See we didn't even know that One Time you had to. But again we're checking with the agents and you can't go higher than that. Look at what we just found out. Talk to one agent... Get one answer. Talk to another... Get a different answer.
So we had to go through 5 agents and now we know the truth. But this sounds like a change is in the air.
Maybe next time we'll give the agents name, number and you can check behind all of it. So again should the law be changed?
We need a meeting and maybe after then we'll give names.
TheLegacy I hope you know that I am your friend and believer even though we are bickering over who said what and what did they mean (?)
But here's something I notice...
You said above that if you talk to 5 different agents you get 5 different answers...
But you did not say... "Maybe we misunderstood something an agent said, or, maybe our report about what the agent said wasn't well worded".
What the hell do you mean "This sounds like a change is in the air".
You didn't specify who might change and what they might change... will it be the FCC? Are they changing something? Or maybe the ALPB is changing something and we don't even know it yet.
I trying to be helpful.
Hi guys: let me clear the air OK
The best way is to have a team speak meeting with you guys to explain better what's up!
So Bob,Neil,Carl,David, and anyone else who cane make team speak.
It would beeay to speak about then writing about it
And you can elect some to speak for everyone
So let us know date and time( est ).
Station 8
The Legacy, I don't know whether you're going to belileve me or not, but I am attempting to be helpful as well.
This secrecy doesn't help your cause. You stated that you (or others) talked to 5 agents. What did those 5 agents say? Exactly? And who were those agents? In what offices? What were their names and contact numbers? They're public officials, and they have to know that whatever they say could go on record elsewhere.
At this point, we need the facts, and only the facts. I believe that each of us can come to their own conclusions based on those facts.
But again, I have to go back to my experiences in dealing with Industry Canada. I once dealt directly with 2 agents in my local office, virtually through another party with another agent in another office, and all 3 agents gave me bad information (i.e., it directly contradicted the written rules) regarding BETS-1.
Yes you have a good point Dave. I was NOT the one who called the FCC a member who has worked and dealt with the government did I just Blasted the info.
There was different info past by different agents. This is what I meant by a change may be in the air. The FCC should be more organized. I don't get why the chaos over there.
But we should get the facts right.
Moments ago Jeff Station8 met with Catl Blare on TeamSpeak to discuss the FCC conversations.
The recording is here for you as a courtesy of the ALPB and these Part 15 sites.
If the agents themselves aren't up to speed on what's what and 5 different agents say five different things, how can laws be enforced that way? If a rule is in writing 500 agents should be giving the same info. and enforcing rules the same for everybody.
If this agent told Thelegacy a experemental license is needed for part 15 when it's not the case doesn't have the proper training to be an agent as people not breaking the law will be told they are.
If the agent was indeed wrong I'm sure there is a big sigh of relief out there.
But the forums got a lot of action today.
Mark
I find this whole situation disturbing for a number of reasons. First, government employees were questioned by person(s) unnamed (though by innenudo identified), second the employees, presumably representing the FCC were supposedly quoted yet not identified, third the information exchanged between the interrogator(s) and the agents was reported by a party (TheLegacy) who did not identify the people engaged in the discussion, fourth the exchange attributed to purportedly five interviewed agents was condensed to an exchange whereby it was reported that a license is needed for part 15 broadcasting, a statement which is not supported by the FCC Part15 rules.,
This whole thing has resulted in speculation which is not only questionable but also not subject to verification since the identities of the FCC agents and their contact information is not available. This information should have been published so the facts of what they said could be verified, otherwise it is just hearsay. It is enitrely possible that the agents are misinformed about the rules and, if so, remediation could be sought if attribution was available..
Though I agree with the goal of the "New Radio Revolution" group I must question how this is being pursued. Troy, you have set up a situation where information which seems like hearsay is being posted to the public as teasers yet only a select "Elite" are actually in the know about what is going on. It baffles me how you think you are going to get support when you are acting in secret and parsing out bits of unsubstiantiable information and proclaiming that some undefined "change is in the air". The chaos you mentioned may not be where you think it is. Your credibility is in question.
