Everything between VHF Channels 4 & 5:
- 72 - 73 MHz
-
- Private land mobile fixed operation [90.257(a)]
- Special Industrial, Manufacturers, Forest Prducts, Railroad and Fire Radio Services, mobile operation, 1 watt max. [90.257(b)]
- Public land mobile control and repeater stations [22.591]
- Radio control: model aircraft [95.207(a)(2)]
- Aviation Services - Operational Fixed Stations [87.449]
- Auditory assistance devices, 80 millivolts meter max. [15.237]
- 73 - 74.6 MHz
- 74.6 - 74.8 MHz
-
- Auditory assistance devices, 80 millivolts meter max. [15.237]
- 74.8 - 75.2 MHz
-
- Aeronautical radionavigation
- 75.0 MHz - Marker beacon [87.475(b)(3)]
- 75.2 - 75.4 MHz
-
- Auditory assistance devices, 80 millivolts meter max. [15.237]
- 75.4 - 76 MHz
-
- Private land mobile fixed operation [90.257(a)]
- Special Industrial, Manufacturers, Forest Prducts, Railroad and Fire Radio Services, mobile operation, 1 watt max. [90.257(b)]
- Public land mobile control and repeater stations [22.591]
- Radio control: model surface craft [95.207(a)(3)]
- Aviation Services - Operational Fixed Stations [87.449]
- Auditory assistance devices, 80 millivolts meter max. [15.237]
That is why I am so excited to see what Station8's AM Antenna/ATU will do. If it does go 4.6 miles for me and a few chosen beta testers as well we have something that will finally lift some of the restrictions. Talking to him as he debunked some who claimed that the ground was making a radiated means for the further range he used a 3 to 2 prong adapter to totally eliminate the ground both from the plug and the other end of the cord. So two 3 to 2 prong adapters were used. Guess what the range from his new prototype Antenna/ATU still got around the same range and the interference was even greater that day and with a very high noise floor he still got 3.5 miles of high quality signal before you heard the electrical noise that day. It means a promising future for part 15ers till someone tries to close the door to that as well. It does seem that as soon as we follow the rules and do all we can that someone says “You can't do that!” and its back to square one. But since the antenna is 6 feet and he tried with a 6 inch cable the range actually improved with the 6 inch cable. Again if this works out we owe station8 a heck of a lot for opening the cage a little and allowing freedom for hobby broadcasting. As we prove ourselves to the FCC that we can make the most out of low power I can't see why they won't look at the possibilities of opening 76.3-87.9 as an expanded FM band and because plenty of Radio's can receive 87.9 and 87.9 they may go ahead and let us have those frequencies under a new service for Hobby Broadcasting and give it a different name. The grant would be about the same for FRS or MURS. If we make this happen and everyone suddenly can broadcast on AM we have made a wasteland into something usable. But still with the crappy AM receivers that have no filtering and no sensitivity it will be a challenge. I could advertise those loops that you can put near any AM Radio and thus boosts the range so listeners can hear the station while outside. It may spark some interest. But once we have a small piece of FM under a watt or what ever it took for the Ramsey to go 3 miles into the ultimate antenna in ERP we have something that is workable. Again this was to a car Radio and to a boombox it was around a mile. Now that is plenty of power. I can safely say it would eliminate issues for the broadcasters as well as tax payer dollars in which the public in most cases supports hobby broadcasting. Very few that I've met saw it as an issue. The only issue they saw is we can't get at least 2-3 miles on FM. The FCC is suppose to be for the people and I'll put a lid on anymore statements towards that in favor of the integrity of this web site. So its not doom and gloom for any initiative like the FM Initiative. Its a step by step process that is all.
TheLegacy, you appear to have the attitude that people here and elsewhere don't want experimenters such as Station8 to succeed.
On the contrary, I'm sure we all would like to get an antenna that would allow a legal Part 15 AM transmitter to get 3-4+ miles range. We want him to succeed.
But (and this is my opinion only), no one has done it before, so he (and you) should understand why there are sceptics. I, for one, want to make sure that all the factors that might increase range, while making it not legal, are eliminated. I am hoping that he welcomes this input.
The final proof will be when he is willing to pull down the covers (so to speak) on his design, so we can see how he did what he claims he has done. I can understand why he is not willing to do so now (the current antenna is a prototype, he might want to sell it, etc.). But he should want to do so as quickly as possible, to eliminate the naysayers; eventually the design WILL get out, even if it takes someone to eventually purchase one and take it apart to see how it works (which I would want done anyway in my continuing efforts to stay legal).
