FCC regulation or fiction?

Probably you are referring to the situation described in the link below. Reading through it should help answer some of your questions.

http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/kenc-1620-stayton-nal/page/2

First of all, I think that you can safely ignore that post from Rich - he has his own agenda and motives that don't coincide with most of the REAL Part 15 broadcasters that are on this Forum.

As far as the Part 15 rules go, there are absolutely no range limits stated explicitly. For AM broadcasting, you either have to 1) have a certain field strength for your station (can't remember off hand what that is) OR 2) have a transmitter that provides 100mw input to its final stage and have a feedline+antenna+ground wire (or wire to ground) that is at maximum 10 feet in length.

What the rules also don't define is ground (and because of that, it's been the subject of lively discussion here many times). In the past, an elevated metal mast has been acceptable to FCC inspectors as a suitable ground, so you could have an elevated transmitter+antenna, and then run your ground wire to that mast. These days, the inspectors don't tend to allow that. And since they have a lot of discretion as to what to allow and not, it's probably safer to go either with a non-elevated installation.

The one big exception is the Talking House combined with an ATU - somehow the manufacturer convinced the FCC that the ATU was the final stage, so the coax that connects the transmitter to the ATU is not considered a feedline. You still have to treat the ATU as essentially a transmitter, and probably should mount it at ground level with a short ground wire to ground rods and radials.

Of course, you can mount any transmitter at any height if you're not going to ground it, and some broadcasters here have reported good results, but it's not particularly safe unless you're in an area with no chance of lightning strikes.

So, no range limitations per say, other than those that come as a direct result of the field strength OR transmitter power/antenna+feedline+ground length.

Oh, and the 200 foot limit to a typical (whatever that is) radio is mentioned by the FCC in association with Part 15 FM broadcasting. It too is not in the rules per say, but a rule of thumb they suggest broadcasters use to determine if their FM station is legal.

And the kicker is that word 'typical'. A better method is to listen to your station using a receiver with a known sensitivity and see what range you get with no obstructions between the antenna and the receiver.

As an example, Canada is allowed 4 times the field strength than that of the U.S. and while I won't go through the calculations here (they've been enumerated many times in the past in this Forum), using a very sensitive car radio with a sensitivity of 1.5uv or maybe a bit worse, I can legally achieve something close to 1000 meters range (no obstructions - if there are any, that range goes down considerably).

So for the U.S., and a similar car radio (most aren't as sensitive as that), you can expect to get about 250 meters range maximum, or less than 800 feet. If I consider a standard portable FM stereo blaster as 'typical', those tend to have sensitivities of 25uv or worse, and horrible selectivity, or adjacent channel rejection. You'd be lucky to hear your signal out 25 meters on those. So 200 feet for Part 15 FM is generous.

ArtisanRadio

I think what we are seeing with this post and the results of the FCC killing the little station is the FCC Standing up for the NAB Stations.

It worries me to no end that the FCC could just shut down any part 15 station just because they feel like it.

It's like I said in the Last ALPB meeting.
After looking at the Micro Broadcast rules in other countries and see what we have to deal with here , I feel we do not live in a free country and we are only lying to ourselves to try to stay happy.

The FCC Works for the NAB and the NAB don't want know free thinking little stations taking over the airwaves.

Welcome to the real 1984 here in the Good ole U.S. of A.

However in some parts of the U.S. the local field office will not hassle Pirate or Part 15 stations because they understand what is really going on.
I would not setup a part 15 station in Oregon as the history show's the FCC up there is a problem.

The single issue that brings rich to life out of proportion to any other topic is any mention of the KENC ground issue. Otherwise, he has much less to say.

rich triumphantly declared, "The FCC agreed with me about the long ground being non-compliant".

Carl, please post a link to the thread containing the above quote you attribute to me.

As for ALPB, there is not much incentive in joining a group of people who distrust me.

The link supplied by Rich illustrates the misinformation that was being spread around three years ago about the KENC case. The real legal issue was the height of the tower on which the transmitter that received the first of the KENC NOUOs was mounted. The inspector decided that the tower radiated, and therefore formed part of the physical antenna, and caused the 3-meter limit of Section 15.219(b) of the Rules to be violated. That was really all there was to it as far as the legalities were concerned. Unfortunately, part of the boiler plate of an NOUO is to cite Section 15.209 in the event that the requirements of 15.219 are not met. 15.209 is a field strength limit that is so low that it can't even be measured in an urban environment with a standard field intensity meter (In the vicinity of 14 uV/m at 30 meters). In the present day, the background noise in the AM broadcast band is so high that such a low field intensity will not get the signal across the street, and probably not even to the end of the driveway. A misunderstanding developed that the inspector was requiring KENC to meet 15.209, although it was compliant with 15.219. The inspector's actual position was that the installation was not compliant with 15.219, and certainly not the only other alternative, which was the more restrictive 15.209.

