mram1500 Thank you for responding.
So basically the "License" costs nothing.
The cost to run a station, could be shared by both licensed stations and Part 15 stations, if the part 15 station built a professional grade station setup.
I have seen some part 15 station setups that are very professionaly built, you'd find it hard to believe they are feeding a part 15 transmitter if that was not mentioned in the first place.
It all depends on the person building the part 15 station and how much they want to put into it equipment wise. I have seen a few that even went so far as to purchase the required EAS systems a licensed radio station is required to have in service as part of their public service.
I am sure a lot of you out there have very nice setups for being a small time hobby.
The next question is...is a fee required for a license for a full service station..AM or FM?
I am not including station costs of operation at this point and time...there is a method to my madness here folks.
Bruce.
Please note there was no fee paid to the FCC because ours is a government installation.
I believe there may be a fee otherwise.
There are certainly licensing fees up here in Canada. I am sure it is the same in the U.S.
Plus the licensing fees for playing copyright material, both over-the-air and streaming. Here in Canada there are different rules for the big boys (them) & the little guys (us). Even in the U.S. BMI has a special Part 15 license.
Artisan your analogy was better than I gave it credit for and fits the discussion very nicely.
To compensate for my exceptionalism I'll switch to the other side of the argument about Part 15 power levels and call out a point possibly not yet made by anyone in these forums.
When the low power rules were converted into the "recipe" known as "Part 15", the FCC may have taken into account the possibility that many low power users would operate transmitters all at the same time, thereby quickly cramming the dials with small signals which could potentially build up to a massive interference.
To avoid a major traffic jam on the air the FCC reduced permitted signal levels to only the amount needed for a small station to operate in its own immediate space without overlapping into space reserved for others to use, even if they never use it.
We are as small as ants when it comes to use of the radio spectrum.
Regarding posts #47 and #48
I edited my post in post #46 to add:
I am not including station costs of operation at this point and time...there is a method to my madness here folks.
Therefore I am excluding station costs of operations at this moment and time, that includes power company bills, music licensing fees, employee payrolls etc.
I just want to know about the license from the FCC. Does it cost anything for AM or FM full service stations?
Bruce.
Reply to #44: I've actually thought about this myself. But there are a few things we need to look at. First AM may be full of noise in certain areas, where as even this antenna won't allow you to push through it. Although Station8 lives in one of those terrible areas where the noise floor is extremely high. Another thought is that even though this antenna does work, it will require a sort of AM revitalization society to re educate the public on how us part 15 operators have finally came up with a way to put quality sounding music back to AM. When for the past 39 years after the death of music on AM by the big stations like WLS, WLAC and CKLW had stopped playing music due to the horrible sound quality on AM. This will require a huge group that pays dues and those dues would pay for the advertising campaigns for hobby Radio on AM. This would help get listeners but may start a can of warms for anyone who may have an agenda as competition for part 15 and who would feel their toes have been stepped on. FM already has a very good reputation by the general public because of the high fidelity sound that is hard to achieve with AM modulation. Folks 58+ may listen but anyone 35 and younger you will be doing a very hard sell to even get them to tune in. Maybe the only way would be to cover a school event or baseball game. You could play music during half time or maybe broadcast a school Christmas program and right after that play your regular format. This may open some minds. Remember the things we hate about AM the listeners will hate 10 times worse. I'm already trying to come up with good slogans for AM if the antenna does work as good for me as it did him. Here are some: Your Rocking with the station that brought music Back To AM. Your listening to Elizabeth City North Carolina's ONLY choice for True Album Rock, 1630 AM The Legacy. Or The Hobby station that Saved AM from an untimely death, 1630 AM The Legacy. Or Am is not just for Grampa... Old man speaks with a voice changer. Your Rocking with The Legacy. There are many possibilities.
Carl Blare regarding post #49 You said:
When the low power rules were converted into the "recipe" known as "Part 15", the FCC may have taken into account the possibility that many low power users would operate transmitters all at the same time, thereby quickly cramming the dials with small signals which could potentially build up to a massive interference.
To avoid a major traffic jam on the air the FCC reduced permitted signal levels to only the amount needed for a small station to operate in its own immediate space without overlapping into space reserved for others to use, even if they never use it.
Reply from MrBruce:
Carl Blare
I can understand your argument, but lets look at the interference that is allowed that has killed AM broadcasting and to a lessor degree, FM as well.
There is more interference created by consumer electronics and fluorescent light bulbs that part 15 stations will never surpass, ever!
I know my posts seem off topic and running in the wrong direction, however like I said there is a method to my madness here.
In order to get change, we need facts and cases that will help me present a valid point, one that helps support any claims we have why part 15 broadcasting can be a safe and interference free hobby.
I need to know about licensing fees for full service stations in the USA because it adds to a final point I am working on, an argument that will be revealed once I have enough words to put it together as one sentence and a valid arguement to prove my point. But first, I need accurate and valid answers that help me create my point and argument.
As for interference issues with part 15 stations, I think we all care enough here in this forum that prevention of such, is at the top of everyone's mind here and we're going above and beyond trying to prevent that from happening.
Bruce.
The United States isn't perfect but it's better than anywhere else.
Part 15 is imperfect and it's more imperfect than anything else.
