Leonard Kahn loses round one in court

[vsa]

Latest highlights from Leonard Kahn's (CAM-D) website/blog...

"I promised you dear WRATH visitor that we would keep you informed re the status of our antitrust case against the IBOC cartel... Well, we lost the first round... In a decision dated Dec. 7th, the infamy date, the District Court found for the Defendants... However, after studying the lengthy (14 page) decision KCI's attorney and I have come to the opinion that the lower court decision will be reversed."

"In our opinion this really should be a simple appeal, as we believe that the trial court ... put a logic inverter into their analysis, converting our true allegations into false allegations. Thus, the end result will be, in our opinion, the forcing of iBOC out of business. Apparently, the filing of our antitrust suit put pressure on the FCC. Also negative comments by top engineers all over the world (USA, Canada, Mexico, etc.) have stalled iBOC and will soon place the system into the FCC junk file."

[EDIT]

More here: http://www.wrathofkahn.org/


[EDIT-post truncated because originating material is copyprotected.  Unauthorized use of copyrighted content is in violation of Radio-Info's TOS.]

[Cal Stymes]

vsa quoted from The Wrath Of Khan:

Thus, the end result will be, in our opinion, the forcing of iBOC out of business.

Thank goodness somebody will force iBOC out of business!

What a travesty this has been. 

[700WLW]

Kahn sounds like a kook, but maybe something will come out of, "Round One".

[semoochie]

He's been a well respected "kook" for about 50 years!

[Tom Wells]

I would love to see the "commentary by top engineers", to see if the objections are the same as have been discussed here on Radio-Info.
You can fool the stockholder, and other business types, but you can't fool a good engineer or mother nature.

I again challenge anyone to cite examples where nature has by "god" or "evolution" created digital systems.
Everywhere I look, the universe is analog and logarithmic, by necessity of efficiency.


Please explain the desirability of such complexity/instability, when the result is not as good (HD AM vs 15kc proofed AMs), or HD fm,
where the result is a net gain of zero.

Do not ignore the unrealized benefits of AMAX, DSP for the audio, noise blanking, and DNR.
Why adopt a system that goes against the grain of reality?

Because business has no respect for the laws of physics.
Good thing these folks aren't designing cars, or we'd have joystick-steering as the newest "killer app".
I still feel a need for a real gearbox between my hands and the steering mechanism.
Maybe some things are too important to take out of the real-time mode.
I count radio as one of these things.

I sure hope we see Mr. Kahn win this one on engineering merit.

[amfmsw]

Excellent points, Tom.  Dead on.

I hope that the talents of Mr. Kahn aren't ignored like Armstrongs' were.  And I consider Kahn in the same braniac league as Armstrong.  I just hope his life work doesn't have the same result.

[Kelly]

Leonard Kahn went head to head with Magnavox, Motorola, Harris and lost badly in the testing days of AM Stereo.  Whereas I think Mr. Kahn has some merit to some of his ideas, including ISB AM Stereo, he goes about things the wrong way always suing people then looking like a nut in court, or acting like a raving loon in his filings and getting tossed out.  Had Mr. Kahn gone ahead and sold his design to a large company, the chosen method of AM stereo may have been different, although I don't think the longevity of AM Stereo would have been any longer either due to the influx of terrestrial noise that effects the demodulation of Medium Wave signals, or the fact that AM Stereo, and AM in general, has poorer audio performance than Frequency Modulation.

As with AM Stereo, you can invent the coolest way to modulate a carrier this side of Marconi, but if the consumer doesn't care, and the consumer electronic manufacturers don't either, you're just pissing into the wind. 

[SUPERCASTER]

Tom Wells said:

I would love to see the "commentary by top engineers", to see if the objections are the same as have been discussed here on Radio-Info.

It is similar, and much of it posted but hidden on the FCC website.
Here are some links and quotes:

March 8, 2005


Commission Clarifies Policy Regarding Multiple Audio Streams in IBOC Transmissions, MM Docket 99-325, Public Notice, DA 05-609, released March 8, 2005. [ PDF | Word ]. Experimental authority must be requested.

