needs good food

The Jazz Trio sets the mood

Jenn Barbato - BTS Publication Coordinator, Guy Bouchard –Symposium Chair and Alicia Zupeck – IEEE Meeting Planner,

unwind at the reception

The 57th Annual IEEE BTS Broadcast Symposium is aGreat Success!32 Papers presented with attendance of 167 from 16 countries



BTS President Bill Hayes and Administrator Kathy Colabaughcelebrate a highly successful 2007 Broadcast Symposium

Yue Zhang (Brunel Univ., UK), Dr. Jie Zhu (Intel), Dr. KevinHwang (Legend Silicon, CA), James Fang, and Yiyan Wu at

the Symposium

Khalil Salehian (Canada), Tino Trainotti (Argentina),Abdeloumen Mouaki-Benani (Canada), Stella Trainotti

(Argentina), Laisa Caroline de Paula Costa (Brazil), Young-Woo Suh (Korea) at the Symposium

Head table at the joint BTS/AFCCE luncheon. L-R Fred Matos,Guy Bouchard, Bill Hayes, Bill Meintel, Tom Silliman, Lanny

Nass, Ross Heide, Jerry Manarchuk, and Larry Will

Participants enjoy each others company at the jointBTS/AFCCE luncheon

Keynote Speaker Fred Matos at the joint BTS/AFCCEluncheon presenting his talk on “Broadcasting in Iraq”



Transactions Editor Yiyan Wu, Awards & Nominations Chair SidShumate and Symposium Chair Guy Bouchard

Keynote Speaker Don Lockett, Corporation for PublicBroadcasting, presents “The Trek to Digital Conversion:

Ongoing Challenges”

BTS Awards Chair, ,Sid Shumate,presents a plaque for the 2007 Matti

Siukula Award to Joe Zuba of DielectricCorp, who accepted on behalf of OdedBendov. The winning paper was titled"Interference to UHF-DTTV Channels

by Unlicensed Devices"

BTS President Bill Hayes presents aCertificate of Appreciation to EdWilliams for his many years of

dedicated service, time and effortvolunteered to as Technical ProgramChair for each year’s IEEE Broadcast

Symposium

BTS President Bill Hayes presents aCertificate of Appreciation to Guy

Bouchard for his outstanding work andefforts serving as Chair of another

successful IEEE Broadcast Symposium



Keep Your Professional Edge With InnovativeCourses From IEEEMarilyn G. Catis, EA Promotion ManagerIEEE Educational Activities

Staying technically current in today’sever-changing workplace is a careermust if you want to maintain yourprofessional edge or your P.E. licenseas required by more than 30 states inthe US. IEEE offers an innovativenew product called Expert Now aswell as a growing service, EducationPartners Program to help meet yourcontinuing professional developmentneeds.

Expert Now is a collection ofover 65 one-hour long, interactiveonline courses on topics such asaerospace, circuits & devices, com-munications, computing, laser &optics, microwave theory & tech-niques, power, reliability, signalprocessing and software. Presentedby experts in the field, each coursebrings to your desktop the best tutorialcontent IEEE has to offer through theirtechnical meetings that take placeworldwide. Continuing EducationUnits (CEUs) can be earned upon suc-cessful completion of the assessment.To review the course catalog visit

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/modules.modulebrowse.jsp.

For those looking for a morerobust educational experience, morealong the lines of a longer onlinecourse or a more traditional class-room setting, the IEEE EducationPartners Program can prove helpfulin your search for continuing profes-sional development opportunities.Exclusive for IEEE members, it pro-vides access to more than 6,000 on-line courses, certification programsand graduate degree programs at upto a 10% discount from academic andprivate providers that IEEE has peerreviewed to accept into the program.To review the current list of partnersparticipating in the program visithttp://www.ieee.org/web/education/partners/eduPartners.html

Another way to browse for acourse or educational events takingplace in your area is through thecourses registered with IEEE to offerCEUs. To review what’s available inyour area visit http://www.ieee.

org/web/education/ceus/index.html.IEEE is an Authorized provider of

CEUs through the International Associ-ation for Continuing Education andTraining as well as an authorizedprovider of CEUs for the Florida StateBoard. IEEE CEUs are also acceptedby the New York State Board and caneasily be converted into PDHs. OneCEU is equal to 10 contact hours ofinstruction in a continuing educationactivity. IEEE CEUs readily translateinto Professional Development Hours(PDHs) (1 CEU = 10 PDHs).

For more general information onIEEE’s Continuing Education productsand services, visit http://www.ieee.org/web/education/home/index.html. Spe-cific inquiries can be directed toCeleste Torres via email, [email protected] or by phone +1 732 981 3425.

From IEEE BTS: For informationor to participate in specific IEEE BTSeducational plans and initiatives,please contact Ralph Hogan, Chair ofthe BTS Education Committee [email protected].

Jennifer Barbato joins the BTS as Publications CoordinatorThe IEEE Broadcast Technology Societyis pleased to introduce our new Publi-cations Coordinator, Jennifer Barbato.

Jenn joined the IEEE BTS staff inAugust 2007. She currently managesthe day-to-day operations of the IEEETransactions on Broadcasting by work-ing closely with the Editor-in-chief,Associate Editors, authors, peer review-ers and IEEE Publishing staff to pro-vide prompt and efficient manuscriptmanagement, processing and supportservices starting from author submis-sions through the BTS peer reviewprocess and finally preparation of man-uscripts approved for publication.

Jenn also serves as the main con-tact and coordinator for the BTSNewsletter. She acts as liaison withour Newsletter Editor Bill Meintel,Ted Kul igowski , and the IEEENewsletter staff.

In addition Jenn recently assistedKathy Colabaugh, BTS Administratorby helping staff the registration deskat the recent 57th IEEE 2007 BroadcastSymposium in Washington, DC.

Jennifer received her Bachelor of Artsdegree in Psychology, from Kean Univer-sity, Union, NJ. She brings to her BTSposition a strong background in cus-tomer service. Jenn developed and used

Jennifer Barbato


these skills effectively in her prioremployment as a Senior Case Manager atMetlife Insurance Co. and prior to that, asa Senior Call Center Coordinator for thePinnacle Federal Credit Union in Edison

NJ. Jenn’s excellent customer serviceabilities are a great benefit to the BTS asshe carries out her duties as BTS Publica-tion Coordinator and also assisting theBTS Administrator with other tasks.

Future plans for Jenn’s BTS positioninclude the establishment of a directcontact for Member and Chapter assis-tance and also providing additionalsupport for future BTS Symposiums.


Japan IEEE BTS Chapter Activity Reportby keiichi Kubota, Chair

Joint seminar of IEEE Russia Northwest BT/CE/COMChapter and the Chapter of IEEE EngineeringManagement and Computer Societiesby Dmitry Tkachenko

On November 1, 2007, a joint seminarof the IEEE Russia Northwest BroadcastTechnology, Consumer Electronics, andCommunications (BT/CE/COM) Chap-ter and the IEEE Russia NorthwestChapter of Engineering Managementand Computer Societies took place onthe premises of the Motorola St. Peters-burg Software Center, where overseven hundred engineers and program-

mers are developing high quality soft-ware for various types of systems anddevices – from mobile phones andinteractive TV to telecommunicationsand business applications. Key topics ofthe IBC2007 conference and exhibitionsuch as Mobile TV and IPTV were pre-sented and discussed.Prof. Konstantin Glasman, Head ofDepartment at the St. Petersburg Uni-

versity of Film and Television, present-ed Mobile TV news from IBC in a wellstructured and concise form. He madea valuable comparison of knownMobile TV broadcast systems (DVB-H,T-DMB, MediaFLO) as well as unicastmobile TV systems based on 3G mobilenetworks. The need for a newapproach to planning Mobile TV net-works which takes into account much

The BTS Japan Chapter had one jointmeeting below with the Institute ofImage Information and TelevisionEngineers (ITE) during July to October2007. A technical meeting was held onJuly 30-31, 2007, at Hokkaido Univer-sity, Sapporo, Japan. There were 16technical presentations on generaltopics for broadcasting technologyand one special topic for Internationalpromotion of ISDB-T by Yasuo Taka-hashi (ARIB DiBEG).

Please note that "ARIB" stands forAssociation of Radio Industries and Busi-nesses, and that "DiBEG" stands for Digi-tal Broadcasting Experts Group. Moreinformation is available at their web siteshttp://www.arib.or.jp/english/index.htmland http://www.dibeg.org/techp/techp-j.htm

The BTS Japan Chapter is planningto have two joint meetings with theInstitute of Image Information andTelevision Engineers (ITE).

October 26, 2007 at NHK NagoyaStation, Nagoya, Japan.

January 16-17, 2008 at NagasakiUniversity, Nagasaki, Japan.

From Mr. Takahashi’s presentation onÅgInternational promotion of ISDB-T”at Hokkaido University.


higher signal/noise requirements ofmobile terminals without directionalantennas was discussed as well as vari-ous scenarios for broadcast and video-on-demand services. An intensediscussion on the perspectives ofMobile TV standardization concludedProf. Glasman’s presentation.Dr. Dmitry Tkachenko, Associate Pro-fessor at the St. Petersburg State Poly-technic University, made a report onBTS IPTV Tutorial supported with pre-sentations from the BTS Web site. Thetwo main technological approaches inthis field: IPTV delivery in broadbandaccess operators’ networks with guaran-teed Quality of Service and “best effort”Internet TV in global Internet were dis-

cussed and compared. The ongoingITU-T and IEC standardization activitiesin this field were reported as well. Afollow-up discussion focused on com-parison of IPTV services and those indigital cable TV networks. An opinionwas expressed that a “killer application”employing IP networks benefits such asflexible interactivity and easy integra-tion with Internet and home networksis vital for IPTV success in the market,whereas cable networks are still usuallymore convenient for delivery of broad-cast quality video programs.Prof. Sergey Baranov, Chief SoftwareArchitect of the Motorola Center hostingthe seminar, shared news from his recentvisit to the EuroFORTH’2007 conference.

Forth is a programming language andenvironment that provides highly effi-cient usage of hardware resources inembedded devices. The Forth communi-ty is now finalizing the new Forth 200xstandard to replace ANSI Forth of 1994and ISO Forth of 1997. Finally, Konstantin Glasman, as a corre-sponding member of the IBC Confer-ence Committee, invited colleagues tosubmit papers to the IBC2008 Confer-ence that will be held in Amsterdam on11-15 September 2008 and DmitryTkachenko invited them to contributepapers to the 15th International Confer-ence on Telecommunications ICT2008that will be held in St.Petersburg on 16-19 June 2008.

On June 25, Dr. Yiyan Wu (IEEE Fel-low) from CRC, Canada gave a highlyinformative and enjoyable talk in theportable multimedia technology sym-posium at Tatung University, Taipeion three topics: “Portable Informa-tion Devices”, “Building a More Inno-

vative Information and Communica-tions Technologies Enabled Economy”,and “Mobile DTV Systems and Imple-mentation”. Dr. Wu also provided valu-able information on publications-relatedissues as the editor-in-chief of IEEETransactions on Broadcast. On July

25, Dr. C. C. Jay Kuo (IEEE Fellow)gave two talks in a one day shortcourse on modern IT technology atYuan Ze University, Taoyuan. Topicsof the talks were: “Paradigm Shifts inModern IT Era Driven by DigitalMedia and Broadband Networks”,and “Modern and Future Broadcast-ing Technologies and Systems”. Theshift of focus on the IT industryfrom “technology development” to“novel applications” was discussed.Examples of Google, Microsof t ,SONY, Nintendo, Kodak, Dolby,Skype, etc. were used to illustratethe industrial trend. The merger ofdigital broadcasting/mobility, andbroadcas t ing over the Internet(IPTV, e.g. youtube) were also dis-cussed. There were over 100 atten-dees. The Taipei BTS Chapter alsoparticipated in the 2007 cross straitradio technology symposium atLanzhou University in August, fol-lowed by a tour to the impressivesilk road.


Taipei IEEE BTS Chapter Activity Reportby Ying Li

Professor C C Jay Kuo (IEEE Fellow), faculty members of Yuan Ze’sCommunications Eng. Dept., and visiting students from Lanzhou University after

the July 25th short course.



This is to the fourth in a series ofarticles documenting the transi-tion to an all digital television sys-tem in the United States.

As I am writing this there are 462days until the final transition to digitalmust occur unless the U.S. Congressacts to delay the transition. A changein the date at this point seems unlikelysince the FCC has already begun theprocess to auction off spectrum thatwill be reclaimed at the end of thetransition. Auction winners who areexpected to pay billions of dollars forthe use of that spectrum would notwelcome a delay in their ability tomake use of it which might mean thatthey would have to be monetarilycompensated for any delay thus cut-ting into the amount of revenue thatwould be available for its intendedpurposes.

Last time I discussed the fact thatthere were three different proceedingsin progress at the Federal Communica-tions Commission (FCC) that affect thetransition. There was a Notice of Pro-posed Rule Making (NPRM) adoptedon April 25, 2007 that addressed anumber of the regulatory issues relat-ed to the transition. That NPRM hasyet to be finalized; although, discus-sions with FCC staff indicate that it isstill possible that could happen beforethe end of 2007. The second and thirdwere a Report and Order (R&O)released on August 6, 2007 that con-tained the post transition channelallotment table and in the same pro-ceeding a Further Notice of ProposedRule Making (FNPRM) dealing withsome allotment table modifications for13 stations.