If he intends on selling it, even if the design is out there, he will sell lots if the price is reasonable; there are not all that many people with the desire and skills necessary to repeat what I suspect it is (I do have a few ideas of how he has done it - and may actually try out some of those ideas myself).
TheLegacy, I have just reread your last post, and in it you make a number of statements.
First, you say that the public supports hobby broadcasting. How do you know that. You cannnot go by conversations you have had with others, as you are likely already speaking to the converted. If that statement was to go into a petition, it would have to be somehow substantiated, by some sort of poll or survey, or by weight of evidence (i.e., getting thousands of supportive comments to a facebook post).
You also make a claim that a range of 1 mile would not affect licensed broadcasters. I just do not understand how that could be the case, as complaints against low power pirates and even Part 15 broadcasters generally come from these entities. So they certainly believe that it would affect them. If you are going to make the case in a petition that it will not affect them in reality, you are going to again need some proof as to how that would be the case.
Unfortunately, your opinions (and perhaps those of whom you talk to) by themselves probably would not make any difference to the FCC or licensed broadcasters.
so as the builder of the anklebiter, which is a part15-ish mockup of the NS-40, im looking to couple a PLL to it and i had an idea to install it as a solar hanging dipole more or less. the were all crystal but now they're all PLL because 1700 is occupied at night hard now here. i now have one of those $65 chinese antenna analyzers now as well which is very helpful at finding the perfect resonant point
When you mention the NS-40, are you talking about the None Simpler 40 meter QRP kit - I had to look it up on google.
A Facebook survey may be something that could help to determine how the Public feels about Hobby Radio. But lets not forget how the movie Pirate Radio inspired lots of individuals to suddenly buy FM Transmitters. Suddenly people talked about how it would be cool to have their very own neighborhood station that actually got out a few miles. How many times have you heard this before that movie was a reality? Even the toy Radio Stations kids played with is a sign that people believe in a small station for hobbyists to actually transmit somewhere. Problem is that if you told your Grandpa or a stranger on the street that hey I have a Radio station and it goes 3-4 miles on AM or even if you told them that you had an FM station and it goes 700 feet they would say “Yea Right!” But if they hear you on the Radio all of a sudden their calling their friends and start talking about how they know someone in the neighborhood that is running a Radio station come and listen. I've seen this. Maybe lessor now because of Internet Radio, but still if you could be heard trust me your neighbors would put in a few suggestions. Yes putting this in terms that the FCC could understand is going to be something that will take some hammering. As for those who complain of interference again I have to look at two possibilities. One is the fact that as Mr. Bruce says that because those who buy a FM transmitter are looking to get out and because the transmitters are illegal and they aren't checked to see if they are not dirty often do cause some sort of issue because of the lack of proper filtration. But as I think (and I'll gie you a tame version of what I think) there may be another agenda and interference has little to do with it. Some preach on principle not actual fact or science of any such interference. And because of a goal may sing the Chicken Little song that the sky is falling or act as the boy who cried wolf when indeed there was none. Then there are some that have an imagination when they know there is a Radio operator of any type in their neighborhood. I know there are some mighty good Hams who have fallen into this category. Its funny how New Zealand being allowed that magical 1 Watt for Hobby Broadcasting has obviously never had any of these issues with this. So than why is it an issue here other than agenda based reasons? Next our next door neighbor Canada which has the BETS-1 which allows 10 times our field strength again to the best of my knowledge there has been little or no reported issues of this. I think some of the fears are not logical as there is data to be used to prove that another service at least for Hobby Radio on a few chosen frequencies could not only give diversity to the public, but too will solve the interference problem more than the whack a mole concept.
'You also make a claim that a range of 1 mile would not affect licensed broadcasters. I just do not understand how that could be the case, as complaints against low power pirates and even Part 15 broadcasters generally come from these entities."
I live as well as many in a town that is basically 2 miles long and one mile wide with a local AM station. They would probably have a problem if I was eating into thier revenue.
wdcx said: I live as well as many in a town that is basically 2 miles long and one mile wide with a local AM station. They would probably have a problem if I was eating into thier revenue.
Response from MrBruce:
I am sure you are right, but then again, that is their problem!
Listen, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but as far as I am concerned, if you were to attrack that many people with your radio station that you are hurting their revenue, then they are obviously NOT doing what your local community wants to hear on their local radio dial.
I have no sympathy for a broadcaster that can't do what is right for their community, but complains when a small time act kills their so called revenue.
It is not a case that you got off cheap with putting your station together and they didn't and that you're hurting their precious big fat bank account. Because, I am sure, a lot of you out there have spent big money on the equipment you have, only to reach a few (perhaps 3) listeners, while they have thousands of dollars coming in each week, if not more. You have bills to pay just like they do, you pay music licensing fees, just like they do.
