With all the recent discussion about Hobbybroadcaster, you just had to know this would happen.
This morning, I was browsing through an antique radio forum, and came across a post (from 2018) from someone who was complaining about Hobbybroadcaster's email policy. That they didn't allow registration for users with on gmail, yahoo, hotmail, etc.
Another piped in that there was a site, Part15.org (or .us, I can't remember) that was much friendlier, and far less restrictive in their policies.
Well, I guess it was the mention of his mortal enemy, but DeFelice then posted a huge verbal tongue lashing against these posters, and defending his policies. Not exactly the way to make friends.
Some of the takeaways from that post - I won't quote from it, because that would be deemed as "stealing" his thoughts.
He really did (and does) believe that there are hackers lined up to steal the information from his website. That those hackers want to take him down.
And he also believes that others (implying those from that one other named forum, i.e., us) want desperately to steal his hard work. He even brought up his old claim that he's had to issue a DMCA takedown - somewhere, he didn't specify - because his "hard work" was stolen. I've never seen any evidence for the veracity of that claim.
It was quite comical, actually, and the post didn't appear to change anybody's attitude towards the site.
Bottom line today - DeFelice thinks that doing a bunch of google searches every morning, and publishing links (effectively stealing others' stuff, but then claiming ownership) is hard work.
I may be being a bit harsh. That site has occasionally come up with some good things. The AM Transmitter Challenge was a great idea, marred by flaws in the execution. He's done some good product reviews; he's also done some awful ones, biased and false.
But overall, the hype from Hobbybroadcaster far exceeds its actual value. To be so security paranoid also shows that there is something very wrong there with the powers that be.
This is a hobby. I think we're all here (at least at Part15.org) to learn, and to share (so we can learn some more). NO matter how experienced you are, you can always learn something. True wisdom is knowing what you do know, and don't know, and be willing to change your mind about the former. Ignorance is believing that you are an expert, and know everything.
Since you're hesitant to post what he said, I'm game to. Yeah, I'm familiar with that thread, seen it before, and their are similar ones one other sites as well, it's not just us who are put off by his self righteous ignorance. Here's the link and I'll elaborate by directly highlighting some prime excerpts here, let the dumb ass try to sue me, that's so funny. https://antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=346114
Excerpts from Bills post:
"In the past, other sites had been openly ripping off my forum content for which I've had to file several Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices in the past... I don’t invest considerable time each and every day to have content ripped off, especially when those lifting it couldn't be bothered to credit how and/or where they’ve come across it. If somebody openly ripped off your antique radio forums here and reposted the information verbatim elsewhere I would wager that your congenial host, moderator(s) and fellow forum participants would be equally displeased... ...Unfortunately, past experiences have proven that an open forum will only have some individuals gleaning everything they can get for free and then never bother to contribute... Unlike similar sites which deal with legal Part 15 radio on the AM and FM broadcast bands, my website differs in several ways. It’s operated by an industry-recognized broadcast engineer ... ... I'm always open to constructive criticism and I appreciate the ability to present my side. Thank you.
Bill DeFelice
Broadcast Engineer
Webmaster of HobbyBroadcaster net
A J. Hill responded with a comment: "It appears to me that, judging from the response directed at Tim, that the web site in question is not very friendly"
MarkPalmer made an excellent point: "IMHO, old Wild Bill there lost sight of reality. No one would have known or cared about his site unless they could have lurked around and just read what was there to begin with. My "constructive criticism?" There is not enough to "rip off" in the world of part 15 radio unless you are broadcasting to centipedes in your basement who can hear and have the intelligence to dance to what is basically personal "broadcasting." It's a freaking hobby, why be so cut-throat killer serious about it?"
Also notice we're not the only ones locked out, someone named palegreenthumb made an interesting comment about being able to access the site Safari but not a Google browser:
"I can't even get to the site to see what the discussion is about. All I get is a 403 - Forbidden. ... Is Google's browser locked out as well as their email accounts? Or is it my ISP? .... Just to see, I climbed on the computer, and tried the http:// version with Safari. Safari switched it to https:// and connected with no problem. I can see the website fine with an https:// connection in Safari. So I went back to my tablet, and tried it with the default Samsung browser that came pre-installed on the tablet, using the https:// version of the address. That also connected just fine and I can see the website on the tablet from the Samsung browser. So it really appears that Chrome is locked out. It's not my ISP. And it's not https:// from other browsers."
