I received a response back from Industry Canada re my e-mail regarding BETS-1 licensing.
They admitted that they must have misunderstood my question (I left that door open for them in my e-mail) and confirmed that no Industry Canada license is required if you use BETS-1 certified equipment.
It's interesting that 2 others received the same initial answer that you DID need something (one also e-mailed Industry Canada asking for clarification, but hasn't received a reply yet).
Anyway, good news if you are located in Canada.
Good News for any possible Initiative for increased field strength on FM as well. You know sometimes I feel and there is no way to prove this so its almost but here goes. Maybe some don't feel unlicensed Radio of any type is a good idea and instead of really looking to find the answer they come up with a one size fits all. Almost like some folks forget or on purpose forget to include part 15 Radio when making anti Piracy laws for Radio. Again its only an opinion of mine and would need more research to back it however. Anyway lits stick to the positive here and use this positive answer to make some positive future plans using that tool. I hope this means you'll fire up the old FM TX once again from suspended operations.
The now confirmed facts about BETS-1 are good new for you, too, Artisan, because it means you were not so unexpectedly wrong after all.
But now I have a problem viewing BETA-1 as our model for 15.239 improvement because of those program restrictions that might come with any change in our rules.
In any case, this is useful and valuable news on the heels of Tim's startling Wholehouse 3.0 results.
The only reason that those programming restrictions are in place are the CRTC, which regulates the content of broadcasts (don't forget that any radio station in Canada requires both an Industry Canada license AND a CRTC license, with the CRTC license being the hardest to obtain). The U.S. doesn't regulate content per say (other than perhaps language). So perhaps using the technical aspects of BETS-1 wouldn't be an issue.
Alright, in view of the message just said by Artisan Radio, for what it's worth, I can return to my original position of "supporting in principle increase of 15.239 to match the field strength levels of Canadian BETS-1."
Of course in light of Tim's discoveries measuring the Wholehouse 3.0 the BETS-1 standard might end up being too little for the effort it will take to accomplish, so our discussions might lead to some higher power request.
Saturday night at the ALPB.
I'm still trying to get my head around the Whole House results.
I do know that there was a BETS-1 station in Oakville, called Ridge Radio, using a Decade MS-100 and it reported ranges 1/2 km and more to car radios (I don't know the details of the installation). I also know that I had a BETS-1 station, using a Decade MS-100, that duplicated that kind of range and more - up to 1km with a great car radio (mind you, it was an extremely weak signal at that range and I had to park in the right place). I had an almost ideal installation - a rooftop installation on a building at the top of a hill, overlooking my intended audience (so practically everything was line of sight).
I just don't understand why, if the field strength of the Whole House was so high, the range wasn't greater than reported. Particularly with the much higher field strengths when it was put into high power mode (much higher than BETS-1).
I'm wondering if Rich can do a simulation to see what the NEC software would predict the field strength would be at, say, 100 meters from the transmitter.
Told you so!!!!!!
Someone there actually knew what they were talking about!
Now you know, what's in writing(or not in writing) is what is true.
Mark
As I said maybe the field strength readings for FM Tim found could be legal if we ask for them. Its going to be a uphill battle because the fight between the NAB and LPFM, but we have data to back such a request. The transmitters are already out there and people who thought they are within the law on FM are using the Whole House 3.0 overpowered transmitter. The sky has not fallen.
I'm wondering if Rich can do a simulation to see what the NEC software would predict the field strength would be at, say, 100 meters from the transmitter.
Below is a repeat of a graphic I posted earlier. The transmit antenna was vertically polarized.
A very important result is shown by the NEC plots: the field at 100m is not 3/100 of the field at 3 meters.
The reason for this is that these are not free space paths. The net fields near the earth at 3m and 100m for a given applied power are dependent on the relative phases and amplitudes of the direct wave with a reflection from the earth, and the radiation pattern of the transmit antenna in the vertical plane.
For some reason the site is making duplicate posts sometimes -- which duplicate post I deleted.