Reply to #40:
It would make more sense to go by the end of the property line any how. But I don't think a line of separate apartments in a line of apartments a landlord would count unless it was one solid building with separate apartments. There was a complex like that on Northside road in Elizabeth city that use to be a motor lodge. If I was in the middle apartment I could have transmitted 600 feet from each side before I'd be to the end of the property on both sides of the apartment complex as the parking lot was 150 feet or more. Plus she owned the houses beside the apartment complex and the one behind it. It would have been great for such a hobby station I tell you. Carrier current AM would have worked nice too, but doubt the landlord would allow me to hire someone to wire a coupler to the power system and adjust it so I could use carrier current. But on FM it would have been a very nice complex station. There was a man that was a DJ at one time and he'd blast a mix of Classic Rock, Dance and Jazz. Very cool dude. I wish I had mentioned part 15 Radio then but me and my Wife just got together and part 15 was not on our minds at the time lol. Now if I didn't have septic issues there I'd still be there and I'd run such a station that went 250uV/m outside the line and tried o get the middle apartment. If course I'd have to borrow an FIM-71 to be sure. Pretty cool idea.
It certainly would be better if they would make the strength the same as Canada but from the property line. I think in early days they assumed people would put up a outside mount transmitter. Again can't wait for the real test results for the 250 uV/m @ 3 meters and the range. Plus I'm looking to try and get into an activist group that will help with the petition when we have the data ready.
See that is what I've been saying all along to some folks. Its not about interference at all. Its about money and greed. The folks at the NAB are pulling the puppet strings of the FCC and they obay the NAB. How funny is that? Enough bribes and you can buy anyone. But what the NAB didn't realize that this guy had just as much money as they did and he was able to bribe officials to make it go away before worse things took place. So enough money and you can hold things over the heads of the FCC or anyone you want. Again yet onother fudge factor here. I've seen this the more I research part 15 and NOUO's.
You know, I don't blame anyone reading the varied posts about Part 15 FM on the Internet being confused.
First, there's the range being touted by the 'experts'. Anything from less than 3 meters (from those who obviously are Part 15 impaired) to your property line to 200 feet to ____ (you fill in the blanks). The truth is that there are a host of factors that affect range, from receiver sensitivity, receiver antenna, transmitting antenna height, topography, that will greatly affect Part 15 FM range. It is entirely possible to get 800 feet + given exactly the right conditions, and it is also possible that you won't be able to get across a room. That being said, FM is really a short range broadcasting solution, confined to a very limited area, as opposed to Part 15 AM which has the possibility of up to a mile range or even more (but again, given the right conditions).
Then, those so called 'experts' say that anyone breaking the rules and broadcasting on 87.9 (which is not allowed in Part 15) is a pirate. But those same 'experts' also say that it's OK to break the rules and broadcast with greater field strength than allowed if the field strength at your property line is at or below the maximum allowed (word of warning - that is patently false). In fact, some brag about having done it with the FCC not doing anything about it.
All I know is that if you break the rules, whatever they may be (FCC 15.209, 219, 239 or BETS), you run the risk of the FCC or Industry Canada coming after you. Some may be willing to accept that risk. But I wouldn't.
If you can live with the limited range (10 - 800 feet), Part 15 FM is great. If you need more (1300 - 5200 feet +) then you'll have to live with Part 15 AM. And if you need even more, then you're out of luck, at least right now.
You're making me hungry lol
One of the functions of the FCC is to protect licensed stations from interference so why would it be out of bounds for them to respond to the NAB which represents licensed stations?
Also, the allegations of money affecting enforcement may or may not be true but in either case can documented evidence or accounts be provided to show this?
Neil