More studies from me tonight as I've bookmarked the total list of field NOUO's. I can see more clearly why even asking for 1,000 uV/M @ 3 meters may get shot down the first second the petition is created. Maryland didn't even publish the field strength but lots of activity in NY around the Brooklyn and Bronx areas. All well below 1,000 uV/M at 3 meters. This message seems to ring in my head loud and clear that soon the only place to play Radio will be AM. I don't even think we can get 87.9 temporarily out of the gray areas. Field strengths in the 600's will get you busted I'm sure even 300-400 would as well. I'm sure it was not a Whole House FM Transmitter at the secret power level. At this rate more like a Belkin with a wire soldered to the PC board as an antenna or C. Crane with a lead wire clipped to the antenna without turning up the put. Some of the 700 and above may have been a certified transmitter like the Whole House FM Transmitter modified or at secret power. Question too is what about the Ramsey transmitters we know are just a little higher than 250 uV/m? I could not understand why folks were dead set against the PRO FM movement or initiative and now that I had a chance to calm down, Study, Look, Listen and meditate on what the information should be saying to me is that trying to get more field strength for every user in all cities of the USA will NEVER work. I'm sure only if we had 87.9 Mhz it may have been possible or petition the FCC to allow 1,000 uV/M on a city by city basis. How would anyone do this? I'm just thinking of soon giving up FM I'm sorry but it might not be a good idea and it really seems like it could be a waste no matter how bad we really want this and believe me I WANT THIS. But studies show me little chance with all the translators and more AM stations wanting to be on FM. I'm going to continue to see what the Talking House AM transmitter will do. So far my FM signals are not gaining me any extra listeners in my local area as no one locally contacted me by the Rockline and NO Elizabeth City NC IP's are showing up in the stats of Icecast V2. It tells me that the range I am getting on FM isn't enough to get people to hear me to try my Internet station which was my intent in the first place. And I'm not jacking up my FM power. If anything I'll lower the FM power to the -48dbm setting on the SainSonic AX-05B and use the 87.9 Mhz only as a link to the AM transmitter or better yet try and use my own Wifi trick to link it to a smartphone that is not active and plug it into the AM Transmitter and put the AM transmitter on the second floor as Station8 suggested. I'll still try with the petition if you guys want but as Tim says Music and just because we want to be heard won't work and now that I published the WiFi trick the FCC may simply tell us to try Wifi Radio or AM or Internet Radio instead. Again it hurts me to have to admit defeat here. I'm not one to give up easily. But if I thought I'd win i'd keep pushing ra ra ra but really I'd go down as an insane maniac who wants Power over the airwaves. I don't condone this jamming of other stations and wars either. If we increase the strength for FM without the forcing the manufacturers to have the scan before transmitting done we'll really mess up FM worse than it is already for many of the US citizens living in metro areas. That too is something I can't live with either. I had to fight myself as I write this. Its against every bone in my body to admit this fact but guys its true. Its not the fault of NAB, SBE, whatever whatever its a fact of science 101. More people means more stations, more inter mod, more possible RF interference. We'd have a better chance at forcing the manufacturers of receivers to start filtering the Radio's better and be more sensitive for AM and FM. This will help some. Even that stands a chance of getting shot down but its less insane that the making High Power part 15 FM for everyone. Secondary service well we learned about LP-10. Heck even LPFM is in jeopardy. Lets try and work with AM and come up with ways to improve it. Album Rockers will just have to deal with the laws that be and science. They want Stereo buy an AM stereo receiver. They could start donating to my station not just one company that has been giving $100-200 a pop for the equipment I use to run my station. That one company has done a lot just wish others would help and not complain when my Internet acts up and some skipping happens. I know Progressive Rock is picky but if they don't pay the bills I say they should not complain about Mono till I can figure out AM Stereo. Like I said if you want to push on we'll see where it goes but I'm getting Emails from people who don't want to lose what they have and really don't want to have me push so hard. So with that from what I've learned it just won't get us more power on FM. Now if I got it wrong tell me and we'll try a strategy. But how do you deal with these facts?
To make matters worse, late next year when the FCC starts to repack TV stations, you're going to see a lot of stations back on channels 5 and 6. As some of you know, the Commission is even considering letting LPTV stations on channel 6 broadcast an analog audio stream along with digital video. One channel offering both DTV and FM radio at 3 kW ERP (if you can find a LPTV VHF ch. 6 CP for sale, grab it). Say goodbye to 87.7-87.9.
That's why I have advocated asking the FCC to open up other bands to commercial broadcasting. The Europeans are already considering opening up the 26 MHz band for domestic use with DRM. For the US, that would mean 43-10 kHz channels. With DRM you can get 2 audio streams of programming on 10 kHz. There may even be a part 15 component to that proposal as well.
