No problem, Artisan. Thanks.
When you look over some of the petitions that the FCC acted on in the past, they all seem to have two important ingredients: statistics/surveys and anecdotal evidence.
Can you provide stats or create and conduct a survey which shows that the service you're proposing is needed in the community? Do you have anecdotes or stories of individuals that have been helped through micro broadcasting and that a service that covers, say, a radius of 3.2 km is not too small to be useful?
Also, since the FCC is concerned that a low watt service would be suseptible to interference and would not be able to sustain itself financially, can you show otherwise? (or argue that an LP50 broadcast service should be allowed to sell commercial time?)
I think these are the kinds of points the FCC would want to see.
Carmine5,
We just started this procedure, so we have nothing yet. This is going to take at least a year to put all the data together. Also, we can't cover 3.2km with FM without going above Part 15, so I don't see how that would work. That was the whole point of the initial test - to see how far a Part 15 FM signal can reach. From there, we can work out other tests, like our friends in Canada who did a 1000uV test for us. I don't understand why people think that my initial driving test was the only thing we were going to do. There's a lot of work ahead.
I did read that the FCC allows experiemntal air time. It would be nice if we could apply and actually run the kind of station we want for a year to see how it works out. If it doesn't, that's fine. We publish our findings and walk away. If it does work and it is commercially/financially/socially viable, then we can use that as well. There's no reason not to try. I would think that in this digital age, something like this would be welcomed. Instead, we're met with pushback and I really don't understand it. Just because the FCC 'said so' 25 years ago?
Waiting 15 years for the next LPFM window to open is a waste of time if we're just going to sit around and broadcast 1000 feet. Might as well do something constrictive with the time that helps everyone out.
EDIT: Or - here's an idea - why not petition the FCC to just open the window faster?
Yes, I was thinking you might want to apply for an experimental license. I'm not sure if the FCC would grant a year but maybe 30-60 days. That might be enough time to gather the information you need.
If you're trying to reconcile US part 15 FM regs with Canadian or NZ, is there information you can obtain as to why those countries chose those limitations? How would their regulations work in the US?
These days I am into taking stands on issues, even thought my stands are only stacks of words.
Today I announce my disappointment in the FCC's total mismanagement of the FM band in the U.S.
In daily tours across the FM dials I note that it is loaded with mostly useless clutter, and it is to preserve this clutter that the same FCC has placed a comically small power limit on Part 15 use of the band, actually an insult to those who would attempt using FM for personal projects.
Talk of "tiger teams" is childlike; right out of the comic books; Tony the Tiger vs. FM pirates.
Greeaat!
Carmine5 Said:
You people need to get over this persecution complex you have in relation to the "other" board.
MrBruce Said: That "other" board needs to do the same and not use it's existence to "frame" or "accuse" other people by "name" for acts they did not commit.
Bruce.
Besides the fact that Mr Bill could (We don't know this) be a member or otherwise on their team here at least we have a perspective of what the NAB is thinking in their minds. He did comment on my proposed counter interference measure in which I've brought up several times and it really seems positive in this regard. Yes there are some things that were critical in his statements of concern for the integrity of the FM band. But the talks on Radio survivor may pave good in the end. I too have read the other board where they believe we are dreamers but too on Radio survivor he brought up that certified transmitters don't have the same strength from sample to sample. He can't freely do anything but protect who he works for and being that the FCC has been invited to visit his site I'd be careful what is said and done there as we've seen the consequences of that on his site. So Radio Survivor is a safe heaven where we can freely say what we think and do so in a mature way if we want to convince the NAB and FCC that our idea won't harm FM as the investors know it. Maybe if we can show how people are moving to Internet Radio in droves and how we as basement or bedroom DJ's could make a difference could sway the FCC. I know a mention of kids was stated at Radio Survivor. But at least for me I'm not trying to cater to kids. There is plenty of commercial Radio stations already doing that job. I for one don't see every kid having an FM transmitter. Their bad rap of not going far may have killed that. This is a good chance for us adults to utilize this statement in rebuttals to our benefit.
If you want to sway the FCC there needs to be money.
I hope we attract positive attention from a lobby group like Prometheus. If we don't necessarily get them the equivalent of that organization. Again the manufactures of Whole House FM Transmitter 3.0 may want to chime in and help as some statements over there at Radio survivor should be called to their attention. They have been mentioned several times. I'd like to get my hands on a hand tuned transmitter @ pin point 250 uV/m at 3 meters and see what I get on my Sony CFD S50 boom box. Then that very same car Radio used for the SainSonic AX-05B's range test. We may be able to get or try and win these on Facebook if we comment on why it is we want to win it so bad. Next time I will try and see what they say if I comment like that over their Facebook page. Lets see how it goes and maybe we can get a well known group interested. Or better yet why not include a PayPal donation link on the ALPB's website. Let the folks know we are trying to raise enough money to lobby (Bribe in a more legal term) the FCC. But if we have our case we don't need to bribe. Their rules were made 25 years ago and technology was different back then. We can present our case based on that alone.
Mr Blare states in Reply #79: ... Today I announce my disappointment in the FCC's total mismanagement of the FM band in the U.S. In daily tours across the FM dials I note that it is loaded with mostly useless clutter, and it is to preserve this clutter that the same FCC has placed a comically small power limit on Part 15 use of the band ...
Certainly you are free to announce and believe as you wish, Mr Blare.
But what is the legal basis for the belief that for other than vulgarity/profanity, the FCC either regulates or should regulate the progam content of radiated r-f transmissions -- which you describe in your Reply #79 as "mostly useless clutter?"
Wouldn't broadcast stations of any sort having progams that are useless clutter soon discover this by their relative lack of listeners other than those station operators, themselves?
The FCC spokesperson Rich challenges: "But what is the legal basis for the belief that for other than vulgarity/profanity, the FCC either regulates or should regulate progam content -- which you describe in your Reply #79 as "mostly useless clutter?""
I am not attempting to posit a "legal basis" for anything nor are you qualified to question legality.
Before you get this thread locked as you have others, you are correct in saying: "Certainly you are free to announce and believe as you wish, Mr Blare."
The FM band is cluttered with thump thump music, profanity/vulgarity, and repititious overly-available proselytization. It's a waste of electricity. That's my announcement and belief.
Mr Blare posted, in part, "... Before you get this thread locked as you have others, ...
Note that the thread to which Mr Blare likely refers was locked following his last post there, not mine.
and, The FM band is cluttered with thump thump music, profanity/vulgarity, and repititious overly-available proselytization. It's a waste of electricity. That's my announcement and belief.
You are entitled to such beliefs for yourself, but hopefully you would not deny the comments of others -- who after due research have reached conclusions that differ from yours.
What are you wrangling over?
"...but hopefully you would not deny the comments of others -- who after due research have reached conclusions that differ from yours."
Given the fact that I have not denied the comments of others who may have different conclusions than mine... due research not withstanding... why post such a goofy thing?
Where are these "comments of others?" Quote each one please with links to all of them, including the part where I denied them.