Although it would seem that theallotment table was finalized by theAugust 26, 2007 R&O, it is noted thatthere have been more than a hundredpetitions for reconsideration of theR&O filed with the FCC. At this time it

is not known how many of the allot-ments might be affected by those peti-tions since in some cases the petitionsrequested changes for multiple sta-tions. Therefore, there is still a signifi-cant amount of uncertainty involvingthe final allotment table and the spe-cific post transition station operationparameters. That in turn delays deci-sions on equipment purchases at apoint when the window of opportuni-ty for fully meeting the February 2009deadline is rapidly closing if notalready closed. This does not meanthat the deadline will not be met sincetechnically it is just the date whenanalog operation must cease and theout of core (channels above 51) areexpected to be vacated. It just meansthat many stations may not have theirfinal desired post transition facilityfully operational by that time and inthe worst case some may need toactually construct an interim facility.

This latest potential delay as aresult of the petitions for reconsidera-tion is in most cases due to a lack ofunderstanding and communication byall the parties involved, broadcastersas well as FCC staff and leadership.The goal at the end of the transitionwas that the public would still have atleast the same service as existed priorto the transition. Service, in this case,meaning the ability to view a station’sover the air signal after the transitionthat was viewable prior to the transi-tion and not related to the receptionquality where the digital signal shouldalways be superior.

However, the goal got sidetrackedin the process of developing the finalallotment table. Stations were giventhe choice of keeping their pre-transi-tion DTV channel and facility provid-ed it was in the core (channels 2-51)or moving to their analog channelprovided it was in the core. In addi-tion, stations that did not have an in

core analog or digital channel had toselect an in core channel that wouldbecome available. The problem withthe process is that stations changingtheir channels were assigned an allot-ment facility based on the extent ofthe service contour of their pre-transi-tion DTV facility. These new facilitieswere in many cases inferior, in termsof providing service to the existinganalog. There was no provision toallow a station to replicate the existingcurrent service levels. Unfortunately,many broadcasters and the FCC didnot realize that the process was goingto lead to the unintended conse-quence of loss of service. Once thiswas finally understood, the petitionsfor reconsideration began coming in.This, however, now puts the FCC in avery difficult situation. If the Commis-sion allows a change to the table thatpermits a station to fully replicate itsexisting service then that may result ina loss of service for another stationdue to increased interference. Howev-er, I know from my personal experi-ence that it is possible to expand theservice of a number of allotmentswithout causing additional interfer-ence but I have found cases where itis not. At the moment the magnitudeof the problem is not fully known sohopefully it can be resolved withoutany more significant delays.

In my past articles I have primarilyfocused on the transmission side ofthe transition and the associated chal-lenges but on the other front a num-ber of polls and surveys haveindicated that large portions of thepublic do not even realize that thetransition is coming. This is not sur-prising given that almost no effort hasbeen made to get the word out. Formany it will not be an issue since theyreceive their service from cable orsatellite providers who will deal withthe transition for them. On the other

United States Digital Television System – 462 Days to Goby Bill Meintel, BTS Vice President and Editor BTS Newsletter


hand, although they are in the minori-ty, the number of household who relycompletely on over-the-air service is inthe millions plus there are also mil-lions of additional households thathave cable or satellite but who stillrely on over-the-air reception for someof their viewing.

Fortunately educational efforts haveat last begun. The National Associationof Broadcasters (NAB) recentlyannounced commencement of a multi-faceted $697 million educational pro-gram supported by it’s member stationsand television networks. The programas discussed in a press release by theNAB is to include the following.• “DTV Action” television spots• Crawls, snipes and/or news tickers

during programming• 30-minute educational programs

about DTV• 100-day countdown to the February

17, 2009, DTV deadline• Public relations elements, including

earned media coverage in newspa-pers and online

• DTV Road Show that will visit 600locations nationwide

• DTV Speakers Bureau that willreach one million consumers

• Online banner ads on TV stationWeb sites”

In addition a web site http://www.dtvan-swers.com has been setup to provideanswers to many common questions thatthe public might have about the transi-tion, how it will affect their viewing and

what they need to do to be prepared forthe coming changes.

To aid viewers who wish to contin-ue to use their current analogreceivers the Federal Government hasinstituted a program, to be financedby some of the revenue from thespectrum auction, which will providecoupons that can be used toward thepurchase of digital-to-analog converterboxes. There is however a limit on thenumber of coupons that will be pro-vided and the program will operate ona first come first served bases.

Starting January 1, 2008, all U.S.households will be eligible to requestup to two coupons, worth $40 each,to be used toward the purchase of upto two, digital-to-analog converterboxes. All households are eligiblewithout regard to income or whetherthey have cable or satellite service.Consumers will be able to apply fortheir coupons through a Web site, viaa toll-free number, or by mail.Coupons will be mailed to eligiblehouseholds and will expire after 90days of issuance. $890 million has setaside to fund this program. If theseinitial funds are exhausted, an addi-tional $450 million will be made avail-able but only to households thatreceive only over-the-air televisionservice. It is noted that the cost ofcoupon eligible boxes is expected tostart in the $60 to $70 price range. It isalso noted that multiple coupons can-not be combined to cover the cost ofa single box.

To protect both the public and thegovernment, converter boxes mustmeet a set of technical requirementsand be government certified to be eligi-ble for the coupon program. In addi-tion to meeting certain technicalrequirements related to reception capa-bility, the converter boxes must alsonot be equipped with certain additionalfeatures. Eligible boxes may be provid-ed with a remote control, have a con-nection for a smart antenna and havesoftware to provide program guidesbut cannot have other features such asbut not limited to HDMI, USB or Ether-net ports or include recording devices.For more information on the technicalrequirements for coupon eligible boxesas well as other information related tothe program check the NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA) web site athttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/. It is notedthat there is no prohibition to sellingconverter boxes with additional fea-tures as noted above they will just notbe eligible for the coupon program.Likewise, there is no requirement thatboxes offered for sale meet the techni-cal related reception requirements thatapply to coupon eligible boxes.

By the next issue of the BTSNewsletter it is expected that thereshould be an improved view of theroad to digital so stay tuned for furtherupdates.

Your comments on this topic aremost welcome. Please contact medirectly at [email protected].


IEEE G2.2 RF Standards Committee Measurement Test Methodology Field VerificationBy Gary Sgrignoli, Meintel, Sgrignoli, and Wallace

INTRODUCTIONThis article is the last in a series ofthree about DTV emission mask com-pliance measurements. In the first arti-cle, Greg Best provided an overviewof the process undertaken by the IEEEG2.2 RF Standards Committee to cre-ate a detailed description of a recom-

mended measurement practice thataccurately determined FCC emissionmask compliance. In the second arti-cle, Linley Gumm described how thedocument was created and providedthe underlying measurement funda-mentals and test equipment require-ments. In this last article in the series,

an overview of specific logisticalmeasurement steps is provided as partof an actual DTV transmitter fieldmeasurement that was used to vali-date the test procedures in the Recom-mended Practice.

The Advanced Television SystemCommittee (ATSC) digital television


(DTV) standard has been selected forterrestrial service in the United Statesand several other countries around theworld (Canada, Mexico, Korea, Hon-duras, etc.), and uses 8-VSB as itstransmission standard. The characteris-tics of 8-VSB are well-known anddescribed by the ATSC (Ref 1), andthe ATSC has provided some recom-mended operating conditions forATSC transmitters (Ref 2). However,in the United States, the FCC requiresall DTV transmitters to comply withtheir rigid emission mask as stated inthe FCC rules (Ref 3, 4) and a relatedPublic Notice (Ref 5).

The IEEE’s G2.2 RF TechniquesCommittee has created a documentthat describes and clarifies DTV emis-sions measurement. It is entitled “Rec-ommended Practice for 8-VSB DigitalTelevision Mask Compliance for theUSA” (Ref 6). In addition to providingthe theory, techniques, and proceduresfor measuring near-band DTV emis-sions for FCC compliance, the IEEEdocument recommends certain types oftest equipment and identifies its mini-mum necessary performance specifica-tions. These procedures were writtenwith the goal of allowing broadcastersand other interested parties to be ableto obtain accurate and consistent testresults at transmitter sites.

To verify our goal had beenachieved, the IEEE measurementmethodology was used in field trials atactual full-service DTV transmittersites around the country, using testequipment compliant with the recom-mended performance specificationsdescribed in the document. Two spec-trum analyzers from different manu-facturers were used along with asample of a band-reject filter to deter-mine if consistent DTV emission maskcompliance test results could beobtained.

BACKGROUNDDTV transmission is based on a wide-band (almost 6 MHz) noise-like signaltransmitted from an antenna that is fedby a high power amplifier (HPA) that isnot perfectly linear. Non-linearities

(mostly 3rd order) exist within all DTVtransmitters and cause the noise-likeband-limited signal to “spread out” andtypically splatter energy into the near-byadjacent channels on either side of theDTV signal. The amount and shape ofthis sideband splatter energy dependson many different factors such as theseverity and type of the transmitter non-linearities, the amplitude of the transmit-ter input and output signals, and theamplitude response shape of any band-pass emission mask filter at the transmit-ter’s output. This splatter energy fallsinto adjacent RF channels above andbelow the DTV channel, and can possi-bly cause interference to other televisionsignals (analog or digital).

The FCC has specified the maxi-mum amount and shape of the side-band energy by creating three rigidemission masks: one for high-power,full-service transmitters and two (Sim-ple and Stringent) for low-power andtranslator transmitters. The differenttypes of mask are described in theFCC rules (Ref 3, 4). Compliance tothese emission masks is mandatory forall U.S. broadcasters whether or notthere are adjacent channel signalspresent near their coverage area.Therefore, a simple and accuratemeasurement methodology is neces-sary for broadcasters to be able toassure that their DTV transmitters arecompliant with the FCC rules.

After the IEEE measurement proce-dure document was created, field veri-fication at an actual DTV transmittersite was extremely important in orderto assure that its methodology is rea-sonable and understandable. The goalwas to verify that station engineerscould easily obtain accurate andrepeatable results using moderately-priced test equipment. Likewise, therewas a need to quantify the measure-ment accuracy that can be achievedbetween two different moderately-priced spectrum analyzers.

TRANSMITTER TEST SITEThere were several field trials thatprovided valuable guidance duringthe document’s development. Several

suggested measurement methods weredropped as a result of early trials andthe wording in the adopted procedureextensively modified. These field tri-als, also performed in conjunctionwith our committee members, con-tributed to the creation of draft docu-ments. Thanks go to Dan Haight, JimThoruson, and Gene Noskoff at KCBSand KCAL in Los Angeles, Bill Mag-gliocco at WTBS in Atlanta, Rick Vogtand Jim Church at WMAQ/WSNS inChicago, and Dennis Vigil of KRQE inAlbuquerque for these early field tests.While each of these early tests was aqualified success, a field test was stillrequired to verify the final recom-mended practice methodology.

In order to accomplish this verifica-tion, a field test was performed in Feb-ruary 2007 on CH 35 in Albuquerque,NM on Sandia Crest with the permissionand encouragement of Jim Gale (Direc-tor of Engineering, KNME/KNMD) inconjunction with the University of NewMexico. Invaluable specific technicalsupport was provided by KNME engi-neering staff (John Ramp, Dan Zillich,and Greg Laughrin).

TEST EQUIPMENTThe primary piece of test equipmentused in these verification tests was thespectrum analyzer. The Recommend-ed Practice documents the perform-ance requirements that the spectrumanalyzer must meet in order to meas-ure the extreme 110 dB dynamicrange requirement specified in theFCC rules between the 500 kHz emis-sion sub-band power at the edge ofeach adjacent channel and the 6 MHzin-band average signal power.

Two spectrum analyzers were select-ed for these verification tests: the Agi-lent E4402B and the Rohde &Schwarz FSL. Both of these analyzersmeet the basic requirements and recom-mendations (particularly IP3 and DANLspecs) set forth in the RecommendedPractice and both are considered mod-erately priced so that broadcasterswould find them affordable.

Another piece of test equipment thatis required for making these emission



mask measurements is a band-reject fil-ter (also referred to as a band-stop fil-ter). It is tuned to the specific RFchannel being tested and is used toremove a significant amount of in-bandenergy from the strong DTV signalwhile measurements are made on thevery low-level sideband splatter beyond2 MHz into the adjacent channels.

The recommended filter require-ments are described in the IEEE docu-ment (Ref 6). Figure 1 shows magnituderesponse for the Microwave FilterCompany Model 16150-35 Channel 35band-reject filter used in the Albu-querque field test

TRANSMITTER DESCRIPTIONFigure 2 contains a simple block dia-gram of the KNME-DT digital trans-mitter that was tested on Sandia Crestin Albuquerque, NM on Monday Feb-ruary 25, 2007. The Channel 35 KNMEDTV transmitter is a Harris DiamondCD solid-state design that consists offour cabinets combined together fora total transmitter power output (TPO)of 16.8 kWatts. The DTV transmitter,with its 4-way combiner, is connectedto an ERI Passive Power harmonicfilter followed by an ERI Passive

Power emission mask filter. The direc-tional coupler at the mask filter’s out-put provided a nominal DTV testoutput level of about +25 dBm. Chan-nel 35 has a center frequency (Fc) of599 MHz. For this emission mask test,the KNME transmitter was NOT takenoff line and terminated in a dummyload, but rather the signal was sent tothe Dielectric TUD-05-8/40H-T panelantenna on their transmission tower.