Bill came back explaining the "limited access to the forums to prevent the "glean and leave" syndrome" and "I might be there is/was a bad actor on your ISP. .." and defended himself by pointing out the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Consumer Electronics Association determined my site was of value as a reference, huh? They didn't appear to have any issues with the way I operate the site. ... but you sound exactly like the folks who rip off my hard work. With your attitude, you make it sound like I'm just suppose to invest my time and energies and allow people to rip off my work. Sorry, but I'm not online to let people walk all over me, especially when I'm the one paying the bills. Of course, the web is a free market and people are free to visit any site of their choosing (or not).
pixellany says: "I've participated in a huge variety of websites over the years. I have never seen one that found it necessary to take such extreme measures as block one of the most common email providers (in this case, gmail).
More generally, trying to exert too much control over how people use your site typically will have a negative outcome"
Amen to that, like I've always said, Bill is own true enemy, not other hobby sites.
In fact, I've told that to him directly on several occasions before he got tired of me and locked the door.
Incidentally, I've mentioned this before, but sometimes, out of the blue suddenly I have full access to the main site (no 403) and able to browse around for hours. It was only about 4 or 5 days ago I had access all morning, I was going to mention it but the 403 returned after a few hours. When it is accessable you still can't get in the forum itself but everything else is viewable, then suddenly later it's 403 again. Access seems to come and go on its own.
Google tells me "As of today, April 19, 2026, there have been no new forum posts recorded since late on April 17, 2026.
I doubt that's accurate, maybe he's recently decided to block Google, I find it hard to believe there hasn't been a post there in two days.
I vaguely remember there being something about Bill contacting whoever was running this site a long time ago but forget what is was all about, just know it was some objection he had..
Google says:
There are no public records of Bill DeFelice (owner of hobbybroadcaster.net) ever filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice.
Yes, there is a primary public database used for tracking DMCA notices, and I have looked through its available records.
The Lumen Database (formerly Chilling Effects) is the most comprehensive archive of legal requests to remove online material, including DMCA takedown notices. It is run by Harvard's Berkman Klein Center and collects data shared voluntarily by companies like Google, Twitter, and Wikimedia
Results of the Search
I checked for records involving Bill DeFelice and HobbyBroadcaster.net. Here is what was found:
No Public Matches: There are currently no public records in the Lumen Database showing Bill DeFelice or HobbyBroadcaster.net as the filer of a DMCA notice.
Missing Data Factors: While Lumen contains over 43 million notices, it does not contain every DMCA notice ever filed. It only lists notices from participating platforms. If he filed a notice directly with a private web host (like Bluehost or HostGator), those companies often do not share their data with public databases.
Informal vs. Formal: In small hobbyist communities, "filing a DMCA" is often used loosely to describe sending a Cease and Desist email directly to a site owner, which is a private matter and would never appear in a database.
How to Check Yourself
If you want to verify this or look for other names, you can search the Lumen Database directly. https://lumendatabase.org/
I'm guessing that's what he's talking about, an "Informal Cease and Desist" email that Bill sent directly to this site.
What is the good of having a forum and making it so restrictive that hardly anyone can join?,
and hiding it from the public. A "lurker" may be a future member. A long time ago I was interested to join but I don't have the right email? That was a deal breaker right there. I also didn't know what it was like. Someone from here a while back tried to join and was told we are not taking any new members and only schools, or something like that, no individuals, or hobbyists, just an excuse I think. And by what Rich informs us of how it was there how do all, or the few that are there not get pissed off by this?
But a question, is content on a forum, like this one for example or any one copyrighted? Can there really be a lawsuit if someone copied a post from a forum and posted it elsewhere?
That is what Bill is saying the he owns all posts on his forum and any reproduction is a copyright violation. Is that true?
Maybe I should try Safari browser? But I don't care enough to bother.
Oh I liked it there myself, but you did have to tip toe with your post and definitely be careful about calling Bill out in your responding when he said something that just didn't quite ring accurate. You had to be subtle correcting him to avoid rustling his feathers because there was always an essence of Authoritarianism in the air there, and he gets bent out of shape easily, so you have to kind of kiss his ass to keep him feeling secure.
