RFB, I fully support your position as this ATU thing is a conflict for you.
RFB, I fully support your position as this ATU thing is a conflict for you.
You have the right to petition for the document that will satisfy all parties. Until you receive the document you are justified to refuse installing and operating the equipment.
I have a copy of the FCC Application for Equipment Authorization for the Talking House found on the FCC website.
I also have a copy of the Grant of Equipment Authorization - Certification for the Talking House found on the FCC website.
These were obtained directly from the FCC website using FCCID DLB5LTT98 found on both the Talking House transmitter and ATU.
This took approximately 35 seconds to locate.
Here is the Application for Certification of the Talking House.
Here is the Authorization of Certification of the Talking House.
Here is the Patent Info for the Talking House found freely on the web. This should not be in conflict with Mr. Conovers' request regarding proprietary info.
You will find in the patent info on PAGE 15, SECTION 5, PARAGRAPH 2 which starts "as indicated above", a description of the ATU as applied to the system. It does not hold your hand and tell you how it can be installed, granted. But, it does show the ATU is part of a system that is certified by the FCC as Part 15 compliant.
I hope this helps resolve the issue that is so troubling to all.
I was hanging out with MRAM during his search and it took all of a few seconds.
Yes the ATU is legal and it part 15 certified .
My Station is legal with it's Antenna 16 feet in the Air.
Thank you Bob for the help!
Now back to building the network.
Nothing in there is showing me the actual certification document which contains the PHOTOGRAPHS of the test setup, a block diagram of that test setup, a listing of the test equipment and their calibration date, the procedures outlined step by step of the testing procedure, and the final resulting measurements.
Sorry but no this doesn't satisfy me. It might to others, but this does not show us or even tell us how the system was setup for testing, nor does it say anything FROM THE FCC OR OET about lengths of coax or elevated ATU's tested under those conditions with the the lengths of coax to the elevated ATU's.
That would be in the certification document's photographs.
I see no pictures here.
It only proves that yes, there is a certification to that unit with the coax and ATU. But it DOES NOT prove a thing in regards to HOW that coax and ATU were setup for certification, which again, that elusive proof to all and to me is still missing. :/
RFB
I happen to side with RFB on this issue.
The typical FCC database documentation of certification is not in evidence.
Fine, if nice people claim it is certified.
But what about the FCC's database documentation?
Ok I will bury the ATU Ten feet under , Will that make you satisfied ? LOL.
The basic point is that it's FCC certified, regardless of your personal technical inclination and desire to see the details on how it was certified. That means that it is legal to use according to the documentation, which is also included in the certification process.
If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.
Sounds like fun. Watch out for water and gas lines!
RFB
Lefty, Artisan, I usually am in sync with you guys.
But here is a case where the FCC database does not contain the certifying documentation.
How can you possibly take a stand without having that documentation?
We all agree that the coax probably radiates some amount of RF regardless of where the coax is, on the ground or running up a pole.
The FCC, not a field agent, had to realize this when they processed all of the OET data and Granted Certification. They accepted that fact.
Ramsey advertised and sold non-compliant equipment. They got busted.
Lots of companies have advertised and sold non-compliant equipment and got busted.
The FCC, not a field agent, went to the source.
Why is it the Talking House/iAM system can be advertised and sold with the promise of a legal, elevated antenna for so many years and the FCC has not busted them? Because they Granted the System a Certification of Compliance including the ATU.
I have not searched for this holy grail OET yet. If and when I find it I hope I can say:
BAZINGA
Mram
Why dont you ask this Garret fellow (since you two seem so buddy buddy) if he will provide the FULL certification documentation that was submitted to the FCC. If you need an example of what this looks like you can look up the procaster.
This is what is needed will answer all the present questions about the thii/iam once and for all.
What is so hard about that. What are these two companies trying to hide.
You can dance around the subject all you want but it still is not going to make the question go away.
Show me the radiofax!!!
Mram
Why dont you ask this Garret fellow (since you two seem so buddy buddy) if he will provide the FULL certification documentation that was submitted to the FCC. If you need an example of what this looks like you can look up the procaster.
This is what is needed will answer all the present questions about the thii/iam once and for all.
What is so hard about that. What are these two companies trying to hide.
You can dance around the subject all you want but it still is not going to make the question go away.
Show me the radiofax!!!
PS: anyone remember 2002 / 2003 when we went thru this same debate about hamiltons certification docs?
and what happened to his transmitter business as a result?
Wonder how many transmitters he sells these days versus ten years ago?
I don't think he considers me his buddy since I dragged him into this quagmire.
I did email Mr. Conover earlier to thank him for his correspondence. He could have simply brushed me off as apparently he did RFB per RFB. I don't know that for a fact. There is no documentation to prove it. There should be full disclosure with 8X5 glossies and a thumb print. Still I may not believe it.
I will ask Mr. Conover, since you won't, if this OET data is available specifically as it applies to the ATU. And if not, why not.
I'm not sure who the other company is to which you refer.
I'm not dancing, I'm standing my ground.
I checked out the Procaster website.
I find the Certification for the Procaster (for both USA and Canada) but I seem to have overlooked the OET data you reference.
Please advise where on their site this is located so that I may view it. It would seem they are not disclosing the info.
Thanks
Thanks to my XZ-5000 WayBack machine, here is a very similar response from Mr. Conover to another individual.
Apparently this discussion has been going on since 2009 or before.
=================================================================
December 22, 2009 - 21:05 — tbone903
Talking House / I AM Radio ATU...
The following is an e-mail I received from Radio Systems, the new owner of the patent of the Talking House transmitter:
Tony:
Thanks for the call Friday. I wanted to double-check my information so I "dug" out the patent for the TH-5 transmitter and external tuning unit this weekend.
Cleverly, the patent for the TH-5 tuning unit includes wording which goes directly to the Part 15 issue. "The external ATU is the final output stage to the transmitter when selected". This patent was included in the Part 15 filing. In other words, this means the coax cable between the TH-5 and the ATU is NOT transmission line. The antenna itself is 96", so care must be made to ensure that the ground lead doesn't put the antenna system over 3 meters in length.
However, nominally the TH-5 with external ATU does, in fact, comply with Part 15.219 since the final RF stage is the ATU.
Hope that helps,
Gerrett
--------------------------------------------------
Gerrett H. A. Conover
Vice President, Radio Systems
601 Heron Drive
Logan Twp, NJ 08085
856-467-8000 Voice
856-467-3044 Fax
856-803-1060 Direct
--------------------------------------------------
=============================================================
This cut and paste, unfortunately, does not show the graphics of the actual document I have. The reply is on Radio Systems letter head.
This is offered only as a historical reference, not a comment.
Go to the FCC oet equipment authorization search form and enter the procaster FCC id. I believe you look under exhibit title of procaster certification and you will see a good example of what should be there for the iAM and Rangemaster but isn't