METHODOLOGYThe methodology used in the KNMEfield verification test closely followedthe IEEE Recommended Practice(Clause 5.5). The goal was to carefullymeasure at the emission mask outputthe near-band (6 MHz) DTV emissionsplatter energy in twelve individual 500-kHz sub-bands contained within each

adjacent channel (i.e., upper and lower)per the FCC’s allowed methodologydescribed in their public notice (Ref 5),subtract from each of these sub-bandsthe total in-band average power (meas-ured in 6 MHz), and then compare eachsub-band result (in units of dBDTV) tothe required FCC emission mask com-pliance values. All spectrum analyzermeasurements were made with a 10kHz resolution bandwidth (RBW) filterand the channel power markersengaged (either 6 MHz for in-bandmeasurements or 500 kHz for adjacentchannel sub-band measurements) withRMS (power) video detector modes.

For the best comparison betweenthe two spectrum analyzers, eachmeasurement was conducted with onespectrum analyzer, and then theprocess was immediately repeatedusing the second spectrum analyzer,before moving on to the next measure-ment step. Each measurement step wasprogrammed into an Excel spreadsheet(with detailed “prompting” instructions)for data entry as well as subsequentcalculations (e.g., correction for exter-nal pads, band-stop filters loss, andanalyzer noise floor subtraction as wellas FCC dBDTV compliance).

Without listing every detailed stepdescribed in the Recommended Prac-tice (Ref 6), here are brief generalsummaries of the fundamental stepsthat were followed during the DTVtransmitter mask measurements at theKNME transmitter site.1) CHARACTERIZE THE BAND-

REJECT FILTER: The CH 35 band-reject filter was swept and itsamplitude response was character-ized to determine that it met therequirements described in the IEEEdocument.


Figure 1 Magnitude plot of band-reject filter used for KNME (Channel 35)emission mask field test

Figure 2 KNME-DT simplified CH 35 DTV transmitter block diagram.


2) DETERMINE THE ANALYZER’SREQUIRED INPUT SIGNALLEVEL: The minimum requiredmask filter output signal levelrequired at the input to the spec-trum analyzer (to meet the 110 dBdynamic range) was determined byadding the 110 dB range value tothe 500-kHz displayed averagenoise floor of the analyzers plus theinsertion loss of the filter at the12th sub-band. The required in-band DTV signal level was deter-mined to be around +20 dBm forthe two particular analyzers used inthis field test, which was wellbelow the safe operating input sig-nal level (+30 dBm) for each ana-lyzer. However, some analyzershave maximum reference levels(which indicate maximum inputlevels for linear operation) that areless than the safe operating inputlevel. Therefore, one of the analyz-ers required an external pad at itsinput, which was accounted for inthe subsequent calculations.

3) OPTIMIZE THE SPECTRUMANALYZER: The signal level atthe output of the emission maskfilter was connected to each spec-trum analyzer one at a time. Acombination of the analyzer’sinput attenuator and referencelevel were adjusted to find itsown optimized “sweet spot”,which the Recommended Practicedescribes as that amplitude at ananalyzer’s input mixer that maxi-mizes its dynamic range capabili-t ies (i .e. , best compromisebetween the analyzer’s noise floorand overload ceiling).

4) MEASURE THE IN-BAND SIGNALLEVEL: The total in-band averagesignal power (in 6 MHz) was meas-ured and recorded using the ana-lyzers’ channel power capability(using the RMS/power video detec-tor mode). Good quality compo-nents were used (double-shieldedcables, high-quality connectors,etc.), making sure that no signalingress from the nearby high-power transmitters was present in

the measurement system.5) DETERMINE FCC COMPLIANCE

FOR FIRST FOUR SUB-BANDS:The integrated power in the firstfour 500-kHz sub-bands in eachadjacent channel (upper andlower) was then measured with thechannel power capability of thespectrum analyzers (using theRMS/power video detector mode).The previously measured averagein-band power was subtractedfrom each of these 500-kHz sub-band measurements. These calcu-lated values (defined as dBDTV inthe Recommended Practice) werethen compared to the requiredvalues in the FCC rules to verifycompliance.

6) INSERT BAND-REJECT FILTER:Since no spectrum analyzer has110 dB of dynamic range, a two-step measurement process isrequired. After the transmitter’ssplatter in the first four adjacentchannel sub-bands is measured,the splatter signal falls below theanalyzer’s noise floor. Some meansof extending the dynamic range isnecessary. This was accomplishedby inserting a sharp band-reject fil-ter before the spectrum analyzer toremove most of the in-band DTVsignal power, which then allowedthe analyzer to be adjusted to itsmost sensitive range without over-loading its mixer. Once again,good quality components wereused (double-shielded cables, high-quality connectors, etc.), makingsure that no signal ingress from thenearby high-power transmitterswas present in the measurementsystem. The integrated 6 MHz in-band DTV signal power was atten-uated greater than 50 dB, asexpected from the use of a band-reject filter that meets the IEEERecommend Practice specs.

7) OPTIMIZE THE SPECTRUM ANA-LYZER: With the band-reject filterpresent at the spectrum analyzer’sinput, the analyzer’s sensitivity wasincreased by lowering its referencelevel and removing the input

attenuation until it reached itsmost sensitive range. This waspossible since the band-reject filterreduced the in-band signal bymore than 50 dB, yet only attenu-ated the splatter in the remaining 8sub-bands (in each adjacent chan-nel) by less than 3 dB.

8) DETERMINE FCC COMPLIANCEFOR LAST EIGHT SUB-BANDS:The integrated power in the lasteight 500-kHz sub-bands in eachadjacent channel (upper andlower) was then measured with thechannel power capability of theanalyzers (using the RMS/powervideo detector mode). The averagein-band power was subtractedfrom each 500-kHz sub-band meas-urement. These calculated values(cal led dBDTV in the Recom-mended Pract ice) were thencompared to the required valuesin the FCC rules.

TEST RESULTSThe first observation is that theKNME transmitter easily met therigid FCC emission mask, and inmany cases by significant amounts(e.g., 20 -30 dB). Another observa-tion is that the absolute average in-band power measurement valuesfrom each spectrum analyzer werewithin 0.4 dB of each other. The twospectrum analyzers produced resultsthat were within 2 dB of each otherwhen the sub-band power value waswell above the analyzer noise floor(on both sides of the DTV channel).Careful interpretation of the compari-son results is important due to thefact that some of the 500-kHz sub-bands may be measured near eachanalyzer’s respective noise floor (i.e.,within 3 dB). However, as long asmeasurements can be made at orbelow the required FCC emissionmask, then FCC compliance can beverified. It must be remembered thatthe object of these test methods isnot to measure the exact transmittersplatter emissions but rather to con-firm that they are below the requiredFCC mask.




SUMMARYThe primary goal of these verificationfield tests was to verify that valid andconsistent results with various spec-trum analyzers and band-reject filterswere possible within acceptable toler-ance limits when using the method-ologies described in the IEEERecommended Practice document.The secondary goal was to assess anydifficulty in applying the IEEEmethodology.

The results from these tests indicatethat consistency with multiple moder-ately-priced spectrum analyzers andband-reject filters is typically possibleto within 2 dB. The recommendedmethods were straightforward to fol-low, although this measurementmethodology must be followed veryprecisely, with careful attention todetails, especially when finding theanalyzer’s “sweet spot”. Good qualitycomponents and test equipment arerequired in order to help guaranteeaccurate success.

While two spectrum analyzers wereevaluated in this verification field test,only one source of band-stop filterwas used. However, this should nothave any impact upon the overallresult since any band-reject filtermeeting the requirements defined inthe IEEE Recommended Practice doc-ument can be used.

Ideally, measurements betweenspectrum analyzers would result in

exactly the same results. However,there are some measurement toler-ances or sources of error that do existas is often reflected in the analyzer’sspecification sheet.

Therefore, the IEEE methodology,as described in the G2.2 RF StandardsCommittee Recommended Practicedocument, appears to meet its goals ofenabling the easy verification of adja-cent channel FCC emission mask com-pliancy. You can check the status ofIEEE adoption of this RecommendedPractice by going to the BTS websiteat www.ieee.org/organizations/socie-ty/bt/stnds.html.

REFERENECES[1] ATSC Standard (A/53E), Advanced

Television Systems Committee, 27December 2005, 101 pages.

[2] “Transmission Measurement andCompliance Standard for DigitalTelevision”, ATSC, DocumentA/64A, www.atsc.org.

[3] FCC’s regulations for Full Servicetransmitters are given in:47CFR§73.622(h), 47CFR§73.622(a),47CFR§74.794(a).

[4] FCC’s emission regulations for LowPower DTV transmitters are givenin 47CFR§74.794(a).

[5] FCC document: Public Notice DA-05-1321A1, May 10, 2005, “OETClarifies Emission Mask Measure-ment for DTV Transmitters”.

[6] “Recommended Practice for 8-VSB

Terrestrial Transmission Mask Compli-ance for the USA”, IEEE G2.2 RF Stan-dards Committee, submitted to theIEEE for adoption December 2007.

BiographyGary Sgrignoli received his BSEEand MSEE degrees from the Universityof Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, andthen worked at Zenith ElectronicsCorporation as a design engineer inthe R&D department for 27 years.Currently, he is a partner in the con-sulting firm of Meintel, Sgrignoli, andWallace (www.MSWdtv.com). Since1991, Gary has been extensivelyinvolved in the VSB transmission sys-tem design, its prototype implementa-tion, the ATTC lab tests in Alexandria,VA, and both ACATS field tests inCharlotte, NC. He was also involvedwith the DTV Station Project in Wash-ington DC, helping to develop DTVRF test plans. Gary has also workedwith numerous television broadcaststations around the country, trainingthem for DTV field testing and dataanalysis, and participated in numer-ous DTV over-the-air demonstrationswith the Grand Alliance and theATSC. In addition to publishing tech-nical papers and giving presentationsat various conferences, he has heldnumerous day-long digital VSB trans-mission system seminars around thecountry since 1998, and was named2005 SBE Educator of the year.

Work Moves Forward on ATSC Mobile/Handheld StandardBy Jerry Whitaker, VP Standards Development, ATSC

The pace of work has acceleratedwithin ATSC to develop a compre-hensive standard for a mobile digitaltelevision service that is backward-compatible with conventional DTVsignals. The Specialist Group onATSC Mobile/ Handheld (TSG/S4),formed in May to consider proposedsystems and develop draft documen-tation for a complete systems solu-

tion, is being led by Mark Aitkenfrom Sinclair Broadcast Group asChair and Dan Borowicz from IONMedia as Vice-Chair.

TSG/S4 has divided the ATSC-M/Htask into three main elements:• Physical Layer. Led by Michael

Doerr of Coherent Logix as Chairand Bruce Franca of MSTV as Vice-

Chair, the Physical Layer Group isfocusing on the RF, forward-error-correction, and legacy transportelements.

• Management Layer. Led by RichChernock of Triveni Digital asChair and Alan Moskowitz ofMobiTV as Vice-Chair Group, theManagement Layer Group is focus-ing on the ATSC-M/H transport,



signaling, announcement, stream-ing and file delivery, conditionalaccess, digital rights management,and the application framework.

• Presentation Layer. Led by BrettJenkins of ION Media as Chair, thePresentation Layer Group is focus-ing on audio coding, video coding,and image formats.TSG/S4 and its three sub-groups

are evaluating backwards-compatibleproposals for delivery of services tomobile and handheld devices usingDTV broadcast signals. This work mayinclude developing recommendedchanges to existing standards and/orwriting new standards and—whereapplicable—associated RecommendedPractices. The presence of the newM/H services will not preclude or pre-vent operation of current ATSC servic-es in the same RF channel or haveadverse impact on legacy receivingequipment. Wherever possible, thesestandards will build on existing stan-dards of the ATSC or other standardsdevelopment organizations (SDOs).

Estimates of the timeline for finaliz-ing an ATSC-H/M standard are difficultto make given the complexity of thetask. However the committee hasmapped out a work plan that calls forcompletion of the project by Q1 2009.By meeting this timeline, broadcastersin the U.S. would be able to announceand launch new mobile and handheldbroadcast services before the close ofanalog services in February 2009.

Proposed SystemsATSC issued a request for proposals(RFP) on ATSC-M/H in May, basedon requirements developed by theATSC Planning Committee andapproved by the Board of Directors.By the July 6 deadline, formal pro-posals had been received from thefollowing organizations:• Coding Technologies• Coherent Logix• DTS• LG Electronics/Zenith/Harris• Micronas Semiconductor• MobiTV• Nokia

• Qualcomm• Samsung/Rohde & Schwarz• ThomsonSome of the submitted proposalsaddress all elements of the ATSC-M/Hsystem; others are focused on a singleelement or layer.

