I believe in

I moved the original post because Thelegacy made some points which are worthy of consideration. His positive attitude about promoting Part 15 and getting things done is helpful.

This site's primary purpose is to provide information exchange and encourage legal Part 15 activities. I agree that bickering about the rules is not helping promote our interests and that perhaps changing the rules will make things better. Thelegacy has many times brought up ideas for rule changes but, unfortunately, they are scattered all over the forum and have become repetitious and hard to find. We are not equipped to organize and administer action toward a petition but perhaps a group of us could do this on our own using this forum for establishing communication, perhaps to someone's email or to a spinoff site devoted to the task.

What I suggest is that we confine all discussion about rule changes to this thread rather than what has been done. This way the ideas and relevant comments will be in one place.

I don't know how to go from ideas to petitions and maybe this path can be developed here.

For this to have a chance we need to stay on topic in this thread. I also suggest that each post be as short as possible and only speak to one idea at a time. This will make the thread easy to read.

Maybe this is a dumb idea and say so if that's what you think, but at least think about it. This may not go anywhere but in the spirit of Thelegacy's post it is better than doing nothing.

The thread title can be changed to be more descriptive later if needed.

Neil

Yes Neal I think your right. There should be thoughts about changing the FM Rules on one thread and this one and the AM Initiative could be kept here since we're taking about more power. If another website is made I do want ProFM somewhere in the name. Even if you have to use a long website and I create a short url link to it. Example would be: profm.shorturl.com, increasefm.shorturl.com, hobbyfm.shorturl.com, make879legal.shorturl.com, 500mW.shorturl.com, 1watt.shorturl.com, fminitiative.shorturl.com, morelegalrange.shorturl.com

Points to try and bring up are:

1. Try and get the same field strength as Canada's BETS-1 or 250 uV/m @ 230 meters.

2. Possible 800 mW into an inside or fixed antenna aka Rubber Duck.

3. All enhanced unlicensed transmitters must SCAN or have an internet database check that would be maintained by the FCC or their appointed engineers to block malicious use of the extended range transmitters.

4. Increased harmonic and spur filtering requirements for extended range transmitters.

5. Extended range transmitters must have a clearly identifiable label on them to distinguish them from part 15 standard range transmitters. Remember Brian of Whole House did ask me to please not cause this to be required of standard present part 15 transmitters.

6. Make 87.9 Mhz Legal. No skirting around the rules it would be Legal and possibly this would be the one frequency where your allowed 800 mW.

7. The range on the national part 15 FM frequency we are shooting for is ¼ to ½ mile to a decent digital Radio. Grundig 450, Sony, Yamaha FM Stereo Radio and 1-2 miles to a Car Radio. This is FULL quieting Stereo reception (Not Mono).

8. A Hey Pirates please tone it down campaign if our new law is passed. Please lets educate Pirates that you don't need 50 watts to get out. If you live an a valley it does not matter how many watts you put out, if you have an obstruction your signal is not going to pass through it no matter what the power is. YOUR WASTING POWER AND CREATING INTERFERENCE!!

9. During this initiative we need to educate the public and law makers that Hobby Broadcasting is an important step to keeping broadcast Radio up with the times of Internet Radio. Kids use iPhones and smartphones to listen to Radio and more importantly so do adults. We need to point out how hobby broadcasting and the diversity of music and the creative programming can allow more folks to find Radio as a source for good listening. Now that the NAB has been working to unlock the FM chips in cell phones its a great time to make sure that Hobby Radio is included in this initiative and try and show how more radio buyers actually helps all stations as people do not just leave their Radio on one station and forget it. Maybe Hobby FM and commercial FM can work together. For example when someone calls and requests a song outside my format I'll tell my listeners that I don't play that stuff listen to W___ Fill in the blank there.

   I'm sore there is a few more things I didn't think of yet. In the meantime I'm going to try and use what power we do have for AM and get the most range even for a poor man's station setup. Station8 has concentrated on the Talking House because it is cheap and easy to set up. Don't worry we are trying to make the antenna compatible for other AM transmitters as well. Lets work together on this part 15 initiative and get something done.

Hope this all helps.

3. All enhanced unlicensed transmitters must SCAN or have an internet database check that would be maintained by the FCC or their appointed engineers to block malicious use of the extended range transmitters.

Skipping the other comments in Reply 3 here for the moment -- these questions arise:

1) How much would those capabilities be expected to add to the selling price of each such "unlicensed" transmitter, and,

2) Would buyers of such transmitters be willing to pay that extra price for that capability?

1.  The Belkin does it.

2.  You can buy them from $20-$30.

It can be done CHEAP.  as for the Internet data base check it may be more.  It would require a WiFi check, some memory.  May make the price go up $20-$30 for that part.  Either one would be better than not scanning for a licensed station near by.  Plus the scan should leave one channel empty above and below your chosen frequency to avoid interference.  That is the important key.

