Is Canada really more friendly to hobby broadcasting?

Section A 2.8 b) reads
"(b) not exceeding 100 microvolts/m measured at 30 metres (equivalent to 1000 μV/m measured at 3 metres, equivalent to 300 nW e.i.r.p. ) only if the modulation is FM and the carrier frequencies are chosen from the following set: 88.1; 88.3; 88.5;…; 107.7; 107.9 MHz (i.e. spaced every 200 kHz)."

This is an alternative to A 2.8 a) and allows the field strengths cited.

Neil

It's true.

I'm not sure what you're seeing in RSS-210.  But it only applies for radio experimentation.

You have to go to the BETS-1 (& 5 & 6) circulars for unlicensed broadcasting.  They clearly state that the maximum field strength allowed is 100uv/m at 30 meters.  In the U.S., the maximum field strength is 250 uv/m at 3 meters, or to convert to similar units, 25uv/m at 30 meters.  So Canadians don't just get a little more, they get 4x more!  Under ideal conditions (i.e., no obstructions) and with a very sensitive receiver and broadcasting in mono, you can see ranges up to 1km (typically 1/4-1/2 km to a car radio in urban conditions).

The kicker in all this for Canadians is the CRTC.  If you're licensed, you need both an Industry Canada license AND a CRTC license.  Industry Canada handles the technical aspects of your radio station, while the CRTC regulates the content.

If you are running under the BETS guidelines, you are given a CRTC license exemption as well as an Industry Canada exemption.  However, the CRTC also lays down some rules over top of BETS, including - no politics, only one transmitter per audio source (so you can't have a network of transmitters all driven by the same source - that's to stop the wackos inundating the public with their messages) and you have to follow the general content guidelines of the CRTC (no 'isms, such as racism, sexism, etc.).

There's another catch.  The BETS guidelines for AM unlicensed broadcasting are actually far more restrictive than RSS-210 (and the U.S. Part 15).  The maximum field strength allowed is 250uv/m at 30 meters, and there is NO provision for 100mw output to the final stage of your transmitter, with an antenna/ground/feedline combination of 3 meters.  Most manufacturers skirt this, pointing instead to RSS-210 and leaving it open as to exactly what is broadcasting (even the CRTC and Industry Canada don't define that term - basically, if they say you're broadcasting, then you are).

So you can rest easy using a Decade which has been tuned to 100uv/m at 30 meters.

This seems to be for anouncements etc. Is there restrictions on programming under this section? or are you allowed to program(with certain rules of course) what you want..like music etc.?(oldies in my case).
It seems you've reserched this thoroughly so if you say that under this section I have 250uv/m at 30 meters with program freedom (with a few guidelines) then I won't worry about it.

Mark

we need our old standard back here in the usa. it was 50uV/m @ 30m. was a little more than what we have now, not much but was a little better. guess that came out to something in the area of 500uV/m @ 3m? would be nice to have the canadian standard here and i see no reason other than politics for not having it.

Yes, you have complete freedom of programming, other than meeting those guidelines of the CRTC allowing for a license exemption.  In some ways, that's preferable to being a licensed station (where you have to commit to the CRTC what your programming will be and then prove that you do it).

However, you still need a license from SOCAN if you're using copyrighted music.  It's pretty inexpensive, as an unlicensed station you're classified as non commercial, and the rates are 1.9% of your gross operating budget.  If you include your internet costs in that budget, then you are also allowed to stream.  You will likely be asked to provide SOCAN what you've broadcast over a small period of time (usually 3 or 4 days in a year).  They ask you for a ton of information about each song that you play, but I just gave them my IceCast logs, which lists the name of the artist and the song, and they didn't give me any hassle.  [They ask for that so they can calculate the royalties they pay to the artists.]

Oh, and if you read the RSS-210 guidelines carefully, you will see that they apply to unlicensed use of the radio spectrum for everything BUT broadcasting.  Broadcasting is covered under BETS (again, because the CRTC).

They don't define exactly what broadcasting is, however.  Convenient.  You will note that manufacturers of unlicensed AM transmitters get certified under RSS-210 and the 100mw/3 meter antenna+ground rules.  Theoretically, that gear cannot be used for broadcasting.  Practically, it's probably OK - I've never heard of anyone being cited for using one.