I've always said, and still do, that he's done a lot for the hobby by keeping it in the limelight in numerous radio industry magazine articles and such, he made it more predominate in the public eye and he's compiled a lot of part 15 related resources all nice and tidy under one roof. He's done a lot in attempts to strengthen the part 15 community --;But then he screws up all up by making it clear it's not for any community, it's only for those living in his virtual little HB kingdom which he rules. It's a screwy situation that he seems totally oblivious about. He's convinced everyone else is the problem.
But he notoriousness does make a good topic of discussion for this dying hobby. To bad he can't do much to revive it. But at least he's got his HB castle yo hide in
He's done something for the hobby, all right. Some good, some bad. A lot of people in the antique radio forum I mentioned were turned off by his posts there. I wouldn't be surprised if they were also turned off the hobby as a result. Life is too short to get involved in the crap that he dished out.
From what I can see, there are still people doing Pat 15 radio. A lot are doing radio that is not Part 15. It's the forums that are dying.
In part due to social media.
Some don't want to be beaten over the head by the radio police every time they talk about what they're doing.
IMO it's also partly because we all just can't seem to get along and work together (present company excluded, of course). That sends out conflicting messages and misinformation.
Unfortunately, due to the personalities involved, I don't see that changing any time soon.
From what I can see, there are still people doing Pat 15 radio. A lot are doing radio that is not Part 15. It's the forums that are dying.
In part due to social media.
It began with mention of the ground lead, and gradually went more underground. Yes, Part 15 AM still has a heartbeat, but when the primary certified xmtr manufactures have apparently selling maybe one a year if they're lucky - even Hamilton Rangemasters site has been sitting in a disarray of barely functioning navigation for what feels like at least 2 or 3 years.. They're not selling anymore - or at least that what the writing on the wall seems to be saying.
I remain to believe it will see a resurgence. Might be another four or five years, but it'll happen. As right now, just call it a lull.
That's for AM. I think that the Chinese are still selling a lot of FM transmitters. For obvious reasons, not a lot of people want to talk about their experiences with them.
But back to my point about misinformation. Here's an example of the type of garbage that's going around. In that antique radio thread, one individual talked about how Part 15 FM rules stated that you could have no more than 200 feet range. He then went on to 'prove' that by stating that field strength decreases exponentially as you move away from the transmitter. And that height made no difference.
That's only wrong on all counts. But DeFelice chose to defend his website and accuse others of 'stealing' his ideas, rather than to set the record straight (if he indeed knew what that was).
First of all, we all know that there's no 200 feet restriction for FM in the Part 15 rules. That's a guideline issued by the FCC, and is so full of holes it's like swiss cheese. It doesn't take into account a lot of factors, most notably what your radio is and its charactistics.
Second, field strength, at least in the far field, decreases linearly over distance. It's power that decreases exponentially. And field strength for Part 15 is measured at 3 meters, which should be in the far field (the far field generally starts several wavelengths from the antenna).
Now, if you do some elementary math, it would show that under ideal conditions, the field strength of a Part 15 compliant transmitter would be approximately 7.5uv/m at 96 meters (or around 300 feet). About 3.5 at 192 meters or 600 feet. And so on. There are many FM receivers that can hear signals at those levels - some car stereos have a sensitivity of under 0.5uv with 20db signal to noise ratio or better.
The problem is that there are many ways that your FM signal can be interfered with. FM tends to bounce off obstructions and scatter, causing nulling and a potential decrease in field strength. Humidity can even cause that scattering. And perhaps the biggest contributor of all is ground reflections (as with a verticial, your signal is omnidirectional).
Out in the middle of space, in a vacuum, with a good car receiver, you would have a range of well over 600 feet, probably a lot more depending on that receiver. Here on Earth, you have to 'help' your signal. Height of the antenna DOES matter a great deal, as you are minimizing ground reflections and scattering, and at the very least getting them further 'out there'. Your signal will go a lot further with no obstructions to increase the scattering. Heck, even though you can't control the weather, you'll see that signal of yours go a lot further on cool, crisp days (with little humidity). You likely won't get that 1000 feet range here on Earth, but you can get well over 200 feet and still be legal.
So, yes, that 200 feet is a guideline, but only a guideline. It's quite possible to get much more range from a compliant FM installation. You just have to take a common sense approach, and know what you're doing.
