On a board such as this it is reasonable to assume that the "audience" has a wide range of abilities and understanding. I appreciated and understood Ermi's post regarding antenna height and signal differences and I grant that some probably did not. Given the wide range of interest and abilities of the readers here it would not be right to discourage topics which do not have "mass appeal".
Neil
The challenges with the government agencies in this case have "intended" consequences. Here is a glimpse of what some of them might be.
, Jerry Gaule wrote:
This is KE7GGV(A/E) Jerry Gaule from Albany Oregon, I know Ken well and I did see his operation and very impressed, I admired him for doing such a thing and doing his part, but I feel he was "pigeon-holed" and I know the inspector and have delt (sp) with him too, not for inspection or what ever',
Ken Says: "Thanks Gerry and good to hear from you... I did reinstall my transmitter this weeknend (sp), took it off the 40' tower and put it atop our building attached to a vent stack for a bathroom downstairs and grounded it to the vent stack pipe. Of course a lot less range, but it should pass muster if our ambitious inspector should want to come and inspect it. It's been three years since we went on the air and frankly I'm not sure if many in our community really care what we provide. This latest round with the FCC has really taken the wind out of our sails. The local AM station, 1460 KCKX has been off the air for the past two weeks and went from Spanish Christian to Spanish Talk and Sports just before it went off the air. The were dinged recently for failing to lower power at sunset as they are required to do each day. This is the third time that has happened.
The other station here in town is a LPFM and does virtually 6 hours of local progrmming a month. It was my understanding that they were required to provide 8 hours a day, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not sure anyone really cares about community radio in our area anymore.. Makes me pause and want to rethink why I do this... Kenc" -yahoo groups/lpam
From the beginning of this situation, the action didn't seem to match the violation. There have been unseen influences driving this decision and action all along. And now, we see the "intended" consequence of the action. Turn the transmitter off and question the motivation for even doing it in the first place.
FCC: Mission Accomplished.
And this is not an isolated incident. Similar NOUO's have been widely published.
To Neil: I continue to support access by all to whatever information people want to provide or consume. However, lets consider the application of such knowledge and its practical use; responsible use. The addition of this additional information might move this effort forward producing positive new directions and results in the service. Otherwise, the information might come across as a scolding from an over bearing, biased parent. The information is correct and well intended. The reception of the information, not so much.
I use the call Letters KQRO Though I never ID with them. Really its just my website address now (KQRO.tk)
I regularly check the FCC to make sure KQRO isn't being used.
Here's the site I use.
http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/callsign/main.html
I don't think I called Part 15 "amateur radio," but I also don't think that Part 15 is any less technically challenging than amateur radio. I'm a long-time licensed ham myself, but my interest in that hobby has decreased with the ever-decreasing code requirements, which have gone all the way down to zero. It was the code, and not the technical test, that separated the men from the CBers. My current use of amateur radio is mostly limited to using the 160 meter band for low-power medium wave expeiments. It is much easier to experiment legally on 160 meters than on the AM broadcast band. QRP enthusiasts in amateur radio, with their self-imposed power restrictions, have nothing on Part 15ers. It is quite a trick to send a Part 15 signal any significant distance at all.
Despite the ground lead restrictions, there are still some possibilities for increasing range within the rules. These involve increasing transmiter efficiency, and reducing losses in the antenna system. Research and experimentation is needed for designing better transmitters, better loading coils, and better ground screens. One of the reasons why Part 15 technology has not been perfected is because there is not much money available for R & D, since Part 15 is a very small industry.
Some earlier entries pronounced Armageddon for Part 15 but now we've calmed down to the same world we had before, in which intentional unlicensed (part 15) radiation is not and was not designed for community service, it exists for the sole hobbyist to send signals to radios in the house.
But it is noble and inventive for creative minds to explore legal ways of being expansive and to reach out to a starving audience.
And KenC is correct in the discovery that the audience doesn't have a clue about the value of what's being done in their interest. The public has never been keenly atuned to the cultural world, and now, even though quality radio is scarce, we are flooded with choices from cable, satellite and internet, to the point where we can't explore it all.
