Since it is not posted it is rendered moot.
Lord I am so tired of the arguments that go on here.
Rich you always seem to jump into these post to push you're physics.
Problem is that Science is nothing more than religion in truth.
As for the FCC playing favorites with some part15 stations I can only say what a bummer.
I feel that Part15 is the only hope to stop the evil Clear Channel type programming that is taking over our country.
TV , Radio and most other forms of media are run by a few people with agendas and brain wash all of the stupid sheeple of our country.
Part 15 is about bringing great radio back.
But Rich you seem to hate that idea .
Oh well catch you guys later.
I am going to go fishing and forget about all of the garbage that get's dumped on this site to often.
Carl Blare wrote: Since it is not posted it is rendered moot.
Not a very honorable response, sir.
Part 15 is about bringing great radio back.
But Rich you seem to hate that idea.
Sorry, but Part 15 was not put in place to bring "great radio" back.
Part 15 defines the legal limits permitted for unlicensed operators using intentionally-radiating systems in the AM/FM broadcast bands.
Part 15 has nothing to do with their program content.
Geeze, I hate to get dragged into this Rich but I can't find the post in this thread you referred to quoting Carl.
Perhaps that was from some other thread?
And Oh, Part 15 rules are what allow us to operate our license free stations to bring great radio back to the people. I'm usually the one being referred to as to literal.
MRAM just said this, but I wish to expand
"Part 15 has nothing to do with their program content." - Rich
Actually, yes it does.
The reason the technical allowance for intentional radiation exists, is to permit programming by part 15 practitioners.
This is more than "reading between the lines"; we can actually conclude that the absence of rules restricting the audio content of part 15 stations is a green light of FREEDOM, if you will, to fill these tiny devices with .... just about anything!
Can there be any other reason intentional radiation would be allowed by law?
Well said Carl and Bob.
MRAM 1500 wrote: I can't find the post in this thread you referred to quoting Carl.
Originally it was part of post #6 in this thread, along with his notice that I hadn't responded about joining ALPB.
I replied to Carl's post 26 minutes after it appeared (post #7), addressing both of those issues.
The grounding issue is a big one and tons of confusion and uneven enforcement.
I am hoping the ALPB can assemble clear resources on recommended installations and what things are off limits and won't pass FCC field inspection.
As for the former broadcaster in Oregon, unsure why he wouldn't just modify his installation to be compliant. Doesn't the FCC allow for folks to comply (I'd think normally they'd encourage this attempt to comply) before shuttering someone if they were within the output 100mw. If they were driving watts or something and had multiple problems, then sure, I understand enforcement.
My issue about the long arm is I fail to see how the FCC even has jurisdiction over what should be a local, county and state issue. Sorry to bring politics into it, but as-is feds licensing things are part of the issue. Air and spectrum in states should be regulated logically from the State level down. Wondering if any states have recognized this 10th Amendment issue and told the FCC to back off?
(all of that is in the spirit of how things were intended to function and not just an intentional pirate snub at the FCC).
Both issues opened by censoredship are unresolved, if I understand the situation.
The ground problem for elevated AM antennas is punted around like a deflated football, and the question of jurisdiction has been carefully side-stepped for years.
As for jurisdiction there are civil disobedient stations in the U.S. that have operated for a long time in defiance of the FCC and are on the air at this time.
I just read about a station somewhere in Illinois that has refused to shut down, and am also aware of 90.1 in Austin, Texas, which has pending court cases regarding jurisdiction.
I'm not sure where to link these stories, as I don't actively follow so-called "pirate" activity, but when I see the stories they are certainly interesting.
Perhaps links don't matter in this case since the main focus here is the part 15 realm, assuming that the FCC actually has jurisdiction.
To make this a full conversation the matter of politics has been brought up and needs to be included in my remark, and there has come to be a conflict of interest in the FCC acting more as a watchdog for the corporate media and less a defender of public interest.
There actually was an extensive effort by KENC to comply with the rules, which also involved the transmitter manufacturer, Rangemaster, the staff of a U.S. Senator from Oregon, and the laboratory staff of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). The problem for KENC was obtaining sufficient range while still complying. Ultimately, the OET decided that the proposed changes that preserved enough of the range were non-compliant with the rules.
As for the power of the FCC to regulate intrastate radio, they have had it for going on 80 years, and all challenges to that power have so far been unsuccessful. The constitutionality of Federal regulation of radio signals that do not cross state lines is still being challenged by some, but the courts appear to be overwhelmingly in the FCC's corner.
Thanks @Ermi,
I hadn't found/sought out further info on the KENC matter.
KENC should have "ungrounded" the system(s) then went about building compliant low power setup.
It seems his problem was a 30ft+ tower which the transmitter was grounded to. Clearly above the 3 meter all inclusive of antenna + ground.
Unsure why someone would shutter a project even with the reduced range to to "ungrounding". Clearly, relocating the antenna and doing so right would make the enforcement toothless and any process start all over (if there were even legal basis to do so).
I hear a lot of chatter about if Part 15 broadcasting is even legal or playful legal dancing around regulations not even intended to cover such broadcast use.
I am hoping the ALPB can and will get good info on this sort of stuff and have references to avoid the endless go rounds on the same topicals and uneven FCC enforcement.
As for the former broadcaster in Oregon, unsure why he wouldn't just modify his installation to be compliant. Doesn't the FCC allow for folks to comply (I'd think normally they'd encourage this attempt to comply) before shuttering someone if they were within the output 100mw...
I've asked and pondered about that same question before..
They did allow him to correct the issues which were non-compliant and resume broadcasting; He did this by disconnecting a few grounds.. (one of them being located above the local football stadium if I recall correctly), and this did satisfy the inspecting agent. But KENC himself was unsatisfied with the results and chose to discontinue his broadcast because of it.
Keep in mind that his three scattered transmitters had been achieving range of well over 5 miles with good clear signal for numerous years now... Apparently he (KENC)could not bring himself to settle for the limited range that the compliant installations provided him -- He had become too accustomed to his former results to settle for less.
Less to him, became worthless.
I can comprehend his decision to give up Part15 in light of his specific situation.
However, also in consideration of his situation, already being an established local "radio station" with strong audience and community support.. It seems that he could have secured additional transmitter locations in specified areas to help compensate the loss, perhaps incorporating ground installs with radials where available... But maybe the cash to do it wasn't available at the time -- Nevertheless, just quitting seems to me to have been an extreme decision.. he could have built it back up over time.
I remember the days of KENC, this was when the definition of a ground lead was just a ground "lead".
I was real disappointed when he left Part15 behind.
censoredship,
I am sure you know you are invited to join ALPB and since a meeting is coming up Friday Jan. 4 maybe you will.
But even if you are not able to be there, those of us who are there are hoping to discover ways of improving things for everyone.
Not only part 15 radio, but all radio, needs a cure and those officially in charge have already failed and should be shown the door.
Towns and cities should wake up and realize, those licenses are issued for "Little Rock" and "Louisville" and "Oshkosh", so why is it the owners are in Los Angeles?
I know i said that i was leaving Part15.us and that my reason's were because of the bickering and negativity. Well i never really left, i have been in the bsck of the room observing but staying quiet. My reason? Rich, you are the reason,your comments are negative towards part 15. Why are you even here????