June 16, 2005


Comment Sought on National Radio System Committee's "In-Band/On-Channel Digital Radio Broadcasting Standard NRSC-5", Public Notice, DA 05-1661, released June 16, 2005. [ PDF | Word ]. Comments sought by July 18, 2005; reply comments sought by August 17, 2005.

www.fcc.gov/mb/audio
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1661A1.doc

[hipporadio]

Leonard Kahn went head to head with Magnavox, Motorola, Harris and lost badly in the testing days of AM Stereo.  Whereas I think Mr. Kahn has some merit to some of his ideas, including ISB AM Stereo, he goes about things the wrong way always suing people then looking like a nut in court, or acting like a raving loon in his filings and getting tossed out.  Had Mr. Kahn gone ahead and sold his design to a large company, the chosen method of AM stereo may have been different, although I don't think the longevity of AM Stereo would have been any longer either due to the influx of terrestrial noise that effects the demodulation of Medium Wave signals, or the fact that AM Stereo, and AM in general, has poorer audio performance than Frequency Modulation.

As with AM Stereo, you can invent the coolest way to modulate a carrier this side of Marconi, but if the consumer doesn't care, and the consumer electronic manufacturers don't either, you're just pissing into the wind.

ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT agreement on this post!  I’ve followed Mr. Kahn’s activities since the late 70s.  I would NOT go so far (as another poster did here) and call him a “kook”—the terms “rebel” and “antagonist” would be more appropriate.  “Back in the day” I did believe he had the best interest of AM radio at heart when he developed and promoted the ISB AM stereo transmission method.  I did find the claim that his ISB system was the ONLY one that “wasn’t afraid of the dark” to be an exaggeration.  Granted—it didn’t suffer the “platform motion” effect common to a C-QUAM signal under assault from nighttime co-channel interference,  but how realistically useful could ISB have been after sunset when a station’s daytime-protected adjacent channels became populated with “monkey chatter”?  In the mid-80s I owned the multi-mode Sony Walkman that was compatible with the four systems.  I found several good-sounding C-QUAM stations—but only ONE in Kahn ISB (660 WNBC, New York).

Today, I find it interesting that Mr. Kahn’s website seems to deal more with his “recreational activities” before the court that it does with the technical specifics of his CAM-D digital AM system.  Also consider his “demo”—a low-powered Utah big band station that breaks up Glen Miller and the Dorsey Brothers with funeral notices, “The Swap Shop” and brokered religious programs.  Again, an alternative (especially to defective and destructive AM IBOC) is good, but Kelly’s analogy above applies equally well.  I cannot (again) imagine that earlier AM stereo disappointment called a “marketplace decision” being permitted to rule the digital debate.

Proper and efficient utilization of the Standard Broadcast band is near-totally determined by the “laws of nature”—not a room full of “suits” at CC/iBiquity or flaccid bureaucrats devoid of sound engineering experience at the FCC.  Each swath of frequency spectrum is confined by immovable technical realities that dictate its propagation possibilities.  I think it fair and reasonable to conclude that the AM band and any “hybrid digital solution” confined to the available bandwidth is neither compelling or practical—so call AM radio what it is—“AM radio”... Accept its strengths and limitations—and move on to a more fertile field in which to sow your digital seed.

[dumber than a box of hair]

I would love to see the "commentary by top engineers", to see if the objections are the same as have been discussed here on Radio-Info.
You can fool the stockholder, and other business types, but you can't fool a good engineer or mother nature.

No, you can't fool them, but the problem is that neither one is in control of the FCC's or iBiquity's agendas.  The days when engineers set technical standards at the FCC are long gone, and as for iBiquity, their motive is profit.  Just look at their marketing.  It's aimed at managers, and engineers are deliberately kept out of the equation.  It promises the moon, the sun and the stars, and delivers either none of those (FM) or something far worse than none of those (AM).

I've been in radio engineering long enough to recognize snake oil when I see it, and HDRadio definitely qualifies.