Point is, you try to serve your community, with very little to NO revenue, because it is what you like to do as a hobby. They do it for ONE reason and ONE reason ONLY, to make money, they are a BUSINESS, you are a HOBBY who enjoys making people happy at your own expense. Therefore, you try harder to make those few people happy, while they complain you took ONE DOLLAR away from their BIG FAT wallets, they don't try at all and their ratings drop through the basement floor.
I truely want to say to those cry baby broadcasters out there..wah...big deal... get over it and leave us hobbists alone!
Any corperate station owner that crys over a lost buck, is in my opinion, a sore looser and deserves the competition from someone who does care about their community's interests.
Bruce.
To TheLegacy - all Ièm saying is that any petition cannot be based on supposition, speculation and opinion, but fact. Each and every statement must be backed up. Again, you are preaching to the converted here, but the FCC and the NAB and licensed broadcasters are going to want proof.
To MrBruce - there is a HUGE difference between a hobbyist and a licensed broadcaster. They have paid big bucks in a regulatory environment for the right to use a frequency for broadcasting. The hobbyist has paid nothing. So when hobbyists break the rules, they quite naturally want them to stop. It is the equivalent of you buying some land which gives you certain rights, but then others wanting the privilege of cutting a path through your land. You bought it, so why should others, who have not paid a cent, get any sort of rights to use that land.
Reply to post #40 ArtisanRadio
I think most of us here are, to the best of our abilities, are operating our part 15 radio stations according to the FCC rules that we have to follow in this hobby. I, at least, believe MOST of you are LEGAL law abiding hobbyists that hang out in this forum board.
So it is not a question of rule breaking, it is a question of being attacked by a local broadcaster that you have taken 3 listeners away from their list of listeners and hurting their ad revenue.
That is rediculous assumptions, because, let's say, my local station assumes because I listen to a part 15 station, I am not listening to them. Who's to say I ever listended to them in the first place, even before that part 15 station hit the airwaves?
That is a false claim, you can't say that part 15 station stoled me away, when I never listended in the first place.
To requote a statement made above:
wdcx SAID: "I live as well as many in a town that is basically 2 miles long and one mile wide with a local AM station. They would probably have a problem if I was eating into thier revenue."
So, I am saying, referring to the last paragraph above, how would that LEGAL part 15 station hurt their revenue?
Bruce.
I have never argued or disagreed with Artisan, and this isn't quite serious enough to break that record.
Artisan Radio said: "It is the equivalent of you buying some land which gives you certain rights, but then others wanting the privilege of cutting a path through your land. You bought it, so why should others, who have not paid a cent, get any sort of rights to use that land."
I'd put it differently.
Under the Communications Act of 1934 the FCC is a body of trustees, appointed to regulate the PUBLIC airways. Emphasis "public".
Licensees are granted USE but not ownership as sub-trustees.
Part 15 of the rules AUTHORIZES use of certain airways without a license, making the practitioners minor trustees.
No one is a landowner in the deal.
Okay, question. Is there a fee charged for a LPFM broadcast license from the FCC?
I am asking about LPFM here, because it appears to be the most recently active licensing phase that is currently taking place on the FFC.gov website.
Bruce.
Analogies are always imperfect.
When you purchase land, you do not really own it. You basically get a transferrable right to use it. And quite often, there are covenents that probhit certain uses. It is actually very similar to a license to broadcast on a certain frequency. And my analogy was being applied to potential interference - unlicensed broadcasters are allowed to do certain things on frequencies that have not been allocated, but we are not allowed to interfere with others who have paid for the rights to a specific frequency.
The longer range you can get with a Part 15 transmitter, the more potential for interference. I can see why broadcasters would be concerned. It is not really about losing you and a few others potentially as listeners - it is about causing interference for many others who do want to listen.
If, and this is a big if, the Station8 antenna pans out, and you can get 3-4+ miles range (to a car radio) with what hobbyists have now, why would you want more. It might be better to leave things alone and make the most of what is currently available, than risk going for more, and potentially losing other things in the process (the FCC might start to rethink ALL the rules, and I could just see them getting rid of Part 15.219 in favor of a more liberal 15.209, which would effectively shut down experimentation).
For our LPFM there is no license fee as we are a government operation under Public Safety/Educational. There was an engineering fee paid to a private concern to handle filing for the Construction Permit and the License.
The engineering included propagation studies based on our selected antenna system. A waiver was required to obtain the desired frequency due to another licensee on that frequency.
The cost of the engineering and application for Contruction Permit and License was $800.