Neil's comments about responsible use of the spectrum made me think of an LED lightbulb in my hallway which gets turned on at night putting a blast of trash mostly in the long wave region, but tapering up into the medium waves.
In my lazy way I have been blaming the bulb-maker for the interference and taking the easy-way through the situation by getting the light I paid for and letting it do it's RF buzz.
However, come to think of it, I'm the responsible party for the interference. Right? The buck stops here.
I don't have a huge problem with people running over the limit. My main concern is the negative attention it brings us, plus the typical power user doesn't keep things as tight as we do. They use noisy amps, trashy transmitters, curse, ect.
If they kept it clean on the spectrum and the language, I probably wouldn't care very much.
Interesting concept Carl on the light bulb. Sort of like a Certified Transmitter we believe is following the rules. But then that even gets sticky where as an older version of a certified transmitter may be cause for concern as it was over the rules and or the FCC ID was somehow miss matched with another device that the company sells such as what happened with the SainSonic AX-05B FM Transmitter which was revised and could meet the part 15 rules now. So when you talk over powered are we talking about say a 50 Watt FM unlicensed operator (Who is clearly not even attempting to be part 15) or a transmitter like a Signstek CZE-T200 where as at the low power mode into a rubber duck is 1mW and the Whole House FM Transmitter which was Certified (But tested overpowered) was 2mW into a rubber duck at low power and certified and yet over the limit. In this case I simply call it overpowered part 15 Transmitter. But a 50 Watt transmitter into a die pole is NO WHERE NEAR part 15 and could be heard 20-40 miles away. Even a 900mW transmitter to me is not blatant Piracy. Overpowered maybe and rather they get a NOUO could depend on location. I've vented on why Field Strength rules for part 15 don't work and won't work for the average person buying a transmitter on line. Even folks who buy a transmitter from Walmart can be breaking the law and not know it. A person who buys a Schoche FM4R and doesn't like the short cable and buys a 6-12 foot cable to extend the audio from a computer to the transmitter and puts it up in the air so that he or she can hear the station while mowing the lawn. Unknowing or otherwise to them they just increased the field strength and could be over 250 uV/m at 3 meters allowed by part 15 15:239. I still don't consider that a blatant Pirate. I'd say for the sake of argument that anything over a Watt is Piracy. Most folks (Even lamers would yell 1 Watt) if you asked them how powerful do they think a Belkin Tunecaset FM Transmitter is. We can all agree that over 1 Watt is something you can say is Piracy. Even into a dummy load is questionable. You can still get out quite far on a dummy load at 2 Watts say. So no way can you run over 1 Watt and be legal hardly that would be the case. But say your Transmitter is running 300 uV/M @ 3 meters I hardly would name you a Pirate.
AM is concrete. 100MW into a 3 meter (10 foot) antenna and ground. So lets say a person runs a 6 foot ground lead? Well that is breaking the rules and you'd get a NOUO if inspected. Are they Pirates? Some say Yes they are. I say slightly over. Should they get shut down for good? Hardly in my book. But lets say a person runs a 100 foot antenna into a 40 foot ground wire and has his transmitter 5 floors up? Yup a Pirate. They Know you can't do that especially 100 foot antenna. Plus have they been Warned by the FCC and continue in the bad behavior? Well that is a Pirate for sure.
The lowest FM power level licensed by the FCC is 1 Watt. They will not and do not license anything under 1 Watt on FM.
So, when TheLegacy said: "Even a 900mW transmitter to me is not blatant Piracy," I agree with him. 900 mW is below 1 Watt and is un-licensable. The unlicensed territory under 1 Watt is shared by Part 15.
Carl said: The lowest FM power level licensed by the FCC is 1 Watt. They will not and do not license anything under 1 Watt on FM.
I said: That is because of the HAAT for a LPFM station. In a original Construction Permit a particular LPFM was authorized 18 watts ERP based on the antenna being mounted at the 30 meter level on a 240 foot hill among other factors. This would yield the 3-5 mile 60/70 dBuV signal level. The location was moved to a location where the antenna is now at 26 meters on a 140 foot hill among aother factors. The ERP is now 86 watts.
"The unlicensed territory under 1 Watt is shared by Part 15."
While this is true it is irrelevant. Part 15 allows unlicensed operation so what does it matter if outside Part 15 operation no license is available?
Neil
Radio8Z: "Part 15 allows unlicensed operation so what does it matter if outside Part 15 operation no license is available?"
It matters because it is a wasted resource in cases where no other use is being made of given frequencies, and further matters because the FCC plainly states in its violation notices that "a license is required."
It is only reasonable to state that a license is required if a license is an actual option.
My take on this is that no unlicensed operation excepting under Part 15 is permitted. Requiring a license where none is available means such operation is de facto prohibited.
Neil
An Increase in power up to just before what is available to be licensed is what me and a few others have been trying to see if we could get enough interest and activity to support a movement such as this expecially for FM. But it could be the case of 87.9 does fall in the new rules for part 15 with the new order. We'll just have to stay tuned for this one.
Very good point! When you are told you need a licence, a licence should be obtainable. What good is it to say to someone who's a little over whether Industry Canada or the FCC you need a licence when you can't get one?
Mark
Radio8Z: "My take on this is that no unlicensed operation excepting under Part 15 is permitted. Requiring a license where none is available means such operation is de facto prohibited."
Radio8Z is quoting the rules.
I am criticizing the rules.
Same rules.
Mark posted: What good is it to say to someone who's a little over whether Industry Canada or the FCC you need a licence when you can't get one?
Shouldn't it be recognized that NO FCC or IC enforcement actions legally apply to unlicensed operators/systems actually meeting the FCC/IC requirements for such systems?
The takeaway issue from this is that in order to prevent such regulatory notice/action, the operators of such systems should research and implement what it takes to install and operate legally compliant, unlicensed systems (if that is their goal).
If this means little or nothing to the operators and defenders of such systems, then ...
I don't believe that I was quoting any rules, rather I was describing how the rules are applied.
Neil
Radio8Z: "I don't believe that I was quoting any rules, rather I was describing how the rules are applied."
Realize you did not quote rules. Except in the sense that pointing to the rules is a form of quotation by body-language.
If I point at the message inscribed on the Statue of Liberty am I not "quoting" in a silent way?
I was criticizing the rules and the unclaimed space between unlicensed and licensed rules for which one needs a license never issued.
Any disagreement is in the illogic of requiring the unavailable.
The FCC could improve its message by simply saying (in its violation notices) "No license is available for such service" rather than "a license is required."