In FCC speak, this "scan for available frequency" system would have to have exact permiters spelled out.  Basically this is a receiver in the transmitter, that would scan the band. So, at what level does this device decide is an acceptable level? What would be the receiver specifications necessary to do the job?  We all know we can grab a handful of FM radios, and sitting at your desk, discover that each is capable of receiving some stations that other radios cannot.  Such a frequency scanning device that would be used as the legal parameter by which a broadcasting frequency could be chosen would have to have precise, repeateable specifications.  What if you choose a frequency that your device didn't find a station on, but if you moved the antenna of your device lightly to the left, it would receive? What if you're checking for a frequency in a reception limited area, while the same device in a more friendly receiving location would have found a station?

e.g.   There is a classical FM station about 70 miles from me. It generally can't be received on a typical radio. But since it's the only classical station in the region, those who are fans of classical music tend to buy good receivers and put up at least minimal dipoles to receive the station. Your small device wouldn't pick it up, so you'd start using that frequency and possibly wipe out the reception of someone trying to hear that station.

I did try this.  I tuned in the classical station on my "good" receiver (a 70's vintage Sherwood with a dipole) and flipped on the C. Crane on that frequency (which as you recall is below the current legal limit) and it blanked out reception of the station.

I see this scan for frequency concept to be too full of variables to gaurantee a clear frequency choice and this also adds a level of complication to the idea of more power that would require it's own set of rules and requirements to make it a valid option. 

Just because a cheap transmitter has a scan function doesn't mean it's reliable, or sensitive enough to receive all possible stations in the area. At what station signal strength is it considered OK to use that frequency? That Belkin can choose a frequency that it can't hear doesn't mean it's a safe choice for a better transmitter. 

I do think that attempting to have the same limits as Canada might be a viable concept, but adding complications such as this with their own need for parameters might be a bit much. 

Also, I wouldn't persue the x amount of power into a rubber duck concept. I can show you a handful of rubber ducks that all appear similar but are of completely different design and construction and have dramatically different electrical characteristics that result in very different amounts of signal being emitted. 

Using field strength for the transmit limit is technically the best choice but it's nearly impossible for a hobbyist to measure this due to the rarity and cost of the equipment to do so.  Clearly we've seen that "certified" pretty much means nothing. I've tested 4 certified FM transmitters. Two were way WAY over the legal limit and two were way under the limit. 

Perhaps if we determine the necessary power to reach the specified field strength when using a standard vertically polarized half wave dipole we'd be onto something. Then transmitter makers could just design and build transmitters that put out x milliwatts, and supply proper tuned dipoles, or provide adjustable dipoles -- simple telescoping dipoles would do the job, and if the user didn't get it adjusted just right it would lead to lower field strength due to mismatch, rather than too much field strength. So the possible error would lean to the side of being safer than required. Rather than something as a "rubber duck" that can have a multitude of designs. Additionally the output from a rubber duck on the transmitter will vary greatly (as seen in my tests) based on position of the transmitter and other things in the field. A dipole could actually be fed with a coax and be mounted outdoors, hopefully in the clear, avoiding the effects of nearby objects distorting the transmitting pattern.  We'd just have to determine x watts = desired field strength with a half wave dipole.  This creates a realistically sized antenna as well, e.g. a half wave dipole for 92.7 would be roughly 154 centimeters long, 77 per side, or roughly 60 inches total, roughly 30 inches per side.  As a dipole has a bit of gain it would require less transmitter power, reducing the strength of harmonics and spurs, creating a transmitter that runs cooler, is cheaper to built, and is more reliable.  A MUCH better scenario that building a transmitter, and pumping it's signal into an awful mismatched antenna just to attenuate the extra output potential. 

TIB

The only way to truely know if a frequency is available is with the best recievers available and a unidirectional recieving antenna....a car radio. Nothing you have in your home....even a HI-FI tuner is good for this purpose. Having a reciever in a transmitter as said won't work.

mW into a "rubber duck" means nothing.....field strength matters.

Thelegacy:The #1 in your recomendations about the field strength....one or the other. You can't say this and that...won't work. Canada is 100uV/M@30 meters and this has no relationship to a 3 meter distance as Tim's tests and Rich's illustration showed.....it's NOT 1000uV/M@3 meters. Is more than that, and that varies. But if you want to ask for a certain field strength pick a figure and stay with that.

Mark

What about 100 uVm at 230 meters. That should get you at least 1,000 feet into a good portable Radio. Now we'd need to know how many mW it would take to create that field strength into a 1/2 wave dipole.  The dipole should be constructed in a way that it could easily be used in the house as well for those like myself that the landlord doesn't like antennas.  I'll add more later.

My opinion to high....no chance of getting that. Maybe 100uV@ 100 meters is more realistic and maybe you have a shot at 100uV@30 meters.

My opinion.....Maybe the FCC isn't the place to take this. Your member of congress...the people you elect is a better choice. They are the ones that pass laws. No one in the FCC is elected, they are appointed. If I'm wrong, correct me. Wheeling(whatever his name is)....the head of the FCC isn't elected and doesn't have to listen to you.