However, I suspect that the field strength of these transmitters greatly exceeds 250uv/m at 30 meters.  I think that someone here did the calculation as to what the field strength should be for a 100mw transmitter with a 3 meter antenna - I'll have to look it up.

The reason I got into all this in the first place was that I thought "broadcasting" meant reaching as many women as possible.

After a few slaps, I figured out that the term comes from farming, where farmers try to cast seeds over a broad area.

Nowadays farmers get sued for broadcasting because Monsoon Chemical Company owns all the seeds, and radio broadcasters get sued because ex-Marines in suits own all the music.

Part 15 radio does not reach a broad area nor do women care about it. We need a word of our own, like "sissycasting" or "bitsycasting."

Did you hear Monsanto execs are dumping their stock?  Seems their GMO product has been outlawed in every country but the good ole USA.

Perhaps they will fold and burn their seeds before all the bees are dead.

REALLY REALLY CORNY, I know, but

it expresses my feelings exactly. 

Bruce, DOGRADIO

Mr Dogradio, the reason FUNCASTING is good, is that it's true.

It might seem a little bit flippy to say LOVE_CASTING.

Either way, we keep casting.

The Canadian rules allow for 4 times the distance, which is 16 times the coverage area. So if you reach 200 ft here in the land of the free, our northern neighbors will reach 800 ft. Assuming circular coverage, a transmitter in the US would cover about 125,000 sq. ft., while a Canadian would cover over 2 million sq. ft. Area of a circle = radius squared times 3.14 (pi). We really do get the short end on FM.

Don't forget that the 200 feet/800 feet is to an ordinary consumer radio.  You'll get much more range and coverage area to a sensitive car receiver.  If you do the math (and I've also verified the following numbers in the field), you can get up to 800 feet in the U.S./3200 feet (about 1 kilometer) in Canada.  Of course, that's line of sight with no obstructions between the transmitter antenna and the car antenna, and with a car receiver that has a sensitivity of under 2uv with some quieting - I found that typical range was about half of that due to trees, buildings, etc. getting in the way.  I also found that there is a wide variation in sensitivity with car radios - the ones in imports such as my Hyundai Santa Fe and Nissan Cube were very sensitive, the ones in domestic cars such as my Ford Flex ... not so good.  Plus, try getting the specs on these things.  In terms of aftermarket radios, Alpine (at least the older ones) I found to be the most sensitive.  The newer ones I'm not so familiar with.

The nice thing about FM is that if the signal is there, it tends to be noise free (except at the very fringes, of course).  Unlike AM, which starts to introduce static after a relatively short distance.

Up in the head we have a "conception" of the world around us, and all too often our conceptions are badly informed.

For example, as a guy who grew up in Wisconsin, not all that far from Canada, I came to think of it as a place where all the woods got really thick and wide-spread.

I never paid attention to the fact that Canada has cities, towns and populations, and is not just a lot of open space.

But thinking further, both countries have population centers and remote areas.

That makes me think that the governments should have two sets of rules: one set for populated areas, and a totally different set for empty spaces.

For example, a farm with hundreds of acres should not be bothered with dinky pesky minnie-mouse rules, but should be free to fill up their land with radio for listening on farm tractors.

Admittedly, we have to have rules.  And, because someone always pushes the rules, the rules become more defined and restrictive.

Part 15 was written to mitigate interference problems.  Seems it should have been left at that at least with regard to unlicensed BCB operation.

Here's an example of how it could have been:

Part 15.XXX-Cause no interference IN-BAND-ON-CHANNEL, IN-BAND-OFF-CHANNEL, OUT-OF-BAND.  If upon complaint your operation is found to cause interference your transmitter must be shut off until the cause of the interference has been corrected.

No mention of power, antenna, ground or other is needed.  Just make sure your signal is not causing problems.  What's the difference if your signal is heard next door or in the next town if it is not causing interference.

Of course there is the other kind of interference; revenue.  But that's the whole Big Business aspect of the problem.

Granted, by making the rules very restrictive causing "interfernce" would have to be very deliberate.  Let's face it, the majority of the REAL complaints are for those who push the envelope.