Wi Fi radio boasts 12,000 radio stations! And ironically the wi fi radios are table models and non-portable.
Conclusion: to enjoy part 15 we must be narcicists. Or the other choice is to use the micro-radio station as a status symbol. Why heck, I'm a group owner!
Hamilton just posted on another website that there is no big deal--he just needs to redesign his filter so that it will be considered to be "effective" by the FCC. Maybe my calculation of -18.8 dB filter attenuation needed to make Ken's installation compliant will be helpful. Once again, we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I wonder if the FCC will give Ken and Hamilton another shot at trying to satisfy their requirements.
Marshall,
It is good of you to comment on my post regarding technical information presented on the forum. Your statement "...Otherwise, the information might come across as a scolding from an over bearing, biased parent. The information is correct and well intended. The reception of the information, not so much." has certainly been validated by many who have responded to and criticized some who have posted technical information, especially with regard to the ground lead length discussions. You apparently understand these reactions much better than do I.
It saddens me that the FCC actions were taken against KENC since he apparently was not causing anyone harm. For whatever reason the FCC's attention was directed toward him and they had the means to issue the NOUO based on the 15.219 length requirements. Ermi's post illustrates why the length requirement is in place, namely to limit field strength and range. A reader's perception of his motivation to present this has nothing to do with the technical or legal reality.
One way to use this information is to recognize that the fundamental problem is that the FCC (and perhaps other entities) intends to limit AM range and this is one of the means to do so. I don't foresee any technical breakthroughs which will substantially extend the AM part15 transmitter range under the current rules but it is worth continuing pondering and experimenting. The alternative is to work for a change in the rules which is a long process involving education and persuasion.
I don't plan to change anything I do with my "stations" because of KENC's experience.
Neil
Hi Carl,
Some earlier entries pronounced Armageddon for Part 15 but now we've calmed down to the same world we had before, in which intentional unlicensed (part 15) radiation is not and was not designed for community service, it exists for the sole hobbyist to send signals to radios in the house"Some earlier entries pronounced Armageddon for Part 15 but now we've calmed down to the same world we had before, in which intentional unlicensed (part 15) radiation is not and was not designed for community service, it exists for the sole hobbyist to send signals to radios in the house."
I think you're making a blanket assumption and a mistake. Nowhere in the current Part 15 rules is there any section that states the above, therefore it's simply an opinion, which I wholeheartedly support your right to have. However, if you want to see a station that absolutely defies that definition, then I invite you to take a look:
http://www.liberty1640.com/
I may not entirely agree with their politics, but they are operating a legal array of Hamilton Rangemaster stations, been on the front lines of this issue for quite awhile. There is nothing in the rules that says you can't do the same thing. They have enough of a following and positioned themselves such that an attempt by the FCC to shut them down while they are in compliance would look a lot like a violation of First Amendment rights.
I just emailed them to find out how they deal with compliance issues ...
Hi Carl,
Some earlier entries pronounced Armageddon for Part 15 but now we've calmed down to the same world we had before, in which intentional unlicensed (part 15) radiation is not and was not designed for community service, it exists for the sole hobbyist to send signals to radios in the house"Some earlier entries pronounced Armageddon for Part 15 but now we've calmed down to the same world we had before, in which intentional unlicensed (part 15) radiation is not and was not designed for community service, it exists for the sole hobbyist to send signals to radios in the house."
I think you're making a blanket assumption and a mistake. Nowhere in the current Part 15 rules is there any section that states the above, therefore it's simply an opinion, which I wholeheartedly support your right to have. However, if you want to see a station that absolutely defies that definition, then I invite you to take a look:
http://www.liberty1640.com/
I may not entirely agree with their politics, but they are operating a legal array of Hamilton Rangemaster stations, been on the front lines of this issue for quite awhile. There is nothing in the rules that says you can't do the same thing. They have enough of a following and positioned themselves such that an attempt by the FCC to shut them down while they are in compliance would look a lot like a violation of First Amendment rights.