The following full-system proposalscurrently exist, in some cases byrecent strategic alliances:• LG Electronics/Zenith/Harris• Samsung/Rohde & Schwarz/Nokia• Micronas/ThomsonCoherent Logix has announced theirintention to support any of the physi-cal layer systems

So-called stand-alone proposalsinclude:• Coding Technologies and DTS

(audio codecs)• MobiTV (interactive TV services)• Qualcomm (upper layer manage-

ment/presentation functions)Proponents have successfully met

their first major milestone throughsubmission of a comprehensive“working draft” of their proposal. Theworking draft document, essentially adetailed technical disclosure, was criti-cal to moving forward to the nextthreshold.

Proponents are now workingtoward the next major milestone—February 18, which is the date set forsubmission of working hardware.

IDOVHardware submitted by the February18 deadline will first be subjected to alaboratory viability test to establish thereasonableness of the hardware sup-plied and the actual performance ofthe hardware versus target perform-ance. In addition, an IndependentDemonstration of Viability (IDOV) willcommence upon delivery of the pro-ponent systems. This activity will bedeveloped and managed by the OpenMobile Video Coalition (OMVC), anindependent user group with a keeninterest in moving ATSC-M/H forward.OMVC has formed a Technology Advi-sory Working Group, which is beingled by Sterling Davis of Cox Broad-casting, to take the lead in coordinat-

ing the IDOV activity with the ongo-ing work in TSG/S4. It is important tonote that the IDOV process is not afield test, as such, but instead ademonstration of the viability of vari-ous methods to accomplish ATSC-M/Hservices. The goal of IDOV is to seewhich of the proposed systems areviable. OMVC may find that multiplesystems are viable—or that just one ortwo systems are viable.

Details are yet to be worked outwithin the overall project timeline, butthe current thinking is that two mar-kets will be utilized to place equip-ment into operation to demonstrateagainst an established expectation.While this project is envisioned to berelatively brief, the report that comesout of the IDOV activities should pro-vide additional input for decisions inparallel with the ongoing activities ofdocument review and revision withTSG/S4.

ScheduleThe IDOV report will be completedprior to the 2008 NAB Conventionand, along with ongoing review,should lend itself to a decision pointin May 2008, after which TSG/S4 willturn the Working Draft of the selectedsystem (or system elements) into aWorking Draft Candidate Standard(CS) in early June 2008.

The expectation is that the Candi-date Standard will be finalized in Sep-tember 2008, at which point detailedlaboratory and field test will proceedin parallel with the rest of the industrybeginning its trial implementations ofthe CS document. Finally, if all goes asplanned, the parent Technology andStandards Group will be asked toapprove a ballot on a Proposed Stan-dard in December 2008, with the ATSCprocess ending within Q1 of 2009.

Get InvolvedWork within ATSC is open to all organ-izations with a direct and materialinterest. If you would like to beinvolved in this or other ongoing workwith ATSC, please contact the authorJerry Whitaker at [email protected].



Second of a Series:

First Subject: Error Codes. When run-ning DTV calculations on Longley-Ricesoftware based on the ITM 1.2.2 coresubroutines, the FCC ignores the EC3(Error Code 3) error codes; and thereare a lot of them in each run. The Lon-gley-Rice documentation does not pro-vide much information about the errorcodes. In Appendix A to “A Guide tothe Use of the ITS Irregular TerrainModel in the Area Prediction Mode”,by G.A. Hufford, A.G. Longley, andW.A. Kissick, (April 1982) it states:

“KWX Error marker. Indicates by itsvalue the severity of the warning:

0 No warning1 Caution; parameters are close to

limits2 Impossible parameters; default

values have been submitted3 Internal calculations show

parameters out of range4 Parameters out of range”

There is an additional note at the bot-tom of the page:

“Note 1. The error marker KWX ismeant to serve as a warning to theuser that one or more of the parame-ters have values that make the resultsdubious or unusable. Except when ithas the value 2, there is no effect onthe computations. The value is cumu-lative, in that after a series of calcula-tions it will retain its highest value.Since it is never reset to 0, the usermust do this himself.”

That’s it? The L-R documentation isnot much help.

The error codes are referred to indifferent ways in the literature, usual-ly after having been filtered throughthe wrap-around software used todayto prepare the input data and presentthe results for the Longley-Rice ITMversion 1.2.2. set of subroutines,

which we will refer to as the “core”subroutines. An FCC EC3 code is aKWX = 3 code, etc, so go by thenumber of the error.

This article continues the subjectof the last article, namely, subrou-tine lrprop, as the error codes kwx= 1, 3, and 4 are primarily deter-mined in this subroutine. However,the error codes kwx = 2 are deter-mined in the analysis of variablessubroutine, avar, as is item 1.f onthe kwx = 1 list.

The error codes are mentionedabove as being cumulative, however,this requires a better explanation.There are several sets of conditionsthat can cause a kwx =1 (a.k.a. EC1)error; having more than one of themhappen does not add up to a kwx=2.Five kwx=1 errors can occur, and Lon-gley-Rice (L-R) will only report outkwx =1. But let one higher level erroroccur, and the kwx code will forgetabout the lower level errors and reportout the level of the highest level error,be it kwx=2, kwx=3, or kwx=4. There-fore, it does not report out how manyerrors of a certain level have occurred;only that at least one has occurred.Today, the error code is reset to zerowhen the point_to_point or areasubroutine is called by the wrap-around software, so the error code willbe printed out in the run report, andthen reset for the calculation of thenext interval along a profile, or foreach point on an area map.

Now what we need is more detailas to what triggers each level of error.From the c++ source code for subrou-tines lrprop and avar, we find:

THE LONGLEY-RICE ITM ERRORCODES AND ALARM TRIP LEVELS:

EC = kwx =1, 2, and 4 error codes areprimarily triggered by input parame-ters that are incorrect; either out of

range or missing. The EC = kwx = 3codes are triggered when things gowrong in the computation.

1. An EC1, or KWX = 1 level error,indicating “caution, input parametersare close to limits”, occurs when:

a. The input frequency is less than40 MHz or greater than 10 GHz.

b. The transmitter antenna heightabove ground is less than 1 meteror greater than one kilometer.

c. The receive antenna heightabove ground is less than 1meter or greater than one kilo-meter.

d. The distance between the trans-mitter and the receive site isless than 1,000 meters.

e. The distance from the transmitsite to the receive site is morethan 1,000 kilometers.

f. The absolute value of either thetime, location, or confidencevariants, zt, zl, or zc, are greaterthan 3.1.

2. An EC2, or KWX = 2 level error,indicating “impossible input parame-ters; default values have been submit-ted” occurs when:

a. klim, the radio climate code, isnot set to be an integerbetween 1 and 7. In this case,subroutine avar substitutes adefault value of 5 for klim.

b. If kdv, set to be equal to therightmost digit of mdvar, themode of variability single digitunit value, is not an integerbetween 1 and 3. Subroutineavar substitutes a default valueof 0 for kdv.

3. An EC3, or KWX = 3 level error,indicating “internal calculations showparameters out of range” occurs when:

a. The absolute value of the trans-mitter site theta angle is greaterthan 0.2 radians. The transmitter

More on Longley-Rice: Error Codes Decoded, Out-of-Date Instructions, and An Updated Free Wrap-AroundBy Sid Shumate, Member IEEE BTS AdCom


site theta angle, identified asthe[0] in the c++ code, is the“take-off” angle from the trans-mitter site to the top of thehighest obstruction visible fromthe transmitter site, or, if noobstruction exists, to the receiveantenna or horizon, measuredwith respect to the horizontal,adjusted for the effective earthcurvature, gme. The limit, theabsolute value of 0.2 radians, isequivalent to 11.46 degrees upor down from the horizontal.

b. The transmitter to horizon dis-tance, dl[0], (which is calculatedfor an obstructed or beyond-the-horizon path, or estimated for aline-of-sight path), is less than atenth of the distance to the esti-mated smooth earth transmitterto horizon distance, dls[0].

c. The transmitter to horizon dis-tance, dl[0], is more than threetimes the distance to the esti-mated smooth earth transmitterto horizon distance, dls[0].

d. The absolute value of thereceive site theta angle isgreater than 0.2 radians. Thereceive site theta angle, identi-fied as the[1] in the c++ code, isthe “take-off” angle from thereceive site to the top of thehighest obstruction visible fromthe receive site, or, if noobstruction exists, to the trans-mitter antenna or horizon,measured with respect to thehorizontal, adjusted for theeffective earth curvature, gme.

e. The receiver to horizon dis-tance, dl[1], (which is calculatedfor an obstructed or beyond-the-horizon path, or estimated for aline-of-sight path), is less than atenth of the distance to the esti-mated smooth earth receive siteto horizon distance, dls[1].

f. The receiver to horizon dis-tance, dl[1], is more than threetimes the distance to the esti-mated smooth earth transmitterto horizon distance, dls[1]. Thiscould occur if attempting to run

a path from the airplane-mount-ed transmitter of TV Marti to aTV receiver in Havana.

g. The path distance between thetransmitter and receiver is lessthan the value of dmin. Theminimum distance, dmin, is setto be equal to five times the dif-ference in height between thetransmitter antenna effectiveheight and the receive antennaeffective height.

4. An EC4, or KWX = 4 level error,indicating “an input parameter out ofrange”, occurs when:

a. ens, the surface refractivity ofthe atmosphere, is input as lessthan 250 or greater than 400. Avalue of 310 is typical.

b. gme, the effective earth’s curva-ture, is less than 75E-9, or greaterthan 250E-9. The default value forgme is usually 157E-9.

c. The input value of Zgnd.real,the surface transfer impedancereal (resistance) component, (inCartesian complex number co-ordinates, i.e. the a in an a +ibcomplex number statement), isless than or equal to theabsolute value of the inputvalue of zgnd.imag, the reac-tance (phase) component, (theb in a+ ib).

d. The frequency input is less than20 MHz or more than 20 GHz.

e. The transmitter antenna heightabove ground is less than 1/2meter or greater than threekilometers.

f. The receive antenna heightabove ground is less than 1/2meter or greater than three kilo-meters.

g. The transmitter site to receivesite path distance is less than1000 meters or greater than2000 kilometers.

WHAT CAUSES MOST EC ERRORCODESWith respect to the causes of EC codesthat will generally affect broadcasters,trigger 3.a. on the chart above would

occur if too big an obstruction is tooclose to the transmitter site. Both trig-gers 3a and 3.g would activate if thereceive distance is near the base of atall tower, or the transmit antenna ison a tall mountain and the receiver isnear the base of the mountain. And3.g will activate just if the transmitterand receiver are too close. So EC3, orkwx =3 codes, are to be expected inmass quantities, in the first few read-ings of a rf profile, or near the trans-mitter site on an area map. However,for broadcast coverage prediction, thesignal strength here is usually so highthat the problem is irrelevant.

Trigger 3.b occurs if an obstructionis found very near the transmitter site.So an antenna mounted on a shortantenna, on the side of a mountain, oron a lesser mountain peak near ataller mountain peak, will generateEC3 codes toward the higher ground.

Trigger 3.c would only happen ifattempting to run a path for transmit-ting to a far-away airplane, near orbeyond the curve of the earth, or to avery tall, very far away mountaintop.

Triggers 3.d and 3.e are similar to3.a and 3.b above, except that theyrefer to the receive site. So smallobstructions in the path, near thereceive site, or very tall obstructionsfurther away, but still in the path andvisible to the receive site, and predic-tions made near a receive site locatedon a tall mountain or predictionsmade adjacent to a receive antennasite atop a tall building, can also causeEC3 to trigger. Beyond the solid ringof EC3’s around the transmitter site,triggers 3.d and 3.e are probably themain contributors to the number ofEC3 alarms registered on a DTV L-Rterrain profile or L-R coverage map.

Second Subject; The out of dateinstruction set in the lrprop subroutine.Despite the recent review and release inJune, 2007, of an improved version, thelrprop subroutine continues to operateon an outdated set of instructions.

The lrprop subroutine is a super-visory subroutine. Like a general con-tractor employed by a land developerto build new houses, it subcontracts



out the majority of the work to spe-cialty subcontractors, and then, nearthe completion of the structure, itbecomes hands-on to fill-in theremaining missing pieces and add thefinishing touches. The specialty sub-contractors on this project are the sub-routines adiff, alos, and ascat. Tocontinue the general contractor analo-gy, it appears that, over the years, theland developer, here represented bythe NTIA and the “point_to_point”subroutine, have failed to keep thegeneral contractor up to date; as aresult, the building plans used by thegeneral contractor are for the last proj-ect, not the current one. While themain part of the job is identical to thelast job, the additional new parts ofthe plan are missing, and there is nodocumentation for the change orders.

Subroutine lrprop first looks to pre-pare to calculate the diffraction attenua-tion in the diffraction range. Thedistance dlsa is calculated to equal thesum of the smooth earth horizon dis-tances, the sum of the estimated theoret-ical maximum distance from thetransmitter site to the horizon oversmooth earth, and the estimated theoret-ical maximum distance from the trans-mitter site to the horizon over smoothearth. This distance, dlsa, is then set torepresent the maximum distance forline-of-sight calculations. In fact, theentire operation of lrprop is split intotwo working areas: one for path length(the distance between the transmitterand the receiver) less than dlsa, and onefor path length greater than dlsa.

Another distance is calculated, dis-tance dx; it is defined as the pointwhere the diffraction losses startexceeding the troposcatter losses. Thepath length from dlsa to dx is thenassigned to be the diffraction range;the path beyond dx becomes the tro-poscatter range. Everything before thedistance dlsa is considered to be inthe line-of-sight range. Which is wherethe problem occurs.