Oh before I quit harping on the ole boy, I got to tell this one. You've heard me talk about how it was not uncommon for Bill to be editing my post within an hour or two of my posting. There's a few times that stands out to me, but this one is probably the most telling. Back when I had been the most active poster on HB (besides Bill himself) I would often post my research on HB first and leave it there for a few days before posting it in my blog. I did this as a kind of failsafe that whatever I was presenting didn't have some stupid error or whatever in it, - if it did, someone would point it out. Once I was satisfied my post set well, then I would transfer it to my blog.
Well, on or around January 26, 2016, I posted the results of my research in one of my threads there, and within, what I remember as minutes, Bill had already edited some key portions of my research, altering it to make it sound like he had obtained the FCC field operations manuals via his FOIA request. Yeah, he submitted, but he obtained nothing other than a rejection letter. It was two years later that the members of part 15.us (.org now) submitted a FOIA request and did obtain the requested documents, and made them public, at which point Bill added to his site, and you might note how often he makes it one of his bragging points, that it was because of him we have that copy. You'll see his bragging about it in a few Radio World articles, his site, and in his postings. Maybe he's deceived himself into believing it, I don't know. But when I posted it in his forum he made changes to insure it was clear it was his doing that brought those documents to life.
Hell no, Bill never gave credit to the members of Part.us or anyone else for the release of those documents. He wanted the credit and took it.
I think it's was on January 26, 2016, because as soon as I noticed what he had done to my post immediately post my original unedited post to my blog. So I think it was the same day. Anyone having access to his forums can find my post on that date and see how his edit of my factual post changed the whole narrative.
Below are the key excerpts from my old Part15Lab blog that reveals what Bill wanted to hide.
https://part15lab.blogspot.com/2016/01/no-limits.html
In April of 2010 Bill Defelice of HobbyBroadcaster.net filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA request) for "FCC field operations manuals, field directives and bulletins directly related to field inspectors dealing with operators using Part 15 devices in the AM and FM broadcast bands."
Michael Moffit, Regional Director of the Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau in Illinois responded (excerpt): "...We have searched our records and located one responsive document that contains twenty-two pages. We are witholding this document pursuant to.. [several FOIA exemptions].. These exemptions permit non-discloser would risk circumvention of the law..."
That basically means, 'We've got it, but you can't have it. ..
Then again, sometime around June of 2012 Robert Chrysafis (kc8gpd) of Classic Hits 1630am in Denver Colorado submitted another FOIA request , and urged other members of the Part15.us forums to do the same, by seeking information on the following, and for the following reasons:
"...FCC field operations manuals, field directives and bulletins directly related to field inspectors dealing with operators using Part 15 devices in the AM and FM broadcast bands..
...field manual used as a guide when dealing with low power unlicensed part 15 stations on the am medium wave and fm vhf broadcast bands..
..'will be used as a guide to aid in better complying with the rules and regulations contained within CFR 47 part(s)15.219(a)(b), 15.239, 15.221, 15.209, 15.217, 15.225.."
In the months to follow, John Mouw of Druid Hills Radio in Dade City Florida, as well as a few other part 15 enthusiast followed suit by submitting additional FOIA requests for the same information, and eventually the FCC responded by providing the requested documents.
... This time, Rebecca Dorch Regional Director of the the FCC Western Region Enforcement Bureau in Lakewood Colorado, responded by providing portions of the requested manual(s), and before long, both of the primary Part 15 hobbyist websites on the net (Part15.us and HobbyBroadcaster.net) made it public ..
Above was from my original is post, no compare that to what my post says on the HB forums on that same date.
Antenna theory is extremely interesting, although I don't claim to know a lot about it. There's a great deal of complex math involved..
One thing that I find interesting is that a lot of weird stuff happens in the near field, with field strength decreasing by powers of 2 and even powers of 3 as the signal moves to the near/far field boundary. So it takes a corresponding lot more power to get to that 250uv/m at 3 meters out in the far field.
After that, as I stated previously, field strength decreases linearly vs distance from the antenna.
@artisan-radio Even the late former Chief Engineer John Reed confirmed part FM 15 can go farther and heavily emphasized that's the reason the rules don't state range and that it varies with environment.
That "200 foot" in that FCC public notice is a deterrent, it was issued in response to a huge influx of mail inquiries on starting part 15 AM community stations. It had been incited during the reality radio phase by numerous magazine and newspaper articles talking about how after the houses of new sub divisions sold they continued using the talking house as community radio stations. That public notice was created and sent to them all as a response.