Case in point when I was operating on 96.3 Mhz and was going off air at 6PM and then checking every hr to ½ hour in the summertime when temperature inversions do occur and when they did occur brought in a country station in Morehead City, NC. Now grant it that the Winter time this occurs far less. But that said was surprised that my Wife's doctor friend mentioned it and made note to call my Wife to remind me to be careful not to interfere with his favorite station. I had to mention that I'd only operate that frequency when the temperature inversion that brought in his favorite station was not taking place. But how do you convince someone who expects to hear their favorite FM station that you waited till it was not coming in before you transmitted on that frequency. This is in my opinion of where the FCC interference complaints come from. Now if 87.7 and 87.9 Mhz were designated towards hobby Radio the FCC would have far less complaints from licensed broadcasters and or listeners of their stations because if they are listening to 87.9 they would expect to hear a Hobby Radio station. That is how you combat interference. We'll see how the new proposal goes for the frequencies that involve 87.7 and 87.9 Mhz.
Mr Bruce said: "So, I am saying, referring to the last paragraph above, how would that LEGAL part 15 station hurt their revenue?"
Mr. WDCX said: Perception. By simply drawing listeners away eqates to a loss of revenue in the eys of Mr. Station owner.
I heard a really good sounding station that reached over a block and a half while I was driving to work.
Take it out!
I'm going to post this as half a question and half a statement, while keeping the integrity of this website's policies about bashing. If New Zealand, Canada, and possibly other parts of the world allow unlicensed broadcasting at a higher power be it 100 uV/m @ 30 meters, 1 watt to the antenna and we all have to assume there are licensed stations in these areas, keeping all that in mind. Why is this not an issue there, whereas here in this very nation where we live its a big deal. Why doesn't the same science that has been proven to be successful abroad and in some neighboring countries not apply or can not be applied here. There is something off center with this picture which applies a problem other than part 15 operators or interference being a bigger issue to have to change as part of any petition to change the power rules. I'm hoping I can be enlightened or the rest of the hobby Broadcasting community be enlightened about this scientific and logical question.
It is not science so much as human nature.
Stations are licensed with a certain set of rules in the background. Try and take something away from them, and they will howl. You are changing the rules under which they operate out from underneath them. In their eyes, increasing power to unlicensed stations, who pay no fees, and are totally unregulated (other than making sure they stay within their power rules) has the potential to hurt them (i.e., take away listeners).
If you are going to convince these stations that increasing power is a good idea, you have to show them that somewhere along the line, it will be to their benefit. Not hurting them is a neutral argument at best (i.e., you will not interfere, you will not take away listeners). I am sure that that argument can be formulated, but whether they will buy it or not is another matter.
Mr. WDCX said: Perception. By simply drawing listeners away eqates to a loss of revenue in the eys of Mr. Station owner.
MrBruce Said: That is simply speculation on the station owners part and should be challenged.
My comment is not against you in any way wdcx.
I am sure you are 100% correct with that statement, because I, myself, was a victim of a licensed station calling out the posse on my WXTZ 87.9 Norwich station, claiming it was a pirate station, for whatever legal, valid, reasons they claimed it as such. But one thing that was mentioned by that posse was that a radio station contacted an engineer to investigate, track, record and take photos for the purpose of shutting the station down.
Did my station have listeners? Yes it did, infact the facebook page had 55 followers and we did get a total of 4 different regular callers who called in requests.
I realize, we have taken this topic off course, per it's title, but I see a very interesting conversation taking place here, regardless.
So, I apologize for taking this topic off track.
I have, (to be fair) put myself in Mr. Station owner's place for a moment, to see how he would feel.
This is what I felt, I have a local hobby broadcaster that has taken away 50 listeners from my station, however, while interviewing those listeners, I have found, they never listened to my station before the existance of this hobby station, because, No.1 We do not play that kind of music. No.2 Our programming is not what interests them or No.3 They provide a locally produced program we do not carry.
I'd also have to look at the number of followers my station has compared to their list of followers. If they held 50 followers to my 500 followers and those 50 would not have listen to my station even if that part 15 competitor did not exist, then I can't argue that I lost those 50 followers to a part 15 station operating in my area.
I guess, if push came to shove and the station that complained about my station made its self known to me, I would have made a case and point and polled those 50 followers to see if the complainant was right. But based on what I DO KNOW, no, our listeners would not have listened to that station even if that station was their only choice to choose from. We found this out after we shut down station operations and defuncted the station.
So, if in a public court hearing, Mr. Station owner wanted to show damages to their revenue by WXTZ 87.9 Norwich being on the air, our listeners would testify that they would not have listended to their station if WXTZ 87.9 Norwich did not exist. In fact WXTZ 87.9 Norwich was the only reason they listened to the radio at all!
Sorry for my rant here people, but in a court of law, assumptions and heresay are not submissible evidence in a civil or criminal case. Mr. Station owner would fail to show a loss of revenue or damages caused by WXTZ 87.9 Norwich and lose their case. (Don't forget, my oldest Son is an attorney practicing law in this state, as well as holding licenses for several other New England states and also including New York State, so I have easy access to free legal counsel)
Now back to my question:
Does anyone have an answer to my question: Does a full service licensed radio station have to pay the FCC for its license? (Please do not include any application fees (if any).
Bruce.
MR BRUCE ASKED: "Does anyone have an answer to my question: Does a full service licensed radio station have to pay the FCC for its license? (Please do not include any application fees (if any)."
MR WDCX ANSWERED: http://www.radioworld.com/article/fcc-reviews-how-radio-regulatory-fees-assessed/276067