The point_to_point subroutinesends out press releases to tell theworld what the rest of the L-R softwareis doing, by way of the “mode status

reports”, i.e. the printout in the reportthat states whether each point calculat-ed was computed based on it being inthe “Line of Sight”, “Diffraction modedominant”, or “Troposcatter modedominant” range. The problem here isthat the new set of instructions bywhich point_to_point was written,was never used to revise lrprop. So ifan obstacle is found in the line-of-sightrange between the transmitter site andthe distance dlsa, point_to_pointreports out that an obstacle was found,and that the range mode has switchedfrom “Line-of-sight” to “Diffractionmode dominant”, when in fact, sub-routine lrprop, where the work actu-ally gets done, is still computing in theline-of-sight mode.

How did this come about? The defi-nition of “Irregular Terrain” changed.In “ESSA Technical Report ERL 79-ITS67, Prediction of TroposphericRadio Transmission Loss Over Irregu-lar Terrain, A Computer Method- 1968(ITS-67), which documents an earlycomputer implementation of Longley-Rice, on page 15, there is a paragraphthat starts with “The reference attenua-tion”. It is a overview of the summaryof the procedure followed by the pro-gram code. There is no mention of theword “obstruction”. The concept usedto design this original code was topresent calculations that could accountfor “irregular terrain” at the horizon, ascompared to a “smooth earth” sce-nario. No provision was made in thecomputations to account for the effectof interrupting the radio path with asignificant, major obstruction. Thisdefinition of “Irregular Terrain”referred only to a slightly irregular ter-rain near the horizon, by comparisonto smooth earth.

No subroutine LRPROP exists in theFORTRAN code found in Annex 3-5 toITS67. The original code that imple-ments these procedures is found inunfamiliar, obsolete subroutines suchas DIFF, SCATT, and LOS. The func-tions of these subroutines were com-bined into LRPROP, and itssubroutines ADIFF, ASCAT and ALOS,which first appear in the public docu-

mentation fourteen years later, inannex A of “NTIA Report TR-82-100, AGuide to the Use of the ITS IrregularTerrain Model in the Area PredictionMode” (the Guide). It appears that anunderstanding of the original defini-tion of Irregular Terrain had, by thattime, been forgotten; subroutinelrprop was edited without an under-standing of the fact that the concept ofIrregular Terrain had changed from “alittle Irregular Terrain found at thehorizon” to mean “all kinds of Irregu-lar Terrain, including Obstructions.”The line-of-sight methodology imple-mented still parallels that described inITS-67, which was designed for unob-structed terrain. As a result, whileother subroutines (some of which areimperfect early versions) necessary tosupport obstruction calculations are inplace, no provision was made inlrprop to accommodate the changesrequired in the computational proce-dure that must occur when the line-of-sight and diffraction ranges no longergently merge, but are, instead, abrupt-ly separated by a major obstruction.As a result, the L-R computer imple-mentation ITM ver. 1.2.2 has never,either in the FORTRAN or c++ ver-sions, properly computed diffractionlosses along the portion of the terrainpath between an obstruction foundblocking the line-of-sight range, andthe distance dlsa.

There is no easy fix. While consid-eration of obstacles in lrprop can beenabled by the addition of a fewlines, the old line-of-sight computa-tions cannot calculate the line-of-sightattenuation properly when separatedby an obstruction from the diffractionrange at the horizon. Other problems,some related to this one, some not,have also been found in many of thesupporting subroutines. If makingchanges now, we must also considerthat much has been learned about thescience of line-of-sight radio pathbehavior in the intervening 25 years,much of it derived from advancedradar and optics research. So fornow, users of L-R software must beaware that the line-of-sight results are



suspect between any obstructionsfound in the line-of-sight area, out tothe distance dlsa. As an example, fora 300-meter transmitter height, a 10meter receive height, and in the FMbroadcast band, the distance dlsa cal-culates out to be approximately 37kilometers.

I will have more to say on this sub-ject in the next article; but for now,we interrupt this program for the fol-lowing breaking news:

Third Subject: An Updated FreeWrap-Around: On Oct. 20, (deadline

day for this article) John Magliacaneannounced the release of Signal Pro-cessing, Loss and Terrain (SPLAT) ver-sion 1.2.1, now available at:http://www.qsl.net/kd2bd/splat.html.This major update of this Longley-Rice wrap around software however,still uses a version of the L-R ITM1.2.2 modified for Linux use as itscore; the program is available fordownloading under the GNU GPLlicense. There is now a Windows ver-sion available. This new release addsthe ability to predict received signal

strength levels based on transmittereffective radiated power, in additionto the previous capability of showingLongley-Rice path loss. It can incor-porate transmitter antenna radiationpatterns. Other new features include:path loss and field strength contoursfor networks containing as many as30 transmitters, revised text reports,support for .BIL formatted topograph-ic data, and increased integration withGoogle Earth. (© Sid Shumate. Con-tact the author at [email protected] approval to republish this article.)

The ongoing squabble over 1080/30I and 720/60P, and theconfusion over which system best represents the "true defini-tion" of HDTV, can easily distract an interested observerfrom thinking about the fundamental issues. In this paper, Ioffer the reader a condensed history of HDTV, combinedwith an argument in support of my contention that the cur-rent 1080/30I standard may not be justified. I will take youback to the origin of "HDTV", and trace the steps that weretaken to bring us to the current state. I will then ask if wehave missed something, and what should we do? My conclu-sion is that the 720/60P system comes close to meeting theoriginal definition of HDTV as derived by Japaneseresearchers in the 1960's. This conclusion is based on myunproven speculation that new display devices, using fixedpixel arrays, will not suffer from the degradations that haveplagued the cathode ray picture tube since its invention, andwhich forced the Japanese researchers to drastically increasethe number of scanning lines. I then close with the question:"Is MPEG-2 good enough, or should we seriously considerreplacing it with one of the new systems, like H.264 or Win-dows Media 9."

The idea of HDTV came to life following the 1964Tokyo Olympics, which were the first games broadcastaround the world over the early geostationary satellite -Syncom 3. The broadcasts were in colour, and were alsothe first to use video compression to accommodate thesatellite's narrow bandwidth. On reviewing the results ofthis event, a group of researchers led by Dr. TakashiFujio of NHK, asked themselves the question:

"What are the technical requirements of a televi-sion system of the future, that would satisfy the visualresponses of the viewer?"This question led to extensive research, primarily in Japan,

and culminated in the world's first "HDTV Standard" in 1970.The standard was derived from the 3 fundamental findings ofthe Japanese research, listed below and depicted in figure 1.1. Optimum viewing distance, d = 3H, where H is picture

height.2. Total horizontal viewing angle, β , has far greater impact

on the viewer than vertical viewing angle, α, and shouldbe 30° at the optimum viewing distance, 3H.

3. Limit of human spatial visual response, as shown in fig-ure 2, is about 14 cycles/degree of viewing angle, in thehorizontal and vertical planes, and drops off further inany diagonal plane.

Starting with the fundamental findings, it becomes an easy taskto derive a standard, and for the reader's convenience, I willoutline the calculations below:


Redefining HDTV - AgainBy Fred Markhauser, P.Eng. Telesat

Figure 1: Derivation of HDTV Standard


1. Vertical Viewing angle

α = 2xT an−1(H2d

) = 2xT an−1(1

6) = 19◦

2. Aspect Ratio

WH

= β

α= 30

19∼= 15 : 9 = 5 : 3, later modified to 16 : 9 = (4 : 3)2

3. Number of Scanning Lines

Nnominal = α X 14cycles/degree X 2 lines/cycle = (19•14•2)=532 lines!!!

Ideally, we could meet all the requirements for HDTVwith a 532 line system!

However, things are not ideal in real life - or at least theyweren't when the research was being done in the 1960s.Scanned beam cathode ray tubes are subject to two degra-dation factors which limit their resolution - namely the"Kell Factor" and the "Interlace Factor". These two phenom-ena can each reduce resolution by 30%, and when com-

bined they can reduce the perceivedresolution to 49% of the nominal num-ber of scanning lines, which in this casewould be 0.49 x 532 = 261 lines. Toovercome this limitation, the Japaneseresearchers decided that the standardmust have 1125 lines, of which 1035lines contain active video information.

Since then, new display technologieshave been developed with the potentialto do away with the limitations imposedby the cathode ray tube. Plasma, LCD,and DLP displays, with their rigidlyfixed pixel display methodologies,should be able to display "true" HDTVpictures with only 532 active lines, asopposed to the 720 or 1080 lines pro-posed by the current standards. This isthe heart of my argument.

4. Analogue BandwidthWith NTSC and PAL, colour informationis frequency interlaced with luminance

information without adding bandwidth, and the total analogbandwidth can be simply determined by using the Japanesefundamental findings, as follows:

The proposed standard that the researchers came upwith was based on the display technology of the time(1970), and they had to consider of its limitations. The 1970standard is shown in table 1. Of course, effective digitalcompression techniques were not available in 1970, andthe question of necessary analogue bandwidth was debatedconstantly. With the proposed 1125 line analogue system,using interlaced scanning, the bandwidth would be:

and for progressive scanning, with the 0.7 interlace fac-tor eliminated, the required number of lines is reduced to0.7 x 1125 = 788, and the bandwidth would be:

Around 1982, an international effort to establish a com-mon standard began. In America the ATSC was chargedwith this task, while the EBU and others were independent-ly pursuing the same goal. Standards bodies such asSMPTE, IEEE, and ITU took on the effort of coordinating


Table 1: First HDTV Standard (1970)

Figure 2: Human Visual Response

Vis

ual

Res

po

nse

R(v

)

Cycles/degree


the works of independent groups to ensure that things didnot go too far astray. All these groups used the originalJapanese proposal as their foundation, mainly because theJapanese were the only ones actually producing equipmentto verify their research, and to test their assumptions andcalculations.

In the 1980's, all of the work toward an HDTV standardwas based on the assumption that the actual video signalwould be analogue. This was reasonable at the time,because it appeared that there was no other practical way.A digital video signal would take an enormous amount ofbandwidth, as can be seen from the following SMPTE stan-dards:

244-M Serial digital composite NTSC 143 Mbps259-M Serial digital component NTSC 270 Mbps292-M Serial digital HDTV 1.485 Gbps

Even an analogue video signal with a bandwidth ofabout 18 MHz would present a challenge to fit into two orthree 6 MHz broadcast channels. However, a number ofproposals that would have achieved this task were present-ed to the ATSC. In 1991, the ATSC was on the verge ofdeciding which of these proposals to accept, when abombshell hit them all.

General Instrument announced that they had perfecteda digital compression technique for HDTV, called Digici-pher, which would operate at 19.5 Mbps. This announce-ment changed everything. Convinced that this was the wayto go, the ATSC ruled that all proponents wishing to stay inthe game must join together to develop the final standard.Agreeing reluctantly, the proponents formed the "GrandAlliance". Overseen by the ATSC, they developed a modu-lation technique called "8-VSB", based on a proposal byZenith, to carry the 19.5 Mbps signal in a single 6 MHzchannel. Everything appeared to be coming togethersmoothly, and then another bombshell fell.

Working under the auspices of the International Stan-dards Organization (ISO), a working group known as the"Moving Pictures Experts Group" - MPEG for short - haddeveloped a compression technique in 1988, based on theDiscrete Cosine Transform (DCT). Their modest goal hadbeen to enable a 1-hour movie to be recorded on a 600MByte compact disc (CD). To their own delight, theyachieved this goal, and the result was the MPEG-1 standardthat operated at 1.5 Mbps.

Flushed with success, the MPEG group then took on thetask of enhancing the standard for "broadcast-quality"video. Once again they succeeded brilliantly, and theMPEG-2 standard was effectively established in 1993. TheMPEG group had thought things through very carefully,and they added a "transport stream" to the standard alongwith a set of descriptors and tables that formed the founda-tion for an interactive "on-screen" program guide and forconditional access. In effect, they had developed a stan-

dard that could easily be adapted to any of the majorbroadcast media, including off-air broadcast, cable, andsatellite. The "DVB" group, together with the EBU andETSI, developed the standards for transmission over the air,cable, and satellite. They even had a technique for carryingthe MPEG signal over the developing Telco ATM infrastruc-ture.

The MPEG-2 standard captured everyone's attention asthe "all-in-one" solution for all video encoding and trans-mission systems, and they caught the attention of ATSCwhen they incorporated a matrix of "profiles and levels" tothe standard that included some that would accommodateHDTV. ATSC gradually focused their attention on MPEG-2and away from the GI Digicipher system. The current ATSCstandard is essentially MPEG-2, with the exception of audio(Dolby AC-3) and the program guide structure (PSIP).

For off-air transmission, the ATSC has maintained the 8-VSB technique, while much of the world has decided touse a technique called "Coded Orthogonal Frequency Divi-sion Multiplexing" or COFDM. There has been much argu-ment over this choice, and not always enlightened by thetrue facts. Perhaps sensitive to the criticism, the ATSC isnow exploring methods to provide an "enhanced" mode totheir basic 8-VSB transmission. The current thinking is thatthe transport stream would carry at least two video signals.The main signal would still be the MPEG-2 HDTV signal,running at a reduced data rate of about 14 Mbps. Theenhanced signal, at about 4 Mbps, would use a moreaggressive video encoding technique together with a morepowerful error correction scheme. When the main signalfalls below the threshold of detection, the receiver wouldswitch to the enhanced signal, and then switch back againwhen the main signal is strong enough.