Artisan Radio alluded to the Happy Days prior to early 2007 when the FCC accepted a ground connection to a tower as being compliant with 15.219(b). The notorious Iglesia de Dios Ebenezer church case was the beginning of the end of this liberal interpretation of the rules, although it is rumored that some FCC inspectors still allow such installations.

There's a reason why folks here question your motives, Rich. Your posts are often laden with insinuation and even downright declaration that someone is breaking the rules. You put yourself 'out there' as an expert, and yet you obviously have not done any broadcasting yourself with Part 15 equipment. If you really and truly are interested in Part 15 from a positive perspective, and are here to help and move Part 15 broadcasting forward, then joining the ALPB would be a natural step. But I don't expect it.

I had to laugh at the link you supplied - in the first post of that Forum, someone talks about the misinformation many Part 15'ers have, and yet, many of the subsequent posts, some by the same individual, demonstrate far more misinformation about Part 15.

I often feel it is me or we who are not trusted, and so perhaps both sides could benefit from peace talks to close the ranks, as it were.

The invitation is only a social nicety and by no means a sports challenge.

Some former members have found us to be unacceptable company and gone off to other pastures.

It's only a toy, part 15 hobby radio.

Interest is on the decline despite attempts to seek new customers.

We may be the end of the line.

rich triumphantly declared, "The FCC agreed with me about the long ground being non-compliant".

Carl, please post a link to the thread containing the above quote you attribute to me.

OTHERWISE, please retract it.

Lefty, the rules aren't perfect. They don't define everything precisely. So, by default, the FCC inspectors do have a lot of leeway in determining whether a Part 15 station is compliant or not. It's much like contract law, where even lawyers admit that it's the intent in a contract that is more important than the precise words.

Since I don't live in the U.S., I can't comment on some of your statements. But I highly doubt that a Part 15 AM installation, ground mounted with an FCC certified transmitter, and with antenna+ground wire+feedline less than 10 feet, would get shut down, regardless of the NAB or anyone else who complains.

I also don't know the entire KENC story, but do know that FCC inspectors (and Industry Canada inspectors) are just people. If you piss them off, or make them feel that you're attempting to pull a fast one, then they will come down hard on you. If you're cooperative and provide them with detailed information on what you're trying to do, then they're more likely to cut you a break, or even leave you alone. I get the feeling that some of that may have happened in this case. You can get knocked off a high horse.

And let's also face it. There are pirates out there. People who don't care if they cause interference to licensed stations (who've paid a lot of money for that license) with high powered unlicensed transmitters. Or people that buy the cheapest, dirtiest (spectrum wise) transmitter off of ebay, and who don't know what they're doing, to play music in their house, to to their neighbourhood. I think that if you see a number of those hiding in the shadows, or just plain ignorant, then after a while, you begin to think everyone is like that.

That's why I strongly believe that if you are broadcasting with a legal, Part 15 station, you shouldn't hide. After all, it is legal - you should have nothing to fear (I know, I know, that's a bit idealistic, but I would like to hold onto my ideals until proven wrong). Spread the word, get your name in the newspaper, and on people's tongues. And I think you'll find that even the licensed stations will take a (positive) interest in what you're doing.

The real enemy, at least in my opinion, isn't the NAB or the FCC. It's those pirates (intended or otherwise), who give everyone in unlicensed broadcasting a bad name, and also those who, for reasons of their own, think that every unlicensed station is illegal, and spread their misinformation around without regard for those who DO care, and who DO operate legally.

There's a reason why folks here question your motives, Rich. Your posts are often laden with insinuation and even downright declaration that someone is breaking the rules.

In the mind of the beholder?

As I have posted here and elsewhere many times before, my comments are based on physical reality. They are NOT directed at individuals.

It is up to readers to decide whether or not their, or any other particular installation meets that reality -- or as an alternative for open discussion, to pose their reason(s) why my posts are inaccurate.

"Otherwise please retract it"

If you will review preceding posts you will see I did not attribute the statement that you have attributed to me....

Perhaps all you need to do is deny having said any such thing.

Carl Blare wrote: If you will review preceding posts you will see I did not attribute the statement that you have attributed to me.

Here is a clip from your earlier post in this thread:

rich triumphantly declared, "The FCC agreed with me about the long ground being non-compliant".

And now you post that you did not attribute that quote to me?