...Now the FCC cannot just walk onto private property without a warrant, be it they are investigating something or not. ...
Following is a clip on this subject from the FCC, which is included in the following link: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/inspect.html
Q: The FCC Agent standing at my door does not have a search warrant, so I don't have to let him in, right?
A: Wrong. Search warrants are needed for entry involving criminal matters. One of the requirements as a licensee, or non-licensee subject to the Commission's Rules, is to allow inspection of your radio equipment by FCC personnel. Whether you operate an amateur station or any other radio device, your authorization from the Commission comes with the obligation to allow inspection. Even radio stations licensed under a "blanket" rule or approval, such as Citizen's Band (CB) Radio, are subject to the Commission's inspection requirement. //
A very huge difference between someone allowing an FCC agent onto their property vs an agent who just waltzes on the property, opens the front door and starts poking around.
Big big difference there.
So the end result is this. Its only going to be allowed if the property owner allows it.
Can't very well allow anything to happen if one is not at home, or simply ignores the doorbell, or does not unlock the gate from the comfy chair.
Subject to inspections does not mean your obligated to allow it.
Furthermore, what happens inside my property line is my business, my airspace, my dirt, my ground and my kingdom. Heed the big fat coil up there ready to throw a nice zap at intruders. har har. :p
RFB
Furthermore, what happens inside my property line is my business, my airspace, my dirt, my ground and my kingdom.
However the FCC has issued many citations to operators of unlicensed AM&FM transmit systems in violation of Part 15, and they didn't need to cross the property lines of such operators to do so.
Of course everyone is free to operate and promote whatever unlicensed systems they wish and/or can justify to themselves, but that doesn't automatically mean that such systems are, or should be immune to FCC scrutiny and enforcement action.
Note that this post is not "anti Part 15," but rather, quite the opposite.
"Which brings us back to RFB's post where he mentioned what is probably the real modern reason for the limits which is to keep micro-broadcasting contained and discouraged. Unfortunately, if the rules are revised and this is the intent then even more range restrictive rules will probably result."
Yes, and at that point you might as well start running wires because as it is the f/s limits being further restricted would require a wire to deliver that signal!
And again at that point, we can all go carrier current...unless there is some fat foot going to pounce on that as well. :/
RFB
Rich, no one and particularly me is saying there is no authority over radio here in the US or that rules should be ignored by anyone or to just throw up something on the air because you simply can.
I fully believe in playing by the rules...as long as those rules are played in a way that there is a fair chance of winning..ie don't play no game where I cannot win.
Why I say that? Because right now I know of one particular owner of 13 stations scattered across 4 states with 5 of them sitting right here where I live, has and continues to violate the rules and is licensed and apparently it's no big deal with FCC scrutiny and enforcement action.
Now go figure that. Not getting sarcastic or rude or anything but is there a simulation program that explains why licensed stations and their owners continuously get away with violations that make ALL Part 15 violations or even pirate violations nothing in comparison?!
For the record and for clarity, operate and adhere to the rules. Quite simple and effective. I do not endorse violating those rules. See there, that's not so bad is it. 🙂
RFB
I feel there is a wide gap between some things that have been said and other things that have been said.
This may produce a slight breeze with the temperature at 106-degrees.
There are 'THE RULES' and then there is reality.
If the signal from an FM transmitter does not cross your property line, then how is the FCC or anyone else going to know anything about it? The only way they investigate is if someone complains. And who's going to complain?
The ONLY reason that the rules exist is to protect the licensed broadcasters. And given that particular scenario, they aren't threatened at all.
Case closed.
My gut tells me not every 15'er owns a 50-acre plot of land, and those that do not are on the air because they want to counterprogram and be heard by the public.
If one wants only to blanket their estate with tunes, one of those i-Transmitters for the car - pumping a homebrew monolithic MOSFET on a breadboard and a rooftop twinlead dipole - is sufficient. The Friendly Candy Company won't be coming after you. If you clip your antenna lead to the fire escape of your tenement for the purpose of broadcasting to the neighborhood, then yeah, someone's going to sit up and take notice... especially if your skirts are hitting other stations.
We all know the rules. If/until they change, staying inside the painted lines is entirely your call. Just be careful.
"We all know the rules. If/until they change, staying inside the painted lines is entirely your call."
Yeah...isn't that ironic. We are unlicensed and are expected to follow the rules.
Yet there are licensed stations violating rules left and right and no one seems to be concerned..especially the FCC.
It is as if a license grants them "pay and play". They pay and get to play.
When those licensed stations start adhering to the rules then I might have more consideration for the system and it's plethora of rules obviously intended only for the useless eaters and not for the gold takers and hording monarchs.
RFB
It is not sensible to become dogmatic or fatalistic about the part 15 AM & FM rules, for the simple reason that they are sketchy. There are large and significant areas not addressed in the rules.
We have talked so much about the unspecified dimension of safety grounds, and have noted many gray areas such as helical antennas and compensating for building losses from inside a house or adjusting for the nighttime noise increase.
In this thread we have opened another highly meaningful question, that of public vs. private locations. I have argued that the FCC is a public institution and that their jurisdiction reaches only to the boundary where public space gives way to private property.