ATSC is considering the new ITU H.264 video encodingstandard and Microsoft's Windows Media 9 for theenhanced video coding. Both these methods are reportedlyat least twice as powerful as the current MPEG-2 standard,with some claiming that they will eventually be 3 times asgood. This means that an HDTV signal that needs 18 Mbpswith MPEG-2, it will only need 6 to 9 Mbps with these newtechniques. If all this is really true, why don't we abandonMPEG-2 video encoding for off-air transmission in favourof one of these new techniques? This would surely be sim-pler than a asking the receiver to switch modes when thesignal fades. Also, by forcing the MPEG-2 video encoder torun at 14 Mbps, rather than at the current of 18 Mbps, thevideo quality will definitely suffer, unless the signal is pre-filtered before encoding. And if it's pre-filtered, will we stillhave HDTV?

Now let's get back to my original question - what reso-lution is really needed for the "true" HDTV experience? Forreference, a summary of the current standard is presentedin table 2. The equivalent analogue bandwidth is not partof the standard, but I have included it here for reference.The calculations for this bandwidth are as follows:



For 1920 x 1080 interlace:

for 1280 x 720 progressive

If my assumptions about new display devices are incorrect,then my whole argument is mute, and my remaining calcu-lations have no value. But if they are correct, then itappears, that the number of scanning lines required forHDTV is around 532. But let's use 544 lines so that thenumber is divisible by 32. This appears to be important todesigners of video encoding chips with 32 bit buses. A sim-ple calculation for a 16 x 9 display results in a horizontalresolution of 544 x 16/9 ≈ 967. This is a little awkward, solet's use the nearest number that is divisible by 32 - that's960. Going back to the 16 x 9 ratio, the number of scanninglines needed, for a square pixel pattern, is 960 x 9/16 = 540.So the required resolution is 960 x 540. Can a modern dis-play device (plasma, LCD, & etc.) actually meet HDTVrequirements with this pixel count? Well, maybe this is cut-ting things a little too close to the root. On the other hand, Isuggest that 1920 x 1080 is definitely too extravagant, and isbased on display technologies that are over 40 years old.Also, most consumer devices today that will not meet thispixel count. The most commonly available devices today, atreasonable prices, are plasma displays at 1365 x 768, andLCOS projection devices at 1365 x 1024. Both of thesedevices are inadequate for 1920 x 1080.

So where does that leave us? By default, it's 1280 x 720with 60 progressive frames/second. This resolution isalready recognized within the standard, and also supportsthe three original Japanese findings.

One final thought that comes tomind on this: it is possible - perhapseven likely - that the lossy nature ofMPEG-2 encoding itself is imposing alimit on the achievable resolution of theHDTV signal. This limitation may bealmost as serious as that imposed bythe traditional cathode ray tube display.It is also possible that only currentlyeffective way to overcome this limita-tion is by increasing the pixel density.This means the new generation of com-mon consumer displays will need to beimproved - from 1365x768 to1920x1080. On the other hand, it maybe that new encoding techniques, suchas H.264 and Windows Media 9, mayprovide enough improvement to over-come any such limitations. Then thetesting of these alternative techniquestakes on much more importance than

simply to enhance the 8-VSB transmission standard.I conclude by saying that the views I have expressed in

this paper are based on my own observations, and by look-ing through my "window of knowledge" of this field, whichmay perhaps not be wide enough to capture the completepicture. There are other aspects to this discussion, whichinvolve the fields of production and editing, where myknowledge is limited, and where my arguments may verywell be nullified.

I thank you for having the patience to read through thispaper. I apologize for the many "if's", "but's", and "maybe's",and I welcome your comments, rebuttals, and advice.Fred Markhauser, P. Eng, [email protected], 613-835-3158

References:[1] Takashi Fujio, "A Study of High-Definition TV System in the

Future.", IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Volume BC-24, Num-

ber 4, pp. 92 - 100, Dec. 1978.

[2.] Takashi Fujio, "High-Definition Wide-Screen Television System for the

Future: the present state of the study of HD-TV systems in Japan.",

IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Volume BC-26, Number 4, pp. 113

- 123, December 1980.

[3] Takashi Fujio, "High Definition Television Systems: Desirable Stan-

dards, Signal Forms, and Transmission Systems.", IEEE Transactions

on Communications, Volume COM-29, Number 12, pp. 1882 - 1890,

December 1981.

[4] Broder Wendland, Hartmut Schroder, "On Picture Quality of some

Television Signal Processing Techniques.", SMPTE Journal, pp. 915 -

922, October 1984.

[5] Takashi Fujio, "High-Definition Television Systems.", Proceedings of

the IEEE, Volume 73, Number 4, pp. 646 - 655, April 1985.

[6] ATSC Doc.WD/53C, "Digital Television Standard, Revision C.",

August 21, 2003.


Table 2: Current HDTV Standard (2006)


About the Author

Friedrich Markhauser was born in Opdal, Norway, in 1945.Fred received a Bachelor of Engineering degree from SirGeorge Williams University (Montreal) in 1972. Since then hehas worked at Teleglobe, the Canadian Broadcasting Corpo-ration, Spar Aerospace, and since 1980 at Telesat in Ottawa.

Fred is a registered Professional Engineer, certified bythe Professional Engineers of Ontario Association (PEO). Hehas also participated in the work of several public advisorygroups, including: Advanced Broadcasting Systems of Cana-da (ABSOC), Canadian Digital Television Committee(CDTV), Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC).

Recently, and using the new Telesat HDTV evaluation lab,he has headed the testing of "contribution quality" MPEG-2codecs, on behalf of WBU/ISOG. He is currently involved inthe evaluation of the new H.264 (MPEG4 - AVC) codecs.

In the early 1980s, Fred first became aware of the potentialsynergies between the rapid development of personal com-puter technologies - especially small, fast, large capacity mem-ory chips and microprocessors - and their application todigital video conferencing and possibly to DBS SatelliteBroadcasting. He has maintained and applied this interest,both personally and in his capacity as a Senior Broadcast Spe-cialist at Telesat.


A Tale of Two Camera TubesBy James E. O’NealTechnology Editor, TV Technology Magazine and MemberBTS AdCom History Committee

A new Broadway play called “TheFarnsworth Invention” opened in NewYork in October and purports to tell thestory of the interactions between televi-sion pioneer Philo Farnsworth and RCApresident David Sarnoff, who was adriving force in the development of tel-evision. The production is one of thefew stage plays written about an inven-tor, and the first dealing with a televi-sion inventors.

To make the storyline comprehensi-ble to a general audience, playwrightAaron Sorkin has “dumbed down” thetechnical elements of what bothFarnsworth and RCA research campswere doing in the 1920s and 30s—especially that which led to litigationover priorities and patents. Theatre

audiences are given the impressionthat the television secret (and reasonfor litigation) was somehow containedin a technique for sealing an opticallyflat faceplate to the barrel of the cam-era tube. RCA’s director of televisionresearch, Vladimir Zworykin supposed-ly “reverse engineered” this seal tech-nique after a visit to Farnsworth’s lab.

Actually, the issue was much morecomplicated than a glass seal.

In this day and age of inexpensiveand readily-available solid-state imag-ing devices, conversion of a light pat-

tern to an electronic signal is largelytaken for granted. However, this wascertainly not the case at the beginningof the electronic television age. Proba-bly the most difficult single item todevelop was the camera pickup tube.Both Farnsworth and Zworykin suc-ceeded to a degree in producingworkable tubes. As their inventionswere the first-ever devices for generat-ing live television images withoutmechanical scanning, it’s interesting tolook back 75 years or so and examinethese first-generation devices.

In the 1920s—the beginning of themodern or electronic television era—there were essentially just two players:Farnsworth, with his seriously under-

Figure 1: An early Farnsworth imagedissector

Figure 2: A small Zworykiniconoscope

Figure 3: Philo Farnsworth holds animage dissector used in his early

television camera

Sm

ithso

nian

Inst

itutio

n co

llect

ion

O’N

eal c

olle

ctio

n

Sm

ithso

nian

Inst

itutio

n


funded and understaffed televisionprogram, and Zworykin, who had theblessing, resources and mandate fromSarnoff’s Radio Corporation of Americato bring television to the marketplace.

Display devices produced by bothinventors were very similar—cathode raytubes. Farnsworth’s was known as the“oscilite” and Zworykin dubbed his the“kinescope.” However, their approachesto converting images into electrical sig-nals were markedly different.

ZWORYKIN’S ICONOCSOPEIn Zworykin’s tube, the scene to be tele-vised is focused on a target that hecalled the “mosaic.” This was construct-ed around a fairly large mica substratecoated with a photo-emissive materialthat had been treated in such a way asto form minute and isolated cells or“globules.” Each of these cells is capaci-tively coupled to a common conductivesurface on the rear of the mica substrate.When light strikes these cells, an electri-cal charge is built up, proportional to thenumber of photons hitting each cell. Thetube also contains an electron gun, simi-lar in design to that employed in a CRT,and mounted below and at an angle tothe mosaic. The electron beam producedin the gun is electromagnetically deflect-

ed, and scans the mosaic from side-to-side and top-to-bottom. The result is thatof a “commutator” discharging theminute “globule” capacitors in sequence.A video signal results directly from theaction of this electron beam.

About the only similarity betweenZworykin’s iconoscope and Farnsworth’stube, the image dissector, was that eachwas contained within a glass vessel andrequired a moderately high vacuum foroperation.

THE IMAGE DISSECTORIn the image dissector, light from thescene being televised is focused on athin transparent “photocathode” coatedwith a photo-emissive material. Thisproduces an electron “field” at the rearof the photocathode representing theoptical pattern presented to the tube.

The image dissector was designed toelectrostatically accelerate this “chargefield” to the rear of the tube. There,through the actions of external electro-magnetic scanning, the field is presentedto and made to pass through a verysmall aperture, literally one picture ele-ment at a time. Electrons passingthrough the aperture are collected on thetube’s rearmost element, the signal plate.A video signal is taken from this plate.

By today’s television imagingdevice standards, both tubes are veryinsensitive to light. When the icono-scope was used in studio cameras, theamount of base light needed to gener-ate an acceptable picture was around1,000 foot candles. (Modern televisionstudios operate with light levels atenth of this or less.)

As demanding as the light require-ments were for the iconoscope, theimage dissector required even morelight in order to deliver a moderatelynoise free picture.

This reason for this difference insensitivity is readily apparent.

The iconoscope is a “storage” typeof pickup tube in that the photonsstriking the mosaic keep building up acharge on the small photo-emissiveglobules (capacitors) until this chargeis removed by the electron beam.Depending upon the amount of lightstriking the tube and the speed atwhich the scanning beam is sweptover the mosaic, a fairly large numberof electrons can be produced.

The image dissector possesses nosuch storage mechanism and suffersfrom this. The removal of the elec-trons through the small aperture isbasically an instantaneous process.Fewer electrons yield a considerablyweaker (noisier) signal than that froman iconoscope.

PUTTING SECONDARYELECTRONS TO WORKFarnsworth was able to overcome thislimitation to a degree by substitutingan electron multiplier stage for the sig-nal plate electrode. This multiplier(once a common vacuum device) con-sisted of a series of plates or “dyn-odes,” with each more positivelycharged than the one preceding it.Physical construction is such that anelectron striking one dynode producesadditional electrons from secondaryemission. These are electrostaticallyaccelerated to the next dynode, witheven more electrons produced.Depending on the design of the tube,considerable electron gains are possi-ble, and this results in a much


Figure 4: schematic representation of the iconoscope


stronger video signal for a givenamount of illumination.

Even though the iconoscope wasconsiderably more “sensitive” than theimage dissector, it was by no means aperfect device for converting visualinformation into electricity. Due to thehigh velocity of electrons scanning themosaic, a considerable number of sec-ondary electrons were developed.Unlike the image dissector multiplierstage, these were unwanted and had atendency to settle back on the mosaic,producing uneven shading in thevideo signal. Also, the resolution ofthe iconoscope was poorer that that ofthe image dissector. The photo-emis-sive “globules” were not infinitelysmall and also the electrical chargeproduced on them tended to leak toadjacent cells, thus slightly smearingthe captured image.

A FATAL PATENT FLAWBy the mid 1930s the development ofthe iconoscope could go no furtherwithout changing several aspects ofthe tube. While it could be developedinto a television camera, it was justnot sensitive enough to become theworkhorse that the nascent televisionindustry needed. RCA would have tomove in another direction to producea really practical camera pickup tube.However, this was precluded, as thatthe original patent application filed byZworykin in 1923 for television systemcontained a fatal flaw.

(To keep the record straight,Farnsworth filed a patent applicationfor his television system in 1927; apatent was granted in 1934.Zworykin’s patent was not granteduntil 1938.)

One of the Farnsworth’s patentclaims—the 15th—was the productionof an “electric” or electronic imagewithin the pickup tube. Zworykinmade no such claim. This was indeeda costly oversight and ultimately led toa major reversal of policy at the RadioCorporation of America, which hadbecome the assignee of Zworykin’spatents.

