"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."
Well now, here is where it gets VERY interesting kids.
Pay attention now:
Note what is quoted above, suggesting this Mr. Conover had brushed me off, as if I had stated or implied that I had contacted this Mr. Conover directly. I said I contacted "them", meaning the company. The person whom I contacted is Bill Baker. It is that person who responded with "We will have an answer for you soon".
Anyone want to place their bets now as to the timing of when I will get their answer?
Since the person who replied to my inquiry has no part in what this current throw of noodles on the wall going on here is all about, there is no reason to bring another person into this created fiasco that is so obvious where the fuel putting out the fire is coming from.
"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."
Maybe if you slowed down before tripping, you will find that I did in fact state that when I emailed the company, I asked for two things, the FCC ID number, and a copy of the certification document submitted to the OET for FCC certification approval.
I guessed that was another thing you missed?
"I'm not dancing, I'm standing my ground."
A ground with no foundation is a shaky thing to be standing on...or mounting elevated ATU's.
RFB
"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."
Yet another source attempting to put out a fire with gas.
My quest for the missing proof is not a personal technical inclination or desire. It is a simple request by a citizen of the United States for a document that is public information from an official US Government agency that regulates radio, and I want to see a specific document that shows the devices..ie transmitter, coax and ATU as set up when certified so I can set mine up the same way so that no matter what field agent or what ever shows up, that my setup is 100 percent VERIFIABLE to comply with 15.219..as the units are certified for.
"The basic point is that it's FCC certified....That means that it is legal to use according to the documentation, which is also included in the certification process."
I NEVER questioned about the unit not being certified or certified for use. The documentation presented so far only indicates that the unit is certified, but no where even in the authorization grant does it say or contain anything about coax or ATU. ONLY the MISSING OET DOCUMENT will show us this.
Hey don't let me stand in anyone's way now. I'm just looking out for my interests in preventing an unwanted NAL and 10K fine...though I am sure that I am not the only one wanting to see the OET certification document with those photos showing how that unit with the coax and ATU were setup for that certification. If those photos show that ATU up 300 feet being fed by a coax on a pole then you have VALIDITY to ANYONE'S saying its certified to use in that configuration.
Wouldn't you want that absolute confirmation that it is in fact certified to operate when set up with the ATU 300 feet in the air with that long coax?
It sure would make me feel better.
And one important last note...having that missing OET document would put out this ongoing fire better than the gas.
By the way kids, the OET certification document that is submitted by the testing company MUST exist FIRST before that authorization grant is issued. Just in case ya might have missed that lil fact.
RFB
I've never seen one myself. (The ATU) Does it have provision to connect a ground wire to it, as a factory grounding lug, or not? Just curious..
Probably RFB is looking for FCC certification data similar in form to that for the Procaster, linked below.
Procaster FCC Certification Data
Searching the FCC for similar data for the Talking House returns this text:
Detail
Summary
Radio Systems Design, Inc. 601 Heron Drive Logan Township NJ United States 08085 DLB5LTT98 Original Equipment 09/04/1997 0.53 1.7
The "Detail" and "Summary" entries are used as links to documents, but when clicking on them this message displays:
The following error(s) occurred while processing the requested page: There are no attachments for public review associated with this application
The same message is seen when trying to access this data for the Hamilton Rangemaster AM1000.
Mr. Baker works for ISS out of Michigan. He sales the equipment.
Mr. Conover works for Radio Systems out of New Jersey. He makes the equipment.
Tie your shoe laces.
And I still don't have any proof that you tried to contact either of "them".
Please submit full disclosure with 8.5X11 black & white glossies and a thumb print.
Much ado about nothing.
The ado over the lack of FCC documentation is a legitimate topic, but the whole part 15 subject is next to nothing.
These will be my last words here regarding this ATU issue.
Today I have emailed Mr. Baker of ISS and Mr. Conover of RS regarding the OET Certification test data.
My only endeavor here has been to bring the information to this forum, not to ridicule or as Carl said, shoot the messenger.
If my request fails I recommend those who do not find validation in the information presented so far abandon the ATU and live happily ever after.
If my request succeeds I recommend that all parties put an ATU High In The Sky, take three steps back and salute.
The following is my email request for the OET Certification test data:
Gentlemen,
I am in the middle of a quagmire regarding the iAM transmitter system. If you have been following the posts at the Part15.us website you are aware of this.
I am doing my best to support your iAM/Talking House system manufactured by Radio Systems, sold as the InfoSpot system by Information Station Specialists.
The only solution to my dilemma is to provide the OET Certification testing data for the system which details the use of the ATU specifically as an elevated antenna.
Is this information publically available. If not, can you please explain why not.
I have placed myself way over the line in your favor. If there is any way you could find it in your heart to help me out it would be greatly appreciated.
Your system beats all others hands down. If I can prove to the masses that your system is legal to operate with the ATU elevated you, as I said before, will corner the market of Part 15 AM broadcasters.
Respectfully,
Robert B. Felmly C.E.T.
Technical Service Dept.
City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
330-971-8020
I highly admire and respect the extra measures being undertaken by MRAM1500 to inquire, on behalf of concerned members of part15.us, for the documentation of certification of the exceptionally unusual transmitter system.
MRAM's inquiry is being placed with the manufacturer's representatives, and they hold access to the information of interest.
Beyond this particular discussion I hope we also learn more about what we can expect from the government, through its FCC, as to their own responsibility to maintain accurate and up to date records.
As they police us, perhaps we should police them.
If someone would answer my question, I'd draw my own conclusion.. 😉
12vman wrote: (The ATU) Does it have provision to connect a ground wire to it, as a factory grounding lug, or not?
Repeating part of my post of several days ago here (below).
Note in that PDF the presence of a ground wire connector terminal on the ATU.
___________
Remote ATU
Submitted by Rich on August 20, 2012 - 17:31.
Submitted by mram1500 on August 16, 2012 - 20:40. The InfoSpot system is built around the IAM/Talking House transmitter and ATU. ... They specifically advertise the system as legal under Part 15 rules, placing the ATU (antenna) up that pole with up to 300 feet of coax. They imply the legality (FCC acceptance) of this with their advertisement. Please view INFOSPOT SYSTEM information. //
If so, then notice Item 6 in the table on the last page of the instruction book for the ATU shown on the iAM website as of a few minutes ago (link below).
Seems as though they recognize that running a long conductor from the ATU ground wire connector terminal to the examples of "earth grounds" they list can conflict with §15.219(b).
http://www.iamradio.net/pdfs/OutdoorAntennaInstructions.pdf
"Seems as though they recognize that running a long conductor from the ATU ground wire connector terminal to the examples of "earth grounds" they list can conflict with §15.219(b)."
That is some clue to guessing how the units were actually setup for the compliance testing. But it is no proof in how the units were set up for the compliance testing. Only that elusive OET document with the testing photos will.
Until that shows up, everything is assumption from 3rd hand information and non-FCC or OET documentation.
It doesnt matter what a patent paper says, or an owners manual says how to install or not. What matters is how the units were set up during the certification testing, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the FCC is going to expect anyone with this transmitter and ATU system to be setup and operated to comply with that certification.
So..the bottom line is this. HOW WAS THAT SET UP DURING THE CERTIFICATION TESTING PROCESS???
Can anyone answer that question??
Tic....tic...tic....tic...(jeopardy music)
RFB
I didn't open the link..
"Please note that Part 15 FCC regulations do not allow an antenna in excess of 3 meters in length and most usually the ground wire length must be considered by adding its length to
this total antenna measurement calculation."