this document has been mentioned by me and others and the governments unwillingness to release it. there have been many theories, but i have another.
this document has been mentioned by me and others and the governments unwillingness to release it. there have been many theories, but i have another.
the bureaucratic arm of the government has a long history of stupidity and then trying to cover up their stupidity using whatever means possible.
i wonder if the FCC desk jockeys in washington could have been stupid enough to include a statement in that 22 page document that would show a clear bias toward part 15 am stations and hint to possible political reasons for shutting them down. given a long history of federal stupidity this is a quite possible scenario and could be another reason why they don't want to release those documents to the public. i argue that since they are a federal and regulatory agency and not a law enforcement or military agency that they have no legal recourse to deny those documents through foia request and if pressed hard enough would be forced to release those documents. maybe we can go through a congressman to get the documents. kind of pull what has been coined the "harry reed maneuver".
i really like to see documents when government tries so hard to hide them. usually means the feds are up to something no good (and possibly a hint of illegality) that they want to hide from the public.
Check with WikiLeaks
do you know how to search their site? i tried to navigate it and it is not very user friendly and does not appear to have a site search function and they appear not to have any kind of contact info. not even a web form
Well they are in the process of reconstructing the website....the "new" FCC as they put it on the top banner. It is possible that the databases, incredibly LARGE databases, may have portions of them not linked back in yet to the new pages and still offline from the old pages.
It was not but 6 months ago I got the info for the TH V5 unit so it was there before. If after 3 or so months we dont see the info re-linked and online, then I would begin to suspect what most consider is nuts and crazy...
...COVERUP!
Oh our government never covers up anything! They are perfect little sinless angels. They do no wrong. They are not human but are gifted spirits looking out for all's best interest!
HA! Keep dreaming.
RFB
The "New FCC" is basically all show and no go on the web. It's all about slick web design and not access. It's a nightmare trying to get to the data we want to see, which, by law, has to be accessible to the public.
Agreed, there is a lot of data and documentation there, but they've had crews working on this for at least six months - IMO, the links should be there by now. They seem to be having long-winded discussions as to what the public should or should not have access ... ITMT, it also feels like they're deliberately dragging their feet.
I also don't think the FCC has enough personnel or budget to deal with the gigantic amount of engineering technical data being laid at their feet by corporate entities. Because of the speed of advanced technologies in the fields of RF and EM radiation, I simply don't believe they can handle it, and are being easily swayed.
IOW, we are relying on the honesty, accuracy, and forthright public policy-making, not only of the FCC, but also of corporate entities pushing their various agendas forward. So it goes, it seems, with everything these days.
To that I say: Double-HA! ... Keep dreaming.
Maybe it's time to work together on a form letter we can sign and send to our congress-people ...
we need to come up with a solid plan and submit a petition for rule making to eliminate the part 15.219 antenna restrictions but keep the 100mW restriction and get everyone involved from end users, to groups, to manufacturers also petition to open up 1710 for use by part 15.219. there can be a transmitter limit running the same programming. say 2 or 3 to a specific geographic area. this will keep a single entity from hoarding all the spectrum in one area
OK, so I know a few people here who have written and processed petitions successfully, some the same ones who have successfully written grants.
I takes a lot of documentation, citing of available data, and expert testimony from various associated resources to which the recipients will take notice an listen.
I'll ask around after the first ...
we need to have a bigger mouth and be a squeakier wheel than R. Fry (don't bother to email your dislike to me again), NAB, and Clear Channel and we will have a chance. that means everyone getting together on this.
I join you kc8gpd on parts of your petition proposal.
Remove antenna restriction from 15.219. YES.
Open 1710 for use. YES.
But limit the number of duplicate signals we can send on open channels? Why. That's not a problem, so let's not "solve" it.
Where I am there are no other part 15 stations, so the choice of whether I use open dial positions belongs to me and there's no reason to give it up.
If other stations started running nearby, I would do what RFB proposes, and that is, work together with them to co-ordinate our use of frequencies.
In fact, now I have duplicate programming on two AM spots, and I plan to use a third AM spot for carrier current. In addition, I have the eye on one more unused frequency that I might use to send time signals from WWV.
Here is the rule of thumb I propose:
Seek greater freedom.
Never offer to give up a freedom.
i think if we eliminated the antenna restrictions it would quickly become a problem. history has proven this over and over in other countries and other bands in this country. this limitation would apply only to part 15.219 not FM or carrier current. i also think FM should be upped to 10mV/m @ 3m (again limit to 2-3 units running the same programming in a geographical area) similar to 49 MHZ. the signal should get out far enough to cover a typical trailer park or apartment complex.
also up the power under 15.239 to 1000uV/m @ 3m with no restrictions (similar to Canada) on the amount of transmitters running the same programming and open up 87.9 for use by part 15
Yes, make the changes specified by kc8gpd and also add 87.7mHz to the permitted frequencies.
On long wave may we please have up to 10-Watts?
At 13.560mHz how about......more power.
Open 520kHz for carrier current.
iirc 525 or 520 is already or was at one time open for C-C
Carrier Current, Rule 15.221, 525 to 1705 kHz
"i think if we eliminated the antenna restrictions it would quickly become a problem."
There are currently hundreds of TIS stations operating with 10 watts into a 15 foot antenna and not a single one of those stations are causing a problem, to each other or to other frequencies.
Not only do we need to present the proposal in a professional approach, but also in a manner to which the proposed changes follow the current technical specifications so as to not cause the issues like that overseas, where populations cover more area and clustered together in greater numbers than in the US..though the east coast states, especially the upper north east are quite cluttered. This is why the proposal MUST carefully construct the plans for changes in the antenna and
power limits must follow not just good engineering practices, but professional engineering practices.
It goes beyond the "hobby" zone at that point..beyond the "kit" building point..beyond the fun and games point. It becomes a serious deal not any different from the current licensed classes. And with the good also comes the tedious bad of keeping records, regular scheduled system maintenance, filing required reports, program issues, etc etc.
A licensed low power radio service MUST demonstrate that it is just as valuable and just as responsible as the larger classes.
If we want to be like the big boy with licensed toys...we must grow Part 15 out of it's infancy.
RFB