For RCA to develop a camera tubebeyond Zworykin’s initial iconoscope,having an “electric” image to movearound was a necessity. The conceptwas Farnsworth’s and he could dothis. Legally, Zworykin could not. Thisresulted in a challenge to theFarnsworth patent and a patent “inter-ference” that made its way throughthe legal system.

Ultimately, it was ruled thatFarnsworth had priority to the claimof an “electronic image” and that any-one wishing to employ this conceptin their camera tubes would berequired to license such technologyfrom Farnsworth. Quite reluctantly,RCA did so.

NEW TUBES FROM OLDWith a redesign to produce a true“electron image,” Zworykin’s icono-

scope morphed into a much more sen-sitive “image iconoscope,” allowing itto make a greater contribution in cre-ating a practical television system.

Pickup tube development did notstop at this point, as the high veloci-ty scanning problems were st i l lpresent.

Others at RCA eventually devel-oped a tube with low velocity scan-ning that overcame such difficulties.This was the orthicon. It underwentwartime improvement and eventuallyhad an electron multiplier stageadded, becoming the “image orthicon”or simply the “IO.” This tube becamethe industry standard for live televi-sion until it was displaced by photo-conductive tubes beginning in the late1960s.

THE ORIGINAL TUBES LIVE ONThe original iconoscope was notimmediately relegated to the scrapheap, however.

As long as there was a bountifulsupply of light, the tube worked fairlywell (shading issues notwithstanding).As it is possible to push a very largeamount of light through motion pic-ture film, the iconoscope was the tubeof choice for televising movies andslides. As it was considerably cheaperand had a longer useful life than theimage orthicon (whose enhanced lightsensitivity wasn’t really needed), the


Figure 5: schematic representation of the image dissector Figure 6: Vladimir Zworykin

Dav

id S

arno

ff Li

brar

y


iconoscope served in film-to-televisionapplications well into the 1960s.

Farnsworth’s image dissector, evenwith the enhancement of an electronmultiplier stage, still required morelight than was practical for most tele-vision studio or field applications.However, it did possess one elementthat kept it viable for specializedapplications.

All of the RCA tubes—iconoscope,orthicon, image orthicon—dependedupon an electron gun for operation.As with any thermoionic device, thegun structure wore out with time.

The image dissector, on the otherhand, did not have an electron gun. Itwas based entirely on light-inducedemission of electrons from a photo-chemically reactive compound—acold cathode emitter. In essence, thetube had a nearly unlimited usefullife. This made it an ideal pickupdevice for imaging very bright scenesin conditions that precluded regularmaintenance, i.e. industrial applica-

tions such as looking into a blast fur-nace. The image dissector continuedto be used for such purposes until itwas eclipsed by more modern imag-ing technologies.

Today the iconoscope and imagedissector would be considered large,clumsy and totally impractical beasts.However, 75 years ago they werequite revolutionary electron devicesand paved the way for television’sfuture.

References:[1] U.S. Patent no. 1,773,980 (Televi-

sion System, P.T. Farnsworth)[2] U.S. Patent no. 2,141,059 (Televi-

sion System, V.K. Zworykin)[3] Anner, George E., “Elements of

Television Systems,” New York;Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951.

[4] Everson, George, “The Story ofTelevision,” New York; W.W. Nor-ton & Co., 1949.

[5] Farnsworth, Elma G., “DistantVision,” Salt Lake City, Utah; Pem-

berlyKent Publishers, Inc., 1990. [6] Helt, Scott, “Practical Television

Engineering,” New York; RinehartBooks, Inc., 1953.

[7] Morton, G.A. and Zworykin, V.K.,“Television,” second edition –New York; John Wiley & Sons,Inc., 1954

[8] Showalter, Leonard C., “Closed-Circuit Television for Engineers &Technicians,” Indianapolis, Ind.;Howard W. Sams & Co., 1969.

© 2008 James E. O’Neal. Contact theauthor at [email protected] forapproval to republish this article.

About the AuthorJames O’Neal graduated from the Uni-versity of Arkansas. He retired fromthe Voice of America in 2005 and hasmore than 36 years of experience inbroadcast engineering. He is nowtechnology editor for the TV Technol-ogy Magazine.


IEEE Russia Northwest BroadcastTechnology, Consumer Electronics,and Communications (BT/CE/COM)Chapter is participating in organizingthe 15th International Conference onTelecommunications ICT 2008.

ICT was first initiated by the Centrefor Telecommunications Research,King’s College London (UK). Basedon the initial success of Dubai in1994, ICT has been held annually inBali (1995), Istanbul (1996), Mel-bourne (1997), Chalkidiki, Greece(1998), Jeju, Korea (1999), Acapulco,Mexico (2000), Beijing (2002), Tahiti(2003), Fortaleza, Brazil (2004), CapeTown, South Africa (2005), Funchal,Portugal (2006), and Penang, Malaysia(2007). Many scientists, engineers, stu-dents, professionals and technicalstaff, representing a variety of organi-

zations such as universities, researchinstitutes, telecommunication opera-tors and equipment manufacturers hadattended previous ICT events. The15th ICT will be held in St. Petersburg,Russia, on 16 – 19 June 2008. ICT2008 will offer tutorials, plenary ses-sions, poster sessions, panel sessionsand exhibition opportunities.

The ICT conference is mostlyfocused on telecommunications tech-nologies, but a number of conferencetopics in the field of broadcast andconsumer electronics technologieshave been added this year. The topicsthat may be of interest to BTS mem-bers are:• Convergence of Broadcast and

Communications Technologies• Solutions for Consumer Commu-

nications

• Digital TV and Radio Broadcasting• IPTV and Mobile TV• Home Networks

A complete list of ICT 2008 topics isavailable at the conference Web sitehttp://www.ict08.org/cfp.html. It isexpected that ICT 2008 conference willbe included in the IEEE Conference Pub-lication Program and the conference pro-ceedings will be entered into the IEEEXplore database. The deadline for papersubmission is 30 December 2007. Keepchecking the conference web site oftenfor the latest information about papersubmissions and any changes. About 150papers in the field of telecommunicationsare expected to be presented at ICT2008. The Program Committee encour-ages authors to submit papers on rele-vant broadcast technologies as well.

15th International Conference onTelecommunications ICT 2008St. Petersburg, Russia, 16 – 19 June 2008

By Dmitry Tkachenko



ICC 2008 Workshop on Digital Television and Mobile MultimediaBroadcasting Organized by the IEEE BTS Beijing Chapter



Constitution

Article I - Name and ObjectSection 1. This organization shall beknown as the IEEE Broadcast Tech-nology Society.

Section 2. The Society's purpose shall bescientific and educational in character. TheSociety shall strive for the advancement ofthe theory and practice of electrical andelectronic engineering and of the alliedarts and sciences and for the maintenanceof high scientific and technical standardsamong its members, all in consonancewith the Constitution and Bylaws of theIEEE and with special attention to suchaims within the field of interest of theSociety, as hereinafter defined.

Section 3. The Society shall aid in pro-moting close cooperation andexchange of technical informationamong its members and affiliates, andto this end shall hold meetings for thepresentation and discussion or originalcontributions, shall publish Transac-tions reporting advances within thescope of the Society, establish stan-dards, and through its committees,shall study and otherwise provide forthe needs of its members and affiliates.

Article II - Field of Interest Section 1. The field of interest of theSociety shall encompass devices,equipment, techniques and systemsrelated to broadcast technology,including the production, distribution,transmission, and propagation aspects.

Section 2. The field of interest of the Soci-ety may be enlarged, reduced, or other-wise revised as the needs of the occasionindicate. Such revisions shall be processesas an amendment to this Constitution.

Article III - MembershipSection 1. Membership in the Society

shall be available to all members ofthe IEEE in any grade, including stu-dents, having an interest in the tech-nology of broadcasting.

Section 2. Affiliates may participate inthe activities of the Society as provid-ed by the IEEE Bylaws and subject tothe applicable IEEE rules and regula-tions and to any additional limitationsimposed by the Society Bylaws.

Section 3. Upon adoption of this Con-stitution, all current members and affil-iates of the Broadcasting Group shallbe recognized as the Charter Membersof the Broadcast Technology Society.All current members of the Broadcast-ing Group Administrative Committeeshall be recognized as Charter Mem-bers of the Broadcast Technology Soci-ety Administrative Committee.

Article IV - FinancialSupport Section 1. The Society shall collect fromeach member and affiliate an assess-ment or fee in accordance with IEEEBylaws and applicable rules and regula-tions. The fees shall be prescribed inaccordance with the Society Bylaws.

Section 2. The Society may make regis-tration charges at its meetings, symposia,conferences, and conventions. The regis-tration fee for non-members of the IEEEmust be higher than for members.

Section 3. The Society may raise rev-enues by other means such as, but notlimited to, advertising, shows, requestsfor contributions, and charges for send-ing out notices to non-Society mem-bers, provided such means areconsistent with applicable IEEE rulesand regulations. Any new revenuemeans not explicitly covered by IEEErules and regulations must be approvedby the General Manager of the IEEE

before being adopted by the Society.

Article V - Administration Section 1. The affairs of the Societywill be administered by an Administra-tive Committee (AdCom) drawn fromthe membership of the Society.

Section 2. Within-term vacancies in theoffice of President or Vice President ofthe Administrative Committee shall befilled by election for the unexpiredterm by the Administrative Committee.

Section 3. Within-term vacanciesoccurring on the Administrative Com-mittee shall be filled by appointmentsfor the unexpired terms by theremainder of the Committee.

Section 4. The Administrative Commit-tee may utilize the services of IEEEHeadquarters as bursar for all or partof Society funds as provided by theIEEE Bylaws and rules and regulations.

Section 5. The President shall be anex officio member of all committeesof the Society. As a member of theIEEE Technical Activities Board heshall, when notified of a meeting ofsaid Board, ensure representation ofthe Society at such meeting by him-self, or by an alternate. If an alternatecannot be found, the President shallpresent the views of the Society by aletter of proxy.

Section 6. The work of the Society shallbe conducted through the Administra-tive Committee, and through standingand ad hoc committees as providedherein and in the Bylaws.

Article VI - Nomination andElection of AdministrativeCommittee Members Section 1. Nominating proceduresshall be as prescribed in the Bylaws

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Constitutionand BylawsApproved 5 November 2007

The IEEE Broadcast Technology Society is organized and operated according to the following rules, which wereapproved by the Members and the IEEE.


and shall include provision for nomi-nation by petition of Society members.Nominations by petition shall beincluded on the ballot and shall be soidentified.

Section 2. Election of the members ofthe Administrative Committee shall beas prescribed in the Bylaws.

Article VII - Meetings Section 1. The Society may hold meet-ings, conferences, symposia, or con-ventions either alone or in cooperationwith Sections, Regions, National Con-vention Committees of the Institute orother technical organizations, but theapproval of IEEE Headquarters mustbe obtained in advance.

Section 2. Meetings, conferences, orconventions of the Society shall beopen on an equal basis to all mem-bers of the IEEE.

Section 3. The quorum for the Admin-istrative Committee shall be set forthin the Bylaws.

Section 4. A majority of the votes castby those members of the Administra-tive Committee attending a meetingshall be necessary for the conduct ofits business except as otherwise pro-vided in this Constitution. A majorityof the votes of the members presentand entitled to vote, at the time ofvote, provided a quorum is present,shall be the act of the AdministrativeCommittee or any committee thereof.

Section 5. Vote of the Presiding officer.The presiding officer of the BroadcastTechnology Society shall have novote, except if the vote is by secretballot or unless the Chair’s vote canchange the outcome of the vote.

Section 6: Business of the Administra-tive Committee may be handled bycorrespondence, or any other form ofcommunication when, in the opinionof the President, matters requiringprompt action can be adequately han-dled in that manner. A majority voteof the full committee is required totake action in such a case. Telephone

actions are to be promptly confirmedin writing by the President.

The Administrative Committee or anycommittee thereof may meet and actupon the vote of its members by anymeans of telecommunication. The nor-mal voting requirements shall applywhen action is taken by means oftelecommunications equipment allow-ing all persons participating in the meet-ing to hear each other at the same time.

Section 7. The Administrative Commit-tee shall meet, as required to conductbusiness, and in accordance with theBylaws.

The Administrative Committee orany committee thereof may take actionwithout a meeting if applicable (e.g.email voting). An affirmative vote of amajority of all the voting members ofthe Administrative Committee or anycommittee thereof shall be required toapprove the action. The results of thevote shall be confirmed promptly inwriting or by electronic transmission.The writings and/or electronic trans-missions shall be filed with the min-utes of the proceedings of theAdministrative Committee or any com-mittee thereof. “Electronic transmis-sion” means any form of electroniccommunication, such as e-mail, notdirectly involving the physical trans-mission of paper, that creates a recordthat may be retained, retrieved andreviewed by a recipient thereof, andthat may be directly reproduced inpaper form by such a recipient.

Individuals holding more than oneposition on the Administrative Com-mittee or any committee thereof, shallbe limited to one vote on each matterbeing considered by the Administra-tive Committee or committee.

Proxy voting is not allowed

Article VIII – AmendmentsSection 1. Amendments to this Constitu-tion may be initiated by petition submit-ted by one percent of the members ofthe Society or by a majority or the mem-bers of the Administrative Committee,such petition being submitted to theSecretary of the IEEE Technical Activi-ties Board (TAB), and to the ExecutiveCommittee of the IEEE for approval.

