Could President-Elect Trump End Up Giving Part15 a Power Boost?

Ive thought about this too quite a bit too, but not particularly in relation to Trump, or any other politician. I've pondered more on it in regard to reasoning with the FCC commissioner Rochwell.

But you have got a good point Carl. Just tell him we're being subjected to "Fake Rules" with the convoluted ground lead rule which doesn't really clarify exactly what constitutes what a ground lead is and somehow confusingly allows Talking houses to have a variable length ground lead (not to mention a variable legth feed lines with the range extender) and transmitters like Rangemaster only about 18 inches of ground lead.

However, I'm not sure that a power boost would be a reasonable request when you take into consideration what part 15 actually is. It's a permission to cause ia certain degree of interference as long as it doesnt interfere with a licensed service.
So such a request would essentially be saying we want more power to cause interference to the licenced service, and at the same time be permitted to provide the service which their licences grant to them - but we dont want to be subject to the rules which govern ther operations.

We currently have free range, so to speak, to air whatever we want, whenever we want, and wherever we want, at our own personal whim - without any regulation or oversight whatsoever. We are limited only by the physics of the 3 meter rule which provides a potential of about a mile and a half range (a three mile radius) under best conditions.

The only reason this is legal now is because the FCC made a big goof in 1956 for the sake of a popular pastime hobby of children at the time. When the consequences of that goof became apparent in the 1970s, the FCC set out to eliminate those unintended permissions (15.219), but it's use had already become so ingrained, particularly by the National Park services that it was too late. So it's a fluke that we even have the capabilities we now have.

If we pushed for more legal power, and somehow were able succeeded to be granted it, then you can rest assured that with that grant would come a new set of rules to govern it, similar to the rules which the licensed services. So we would lose the liberties part 15 currently allows us.

We have a much better argument for relaxing the ground lead restrictions than we do for and increase of power. This would eliminate the problems of installation, thus allow us to get the transmitters high enough to overcome nearby  physical obstructions that keep our signals from getting out.

All that said, we do have one very big thing going for us. Consider the fact that there has not been a single NOUO issued since licenced AM stations were granted FM repeaters. This is unheard of. Prior to that there has never been a year that has passed without at least 4 or 5 citations being issued to AM part 15 operations.

Now that AM stations have essentially  made their FM repeaters the priority - or in other words they now consider themselves to be FM stations, they could care less about what we are doing in the AM band, that's why the NOUOs have stopped.

So any request to relax rules of AM part 15 is currently a lot less likely to get any pushback from the NAB as we have in the past.

And dont forget the 1940s right after part 15 was created which resulted in the establishment and the rise of carrier current stations, most notably the college stations. 

What was the first thing that happened as a result of that? Docket 9288, the proposal to licenced them. - The college stations didnt like that idea at all, for the same reasons we wouldn't want that either. 

Docket 9288 went around in circles for about 7 years untill the FCC finally threw up there hands and finally terminated 9228. Fortunately at that, or we wouldnt even be having this discussion now.

Trying to change the rules to drastically could have undue repercussions as it did in the 1940s and again in the 1970s. We have to be careful what we ask for.

@RichardPowers  Good points, Rich. And what you said makes me aware of a contradiction in the rules no one has mentioned... While it is true that the Part 15 section of the FCC rules pertain to interference mitigation, is it not then contradictory to mention 'intentional radiators'? In other words it is legal to cause interference (intentional radiator) while at the same rime 'you may not cause interference'.

@RichardPowers   Let me take another pass at the issue:

A part 15 radio station only becomes 'interference' if it actually interferes with a licensed radio station. When operated properly, which most of us understand, a part 15 station is non-interferring. Therefore the category of stations operating with no license required', do not belong under the part 15 section.

Give us our own section of the rules. How about Part 16?

Think again.

The FCC Rules Part 15 has a title: "Radio Frequency Devices". In addition to describing types of devices allowed to exist, the rule also specifies limits to the power types of devices may legally radiate. Therefore all devices that operate within the power limits of the rules are NON interfering.

I think the over-simplication that part 15 is strictly about interference is a mistake of ours that has gotten passed along over time. Being wrong can live on into the future and infect everyone.

Well Carl that's kind of my point. We dont want a new set of rules, "part 16" or otherwise. At least I dont. All we really need is a modification and/or clarification of 15.219 pertaining to the ground lead for sake of a clear cut way of actually installing the transmitters without fear of breaking the rules.

Seeking power increase to 1watt or whatever is a whole other beast. There's no valid argument for it other than creating a new licensed method of LPAM.

Your talking about exactly what was attempted in the early 1970s when they wanted more power for part 15AM, the result of which was the creation of TIS, and not a power increase for part 15, in fact they almost did away with what we had because of it (15.219)

I think the over-simplication that part 15 is strictly about interference is a mistake of ours that has gotten passed along over time. 

That's not what I meant. Part 15 is commonly used for "broadcasting" all the time, it's what all the updates to party 15 20 years ago was all about.

But these Part 15 AM proposals from hobbyists that arise from time to time are unreasonable, which is why the FCC generally ignore them entirely.

We want more power, so we can better compete with the licenced broadcasters in the same band, but we dont want to be subject to the rules which govern ther operations.

Sure. Why wouldn't the FCC consider such a proposal?

I don't think so, You should have gotten hold of your congress person(s) running in your state during the campaign for the last year when they would listen to you. At election time is when politicians listen to you, and are available to contact and talk to them. Now it's over.
Relaxing part 15 isn't an issue on their minds in the least. In fact Trump doesn't even know what part 15 is.
I wish rules would change, even a bit for the better, but likely not. Whether in the USA or Canada.

@mark Although help from politicians might help and certainly couldn't hurt, it's really besides the point. It's not a political issue. It's not been uncommon for politicians to put there two cents in on part 15 AM issues when they rise to the public eye (the 1940s, 50s. 70s, 90s even KENC had congressman writing to the FCC, but it always comes to naught.

Myself, I don't think bring it up during pre election or post election has much of any bearing on the issue at all.

All good comments. We certainly do not want the rules to dictate our program content. We are better off not having to provide EBS Alerts.

Regarding the ground-lead issue, I don't see how it could be made any worse or anymore unclear than it is now, so better definitions is the only way it could be re-written.

Posted by: @carl-blare

↑

All good comments. We certainly do not want the rules to dictate our program content. We are better off not having to provide EBS Alerts.

Regarding the ground-lead issue, I don't see how it could be made any worse or anymore unclear than it is now, so better definitions is the only way it could be re-written.

They could just remove the "and ground lead if used" and revert back to exactly what it said before 1974.

@richpowers What did it say before 1974?

The exact same thing but without the phrase "and ground lead if used" in regard to the ten feet. .. and it actually said "10 feet" instead of "3 meters" at that time, so we lost like, what, 2 inches?