My advice is to be more responsible with what you are doing and posting. Though I wish you success you are not making it easy for us who engage in Part 15 activities to either understand or to help you.
Neil
Hi : will try to explain
1) You DO NOT give people names and number out without permission !
2) We did not ask if it was OK to do !
And we mention that in recording
We can see if we can give there name and number out next time OK.
Let me give an example how would you like it if I gave your name number and something personal
About you without your permission YOU WOULD NOT LIKE THAT.
This is my point on that!
You guys need to a pro active as well and call the Fcc your self and see what you get
For An answer and let us know so both groups can look over the answer this would
be the only way we can find out to make sure what's right and wrong and
It would be better to have more then one person asking all the question.
We did ask for document in writing that we talked about but we hate to say they would
NOT have any for us.
All we did is to keep you guys in the loop and letting you know what happen thats all.
What should of happen people should of asked more question in detail
If they did not understand.
And NOT blow things out in left field which started the problems!
I hope this answer some things for you
Station 8
Its not usually good PR to point the blame as a defense. What YOU should have done was clarify this from the get go instead of tossing up a clickbait from hell post. Its not OUR responsability to get you to say the right things.
WE didn't blow it out of proportion, YOU guys did. Don't blame us for your group's mistakes.
Also FYI, posting vauge information with little detail and no supporting facts is not keeping anybody in the loop.
Also they are public officials, they have to disclose their ID. Public Officials don't enjoy the same privacy rights as citizens but then again you should already know that.
That being said, I do have to respect your stance of having permission before releasing names. However I believe you guys should have held off on posting this until you had permission to publish names and sources.
Hi: I will tell you this
Your wrong on names they can be with held back if need be i know of this personally!
And here again what are we suppose to tell or show you then if the fcc will not give us proof on
written documents to show you guys!
When you have the answer to that please let us know.
Station 8
To Jeff (Station 8):
Listening to your statements in the Teamspeak audio posted by Carl Blare, you/your group are promoting the testing of FM transmitter systems producing fields above 250 µV/m at a distance of 3 meters from the transmit antenna. -- the limit of FCC §15.239. The stated purpose was to determine (and hopefully prove?) that doing so would not cause objectionable interference to licensed FM broadcast stations.
Just to note that legal and unlicensed systems operating under, and exactly meeting the present §15.239 field limit already are capable of causing objectionable interference to the weak, distant signals of licensed FM broadcast stations.
Increasing the transmitter output power to the 1, 5 or 10 watts you mentioned will only add to the interference those systems can produce.
RE: Reply 27 clip "...And here again what are we suppose to tell or show you then if the fcc will not give us proof on written documents to show you guys! ..."
Suggest that you don't post or discuss statements that you are not prepared to prove. Doing so is (much) reducing the credibility of you and your group of supporters.
>> Quote: we got the answer right from an FCC agent that was in the part 15 department. <<
There's a Part 15 department?
§15.1 Scope of this part.
(a) This part sets out the regulations under which an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator may be operated without an individual license. It also contains the technical specifications, administrative requirements and other conditions relating to the marketing of part 15 devices.
(b) The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, unless otherwise exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this chapter.
(c) Unless specifically exempted, the operation or marketing of an intentional or unintentional radiator that is not in compliance with the administrative and technical provisions in this part, including prior Commission authorization or verification, as appropriate, is prohibited under section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and subpart I of part 2 of this chapter. The equipment authorization and verification procedures are detailed in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.
So long as part 15 rules are observed you are permitted to operate without an individual license from the FCC you are still licensed by rule though similar to part 95 (CB, FRS, MURS) services.
as determined by recent court cases anything outside of part 15 rules even at power levels not licensed by the FCC but still outside the part rules is pirate. offshore broadcasting in iternational waters is no longer a legal loophole either. al weiner of RNI attempted proved that theory and lost. so all we have is part 15 or a licensed full power facility.