I just emailed them to find out how they deal with compliance issues ...
You are correct Ken Norris in attributing my last comment as being "opinion." I would even give it less weight than that by calling it "my guess," namely that the reason the Part 15 restrictions are so meager is to prevent what is called BROADcasting. And it's also true, as you state, that the FCC has not expressed any philosophy whatsoever about why they set the rules.
My "Armageddon" reference relates to earlier remarks that suggested a "current assault on Part 15" and "I believe there is more to come. Wait for it..," said by Marshall Johnson, Sr.
And now again we agree on the importance of liberty1640 and KENC in plowing new ground, hoping such successes are able to set the standard higher for all.
But I don't think the FCC intended to leave behind any "secret formulas" whereby we could make 100-mW devices provide a community radio service on a meaningful scale. If we are able to achieve it, it is because it is not expressly disallowed (opinion).
There was an earlier off-hand suggestion that KENC may have run into trouble because of a complaint, and that is something we should clamor about. The Bill of Rights states that we should be permitted to know our accusers, but the government we have tends to keep the identity of accusers (complainants) a secret; might even lie and deny there is a complainer.
Bill DeFelice, owner of hobbybroadcaster.net, recently posted on his website that he had filed an FIOA request for documents giving guidelines to FCC agents inspecting Part 15 AM and FM installations. The request was inspired by Ken Cartwright's difficulties relating to inspections of his facilities. The request was denied, but the rejection letter said that a 22-page internal documemt relevant to the request was uncovered. I think that the document may be the FCC guide for inspectors that Ken alluded to that allows the ground lead to be, at most, 3 feet long. This three foot ground lead is not in the rules, but inspectors may have been told to allow ground leads that are no more than 3 feet long. It is not surprising that the FCC would not permit this document to be released, since it would, in effect, increase the 3-meter rule to about 4 meters.
After reading many of these notices, I have observed that a lot of them contain a statement to the effect that "The FCC received information that an unlicensed station was operating in the xxx area". That is pretty indicative of the fact that they received a complaint from an individual. I would venture to guess that most of their enforcement actions are triggered by complaints rather than their own monitoring activities, especially for low power operators. After all, these stations do not transmit very far, for the most part.
It is very likely that the FCC does not thave the budget to monitor the radio spectrum, and they depend on "volunteers" to uncover violators. However, when I was starting out in ham radio, I was still a teenager, and I knew and cared nothing about budgets, and I tacitly assumed that the government had the money to do anything. I took it for granted that the FCC was monitoring the ham bands. I "saw" the FCC in action in war movies, where the bad guys were tracking down radio transmissions from commandos, or allied secret agents. The menacing-looking transmitter locator vans had loop antennas on top. This belief that the FCC hears all was enhanced by reports in QST about every enforcement action relating to amateur radio. I was very careful to comply with the rules so that I would not end up in the roques' gallery in QST.
I am John Galt. 🙂
Now, I use only the 160 m band for low-power medium-wave tests to support my Part 15 AM investigations.
I have something new to say about John Galt's creator, Alisa Rosenbaum, born in St. Petersburg, Russia. There is some mystery about the name she selected as her pen name, which also has the initials, A.R. She said that the first name she selected is from the Finnish. Actually, the Finnish name is spelled with an "i," not a "y." This same name is also common in Estonian, which is closely related to Finnish. The letter "y" does not replace "i" in Finnish, since y in Finnish is prononced like the u-umlaut in German, which doesn't sound anything like an i. Nobody seems to have figured out where the last name of her pen name came from. It happens that the last name of her pen name is a common surname in Estonian. It means "shore," as in sea-shore. The Finnish word for "shore" is "ranta." So, I am pretty sure that Alisa selected a common name in Estonian as her pen name.
I think that Alisa was a Russian Estophile. The few Russians who are Estophiles admire the Estonian national character, which is reputed to combine perserverence with strict honesty. The Finns also have such a reputation. John Galt and Henry Rearden are very Estonian-like in their manner. Dagny Taggart undoubtedly represens Alisa herself.