Even the special allowance granted to "campus" radio stations is a questionable subject, because the word campus is in the public domain and anyone may call their yard or lot a campus. I do. This is further born out by the fact that all of us are scholarly in our study of radio electronics and other subjects.
Unless there is a "victim" of an unlicensed intentional radiator transmission, there is no "crime".
And for god sake hold the pepper spray.
Even the special allowance granted to "campus" radio stations is a questionable subject, because the word campus is in the public domain and anyone may call their yard or lot a campus. I do.
Below is a clip from the FCC web site this morning on their definition of "campus" given in Part 15. This, and another section applying to campus broadcasts under Part 15 that may not be well known are shown in bold text.
Nothing is ever easy, I guess.
_________________________
§ 15.221 Operation in the band 525–1705 kHz.
(a) Carrier current systems and transmitters employing a leaky coaxial cable as the radiating antenna may operate in the band 525–1705 kHz provided the field strength levels of the radiated emissions do not exceed 15 uV/m, as measured at a distance of 47,715/(frequency in kHz) meters (equivalent to Lambda/2Pi) from the electric power line or the coaxial cable, respectively. The field strength levels of emissions outside this band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in §15.209.
(b) As an alternative to the provisions in paragraph (a) of this section, intentional radiators used for the operation of an AM broadcast station on a college or university campus or on the campus of any other education institution may comply with the following:
(1) On the campus, the field strength of emissions appearing outside of this frequency band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits shown in §15.209 as measured from the radiating source. There is no limit on the field strength of emissions appearing within this frequency band, except that the provisions of §15.5 continue to comply.
(2) At the perimeter of the campus, the field strength of any emissions, including those within the frequency band 525–1705 kHz, shall not exceed the general radiated emission in §15.209.
(3) The conducted limits specified in §15.207 apply to the radio frequency voltage on the public utility power lines outside of the campus. Due to the large number of radio frequency devices which may be used on the campus, contributing to the conducted emissions, as an alternative to measuring conducted emissions outside of the campus, it is acceptable to demonstrate compliance with this provision by measuring each individual intentional radiator employed in the system at the point where it connects to the AC power lines.
(c) A grant of equipment authorization is not required for intentional radiators operated under the provisions of this section. In lieu thereof, the intentional radiator shall be verified for compliance with the regulations in accordance with subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. This data shall be kept on file at the location of the studio, office or control room associated with the transmitting equipment. In some cases, this may correspond to the location of the transmitting equipment.
(d) For the band 535–1705 kHz, the frequency of operation shall be chosen such that operation is not within the protected field strength contours of licensed AM stations.
The colleges and universities referred to by rich in his quotation from part 15 rules come under the formal definition of colleges and universities as being public institutions open to public enrollment. The FCC has full jurisdiction thoughout the indoor and outdoor space occupied by public "schools", although they never mentioned the word school, and in so doing seem to exclude learning institutions below "college" level.
My campus, otherwise known as Home School College, is a private facility, not open to the general public. The FCC's jurisdiction reaches the property boundaries all the way around.
However, if we were producing intentionally radiant energy in excess of the limits set forth in part 15 as measured at said boundaries, THEN the FCC would have cause to take an interest in our "campus" broadcast activities.
But no legal investigation of our doings could begin from a point within our property boundaries without first determining that boundary radiation exceeded allowed limits.
It is agreed that nothing is easy.
Am I missing something or please someone show me where the FCC is defining what a "campus" is. Public institution is a campus? Ok, a court house is a public institution. A library is a public institution. A prison is a public institution. Are those also a "campus"?
I see nothing describing a "campus". So with that, I can declare my property and studio as a learning center, which in fact it is as I do train people in radio presentation, engineering, sales, management, all right here on my little "campus".
I do see a huge contradiction however. Let's see if anyone else spots it.
RFB
Regardless of one's personal definition of "campus" or "institution," probably in most/many cases anyone wanting to comply with FCC §15.221 (b) for campus broadcasting using an intentionally radiated signal in the AM broadcast band would be better off to operate under §15.219. Here's why.
[Reference] FCC §15.221 (b) (2): At the perimeter of the campus, the field strength of any emissions, including those within the frequency band 525–1705 kHz, shall not exceed the general radiated emission in §15.209.
§15.209 permits a maximum field strength of 45.3 µV/m at the perimeter of the campus, best case (530 kHz).
So if, for example, a campus is comprised of a 5-acre plot with sides of equal length (~ 467 feet), and the radiating antenna is located at that center of that acreage, then the distance from the antenna to the closest perimeter boundary is ~ 233 feet.
The field strength of ~45 µV/m at that 233-ft distance per FCC §15.221 (b) (2), and all of the other fields within this 5-acre plot are much less than a fully compliant setup operating under §15.219 may produce.
The same will hold true for considerably larger acreages.
Mr. Rich's comparative example is interesting in the 5-acre campus example.
And the relative simplicity of 15.219, compared to the more difficult to measure compliance requirements of 15.221, should provide some welcome relief to the personnel in charge of compliance.
In fact, if four synchronized transmitters were set near the campus boundaries, an even greater coverage area might be achievable under 15.219 with no particular need to control boundary emissions.