After such approval, the proposedamendments shall be publicized in theSociety Transactions or Newsletters, orby direct mailing to all Society mem-bers, with notice that it goes into effectunless five percent of the Society mem-bers, including students, object within30 days. If such objections are received,a copy of the proposed amendmentshall be mailed with a ballot to all mem-bers of the Society at least 30 daysbefore the date appointed for return ofthe ballots, and the ballots shall carry astatement of the time limit for theirreturn to the IEEE Office. When a mailvote of the entire Society membership ismade necessary, approval of theamendment by at least two-thirds of theballots returned shall be necessary forits enactment, provided, however, that ifthe number of ballots returned is lessthan ten percent of the membership ofthe Society, the amendment shall bedeemed to be approved.

Section 2. Suitable bylaws and amend-ments thereto, may be adopted by atwo-thirds vote of the AdministrativeCommittee in meeting assembled, pro-vided that notice of the proposedbylaw, or amendment, has been sentto each member of the AdministrativeCommittee at least a week prior tosuch meeting, or a bylaw, or amend-ment, may be adopted by a two-thirdsmail vote of the members of theAdministrative Committee, provided a30-day period is allowed for suchresponses. In either event, the pro-posed bylaw, or amendment, shall bepublished in the Society Transactionsor Newsletters, or by direct mailing toall Society members. No bylaw, oramendment, shall take effect until ithas been mailed to the Secretary ofTAB of the IEEE, and he has obtainedapproval of the General Manager.

Article IX - Publications Section 1. Publications undertaken bythe Society shall be subject to IEEEpolicies and to any further guidanceor controls prescribed by the Adminis-trative Committee or its duly appoint-ed committees. The Society shall beresponsible for the financial aspects ofits publication program.



Section 2. The President of the Society,with the advice and consent of theAdministrative Committee, shall appointsuch editors as may be required toimplement the publication program.

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Bylaws

1. Membership There shall be two grades of IEEEBroadcast Technology Society (here-inafter Society) membership: studentmembers and members. Student mem-bers of the IEEE may become studentmembers of the Society upon paymentof the annual student membership feein effect at the time Society member-ship is requested. Members of theIEEE in other grades may becomemembers of the Society upon paymentof the annual Society membership feein effect at the time Society member-ship is requested. Special categories ofmembership and the appropriateannual Society membership fees shallbe as specified in IEEE Bylaws.

2. AffiliatesNon-members of the IEEE who aremembers of certain other organizationsaccredited by the IEEE, as provided inIEEE rules and regulations, may becomeaffiliates of the IEEE and members ofthe Society upon payment of the annualSociety membership fee in effect at thetime Society membership is requested.Affiliates shall have the same rights andprivileges in the Society as IEEE mem-bers, and shall be eligible to serve andhold office on any board or committee,with the exception of the offices of Pres-ident and Vice President of the Society.

3. Member Fees The annual Society membership feesshall be reviewed each year as part ofthe Society budget cycle and adjustedto meet Society fiscal needs. The Soci-ety Administrative Committee mustapprove any proposed change in theannual Society membership fees.

4. Affiliate Fees Affiliates shall pay the same annualSociety membership fee as Society

members. This fee is in addition to theaffiliate surcharge specified in IEEErules and regulations.

5. Fiscal YearThe administrative and fiscal year forthe Society begins on January 1st andends on December 31st.

6. Administrative Committee 6.1 The Society Administrative Commit-tee shall consist of 15 elected votingmembers-at-large, five of whom shall beelected for three-year terms each yearfrom the Society membership in goodstanding: plus the Society President,Society Vice President, Society Secretary,and Society Treasurer; the immediatepast Society President and predecessor;all standing or ad hoc Society technical,advisory, or coordinating committeechairpersons; Society liaison representa-tives; and Society publication editors, asex-officio members (unless alreadyelected members-at-large).

6.2 Society Administrative Committeemembers-at-large may be reelected toone full term after serving one full term.Only two consecutive terms are permit-ted, but eligibility for reelection isrestored after a one-year lapse in service.

6.3 All Society Administrative Commit-tee members, including ex-officiomembers, shall have voting privileges.

6.4 At its last meeting of even-numberedyears, the Society Administrative Com-mittee shall elect a Society President andSociety Vice President from a list of eli-gible candidates consisting of currentSociety Administrative Committee mem-bers-at-large, past Society AdministrativeCommittee members-at-large, and pastSociety officers. The elected SocietyPresident and Society Vice President willserve a two-year term, beginning Janu-ary 1 of the year following their elec-tion. The Society President and SocietyVice President are permitted to servetwo consecutive two-year terms, andmay be reelected after a two-year lapsein service.

6.5 By January 1 of the year followingan election, from all Society members

in good standing, the Society Presidentshall appoint a Society Secretary, aSociety Treasurer, and all Society stand-ing or ad hoc committee chairpersonsand members, each of whom areappointed for the current term of theSociety President who appointed them.There are no term limits for those serv-ing as Society Secretary, Society Trea-surer, Society committee chairperson orSociety committee member.

6.6 If an elected member-at-large fails toattend four consecutive meetings of theSociety Administrative Committee, theSociety Administrative Committee mayvote to remove that member-at-largefrom the Society Administrative Com-mittee, and, in accordance with theSociety Constitution, may appoint a suc-cessor to serve for the remainder of theterm of the removed member-at-large.

6.7 Society officers, Society Administra-tive Committee members, and Societycommittee members must be membersof the Society in good standing.

6.8 Quorum. A majority of the votingmembers of the Administrative Com-mittee or any committee thereof shallconstitute a quorum. (Ref: IEEE BylawI-300.5)

6.9 The Society Administrative Commit-tee shall meet at least two, and no morethan four, times per year, at times andlocations to be determined by the Soci-ety President and announced at least 30days in advance of the meeting.

6.10 The Society Administrative Commit-tee authorizes the creation of the Execu-tive Committee of the SocietyAdministrative Committee, which consistsof the current Society officers and theimmediate past Society President, anddirects the Executive Committee to con-duct day-to-day Society business affairswhich do not require full Society Admin-istrative Committee review and approval.

7. Nominations andAppointments (N&A)Committee 7.1(Ref: IEEE Bylaw I-308.1)The Chair of the N&A Committee shall



be either the past President or theimmediate past President of theAdministrative Committee. In theevent of the incapacity or conflict ofinterest of the Chair, the most recentPast Chair of the N&A Committeeavailable shall be the Chair of theN&A Committee. With extenuating cir-cumstances, a different individual maybe appointed to this position.

7.2 N&A Chairs shall not be eligible tobe elected to the Administrative Com-mittee during their term of service.

7.3 At least two-thirds of the votingmembers of the N&A Committee shallbe elected or appointed by theAdministrative Committee.

7.4 A member of an N&A Committeemay be nominated and run for a posi-tion for which such member’s respec-tive N&A Committee is responsible formaking nominations only on the fol-lowing conditions: (i) the nominationis not made by a member of the sameN&A Committee and (ii) the memberresigns from the N&A Committee priorto its first meeting of the year inwhich the nomination shall be made.

8. Nomination and Electionof Society AdministrativeCommittee The Society Administrative Committeeshall establish its own procedures forfilling vacancies within its ranks.

9. Petition signaturerequirements(Ref: IEEE Bylaw I-308.16and IEEE Policy 13.8.3)9.1 For each elective office of theSociety, individual voting memberseligible to vote in such election maynominate candidates either by a writ-ten petition or by majority vote at anomination meeting of the organiza-tional unit, provided such nominationsare made at least 28 days before thedate of election. The number of signa-tures required on a petition shall bedetermined in accordance with IEEEBylaws as follows. For all positionswhere the electorate is less than30,000 voting members, signatures

shall be required from 2% of the eligi-ble voters. For all positions where theelectorate is more than 30,000 votingmembers, 600 signatures of eligiblevoters plus 1% of the differencebetween the number of eligible votersand 30,000 shall be required

9.2 Members shall be notified of allduly made nominations prior to theelection. Prior to submission of anomination petition, the petitionershall have determined that the nomi-nee named in the petition is willing toserve, if elected; evidence of suchwillingness to serve shall be submittedwith the petition.

9.3 Signatures can be submitted elec-tronically through the official IEEEsociety annual election website, or bysigning and mailing a paper petition.The name of each member signing thepaper petition shall be clearly printedor typed. For identification purposesof signatures on paper petitions, mem-bership numbers or addresses as listedin the official IEEE membershiprecords shall be included. Only signa-tures submitted electronically throughthe IEEE society annual elections web-site or original signatures on paperpetitions shall be accepted. Facsimi-les, or other copies of the original sig-nature, shall not be accepted. Onlyoriginal signatures can be accepted ona paper petition. Electronic signaturescan only be submitted via the IEEEsociety annual elections website.Faxes or other types of electronic sig-natures are not allowed).

9.4 The number of signatures requiredon a petition shall depend on thenumber of eligible society voters, aslisted in the official IEEE membershiprecords at the end of the year preced-ing the election

10. Technical, Advisory,and CoordinatingCommittees Standing and or ad hoc Society com-mittees may be established by theSociety Administrative Committee asdeemed relevant to the Society's spe-cial fields of interest.

11. PublicationsThe Society, through its Society Admin-istrative Committee, may publish IEEETransactions on Broadcasting, newslet-ters, and other publications related tothe fields of interest of the Society.

12. Chapters Chapters are Society sub-groups organ-ized on a geographical basis. This sub-ject is addressed fully in the IEEESociety Section of the Technical Activi-ties Manual and in the Section Manual.

13. Awards and FellowNominations 13.1 The Society Awards Committee isresponsible for studying the require-ments for IEEE awards and for IEEEFellow nominations. The SocietyAwards Committee will solicit recom-mendations from the Society adminis-trative, technical, advisory, andcoordinating committees, SocietyChapters, and from Society member-ship through Society publications. TheAwards Committee will prepare rec-ommendation and initiate appropriateactions in support of awards to Soci-ety members, and will maintain con-tact with the IEEE Awards Committeeand IEEE Fellows Committee onbehalf of the Society.

13.2 The Society Awards Committeeshall arrange for suitable awards forexcellence of technical content orpresentation of contributions pub-lished in Transactions on Broadcastingor presented at a Society conference.

14. Disbursements Disbursements from Society funds cred-ited to the Society after enactment ofthese Bylaws shall be on the authorityof the Society Treasurer as directed bythe Society Administrative Committeeand in accordance with an approvedbudget and established procedures andpolicies of the IEEE. The SocietyAdministrative Committee may author-ize the Society Treasurer to disbursefunds to defray legitimate expensesincurred by the Society AdministrativeCommittee, the Society Executive Com-mittee, and the Society technical, advi-sory and coordinating committees.




Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.445 Hoes LaneP.O. Box 1331Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331

Don’t Delay – Renew Today

Continue to enjoy the benefits of the IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Membership:

• Receive and contribute to a Quarterly newsletter with reports on society and local chapter activities and up-to-datenews from the international broadcasting industry.

• Receive and contribute to the IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, ranked in the top 20% of all telecommunicationsjournals, and the optional IEEE/OSA Journal of Display Technology.

• Receive a special issue in 2008 on Quality Issues in Multimedia Broadcasting, bundled with the third issue if theIEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

• Join BTS chapters worldwide, or in regions without chapters, promote new chapters.

• Become involved in the development of broadcast technology related IEEE standards.

• Participate in the community of broadcast engineers and stay up to date in the fast evolving field of broadcastingand broadband multimedia.

Look for your renewal package in the mail, or to renew your membership on-line visit:http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/renew/index.html

Mark Your Calendars2008 future events of interest to BTS members

The 12th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics (ISCE2008)ISCE 2008 will be held April, 14-16 2008 in Algarve, Portugal. Visit web site www.ISCE2008.org.

2008 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting. Multiple Technologies for Multimedia.March 31-April 2, 2008, Las Vegas. Co-located with CTIA WIRELESS 2008 and IEEE WCNC 2008. Visit web site www.ieee.org/bts

The 2008 NAB Show. Conferences: April 11-17, 2008 Exhibits: April 14-17. Las Vegas. Visit web site: www.nabshow.com

ICC 2008 Workshop on Digital Television and Mobile Multimedia Broadcasting, Beijing, China, 19-23 May 2008. For details,visit its web site at http://www.ieee-icc.org/dtmmb/dtmmb.html

15th International Conference on Telecommunications ICT 2008. St. Petersburg Russia, 16-19 June 2008. For details, visit itsweb site at www.ict08.org.

BroadcastAsia 2008 will be held from 17-20 June 2008 at Singapore Expo, Singapore. Visit web site www.broadcast-asia.com

IBC 2008 returns to the RAI Centre in Amsterdam this year, with the conference opening on 11 September and the exhibi-tion running from 12 to 16 September 2008. Visit web site www.ibc.org.

The NAB Radio Show will be held September 17 - 19, 2008 in Austin, TX. Visit web site www.nabradioshow.com

IEEE BTS 58th Broadcast Symposium will be held on October 15 through 17, 2008 at the Westin Alexandria Hotel, Alexan-dria, Virginia. For the latest information, keep checking the BTS web site at www.ieee.org/bts.


from the president - home - ieee broadcast technology...

Documents