You have an election coming and almost a year of campaining....your congress person will listen at election time. You can even get some people together and see him/her in person.

Even in Canada the CRTC and Industry Canada enforce laws that need elected officials to get passed.

Mark

A dipole can be as simple as two pieces of wire cut to length, or two proper size copper pipes, or wires inside PCV pipe to make them rigid, etc.  Clearly the limits would have to be determined using a "best case scenario" e.g. an outdoor dipole above ground, etc. so that moving it indoors, or having a less than perfect installation reduces range.  If you strive for maximum range with, say an indoor installation and someone puts one outside they'd likely be beyond the legal limit.  Any dipole built that would be a mis-match would be a detriment to range, automatically encouraging a user to get it right. 

As for the Canadian limit -- am I reading this wrong?  At this website:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10209.html#sA2

It is clearly stating that the limit in the FM band states "The field strength shall not exceed 250 microvolts/m measured at 3 metres with an average meter."

Is that not the SAME as the US limits?

It seems it's their AM limits that we are applying to FM? 

1. "The total input power to the final radio frequency stage shall not exceed 100 milliwatts, and the total length of transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 metres; or
2. The field strength of radiated emissions shall not exceed 250 microvolts/m measured at 30 metres

At least that's what it says at the Industry Canada website.  I see nothing in the FM rules there (th link to that page is from the ALPB site) that gives them more power than the USA. 

TIB

About Reply 8 above

What about 100 uVm at 230 meters. That should get you at least 1,000 feet into a good portable Radio. Now we'd need to know how many mW it would take to create that field strength into a 1/2 wave dipole.

The r-f voltage present at the output terminals of a VHF receive antenna near the earth greatly depend on many factors other than the power applied to a 1/2-wave transmit dipole near the earth.

For examples -- the height of the transmit and receive antennas above the surface of the earth, their polarization, path length, terrain elevations along that path, earth conductivity, frequency, various reflection paths, and even atmospheric conditions.

That may give you 478 feet to a boom box. 328 feet plus 150 feet which is where 250 uV/M @ 3 meters would go. That was why if you are looking at 100 meters the uV would at least have to be 250 uV/m at 100 meters. We know that you can get 800 feet @ 250 uV/M at 10 feet. So you figure 250 uV @ 100 meters is 478 feet. Now add 800 feet to that. You get 1278 feet. That is about the range I'm looking for. And we know 500 mW into an indoor antenna will do just that. So with a dipole of ½ wave may require less than 500 mW. Now with a dipole it may also be more stable and better matched to eliminate Harmonics. Lets see what that would do. I like Tim's telescoping dipole. It could be used indoor or out. Maybe even have a BNC connector with RG8 or at least 75 ohm coax with an F connector. Here is the big issue no one thought of. What happens if I connect the transmitter to my Radio Shack 30 element beam I had in Michigan years ago? I guess that is why everyone wants field strength rather than mW's.

You are reading RSS-210 not BETS-1.

RSS-210 is the same as the USA for AM and FM

BETS-1 is a different classification called "anouncement" transmitters and as long as certified no IC or CRTC licence is needed. Look up BETS-1. Here we're allowed 250uV/M@30 meters on AM and 100uV/M@30 meters on FM. There is no programming restrictions other than following the same guidelines the licenced stations do with the addition of nothing political and religious or pushing an agenda.

There are also other BETS classifications and some need a licence and some don't.

Mark

Perhaps adding a second link to the ALPB site for the Canadian BETS-1 rules would be a good idea?

So, basically, when we say we "want the same thing as Canada" we maybe really don't? Sure, we want the increased power but apparently it adds programming limitations?  My quick search didn't find the specific rules, but removing any political broadcasting, religious programming, having 35% Canadian content, and I'm not sure of the legal definition of "pushing an agenda".  So there is some compromise in the use of the higher power.  Odd.  So you have to be sure you're legal technically, AND as far as aired content.  Yikes. 

TIB

With all the yacking I did up above, my point, when it's boiled down is: Any attempt at a new rule offering higher power needs to be based on something that allows the broadcaster a practical way to insure he is operating legally.  Field strength is not that.  If an output power could be determined, and an antenna standardized it would be an easy answer. Measuring RF output, or even power input, is something that can be done easily, and without spending thousands of dollars. Metering or even LED indicators could be built into transmitters.  Terminals could be provided to attach a simple VOM to show input current, etc.  A half wave dipole can be built by anyone with a dollars worth of wire and a coax feedline. Many different designs could be built, but bottom line is, a dipole is a dipole. 

As things stand today, even if you have a certified transmitter, you're still on the hook if it's out of compliance.  Perhaps a new rule might include that if a certified transmitter is purchased the maker is responsible for compliance, so a buyer who doesn't own expensive metering equipment isn't taking the risk. However, then this leave manufacturers open to issues with people who modify, and will increase the cost as the makers take on increased risk.

Tough call.

TIB