If not the 26 MHz or other HF bands, consider petitioning the FCC to create an LPAM service and include 1710 in that service. We all know about the Baumgartner and Schellhardt petitions (RM-11287). Maybe it's time to revisit those and re-energize them.
But the FM band is overcrowded and jealously guarded by licensed broadcasters. Time to consider other alternatives.
Carmine 5: Yes I'm with you on that. 26 Mhz would be great. I've heard those FM transmitters down there that they use for the helicopters doing traffic reports for an AM Radio station WFLA in Florida. This was while I was in Michigan. What a nice idea for part 15. We can still have a part 15 initiative, but just not focused on FM anymore as I think that horse is dead and rotting. Time to bury the stinking horse and move on to greener pastures for the good of all of part 15 and Radio in general. After revisiting my rants about FM it did look a little silly now that the calm has happened after the huge sh*t storm. Now time to spray the Frabrease and move to clean fresh air and tranquility once again. And life will continue just fine for part 15 Radio. And just maybe we could have a band that we get a few places on the dial. I'm sure the FCC would love to get some data if we propose a new band for broadcast with a few channels of hobby far enough away to not cause harmonics. I still urge you to read my newest kick in the seat about the SainSonic called -48 DBM I can't remember the exact name. So much over whelming stuff traveling in my mind short circuiting my brain. I really have this Radio bug thing.
What are these NOUOs that you found? Can you link the specific ones?
EDIT: Found them. Why was another thread created?
I don't like this defeatest attitude. Just because NOUOs were given for under 1000uv doesn't mean the rules still can't be changed. What do you expect the FCC to do? Just ignore it while 250 is still the rule?
I replied under Closest Pirate to part 15. Look please read this about what it takes to be an activist. I want this, but seemed like there was a lack of guts in the initiative. Now I'm not condoning Piracy but some of what I say is just part of being an activist as I've been an activist before for the legalization of an ad supported solution for file sharing including a technology our organization invented called AEM (Ads Enforcement Management) where you could Download, Share, copy, anything you want all for FREE. But there would be an ad before each song plays until either they recipient of that file pays for the song, or it plays the ad enough times to pay for that one song. We figured 400 times or more to pay the royalties to the artists. I'm not going to get into all the arguments about how we all want a FREE Ride I heard that enough during my 12 years of hearing that same tired argument. My point is that if and that is a BIG IF any of you want this initiative to become a reality it means true grit and dirty GUTS 9-5 stidy, petitioning, protesting, data to prove the opposing side is dead wrong and you have clout to back up your arguments. And being an activist does not mean wishy washy once your in next your out and not being consistent with it. It means struggles a total commitment to get the goal achieved through testing, study, homework, and right on the mark quick rebuttals to any argument against your initiative. Anything against you kick it in the bud. This I know from my association with the organizations fighting for fair use and free musical culture and the fact that Digital music was the future. But even services like Rhapsody, Spotify was set to fail by not allowing them to have the entire musical catalog when you pay for the service. When protesting we heard every day for the last 12 years “All you want is a free ride!” Our proposals were shot down for many years until Spiralfrog an organization before Spotify took our idea and tried it. Royalties were paid via the ads and you had to log into Spiralfrog once per month for your songs to continue to work. All free and paying the artists. The Idea was part of my idea which I rallied for constantly day and night 9-5 M-F no if and or but. Then the organization to which we were trying to deal with as adults wanted MORE money and Spiralfrog folded. Now its Spotify but this time they had a global establishment. They took our idea and you have Fremium music with ads support which pays the PRO's. I'm trying to explain this without taking the topic away from part 15 and more about the music industry and the rights activists. But the activist group I was in got slammed every step of the way. And we even dealt with politicians who could easily be bribed (they call it lobbying). So too any organization that may not like the FM initiative or part 15 initiative can and often will practice the same type of tactics. So are you prepared to deal with that? Now we also have to deal with the facts too that some of these transmitters are likely a (as Carl put it so nicely) spectoral nightmare. If we can't find good transmitters and educate the part 15 community which ones are great and which ones to stay away from with tests to back it up we're gonna look ridicules an any ra ra ra fight fight fight stance. If what happened yesterday because of misunderstanding cause people to want to quit the initiative when things are getting interesting happens just wen we're ready to meat the opposition then we have no hope of any petition getting passed. I'm sure if Jeffery Gill seen this post he'd tell us its a hared road and tough sell. And we need to figure out if everyone should have equal access to the higher power extended part 15 FM transmitters or not. Looking at the study of these FM transmitters and forcing manufacturers to go back to the 3-5 inches from the antenna like Serious and XM how likely is it we can urge the FCC and congress to urge the FCC that its not fair that us hobbyists can't broadcast outside of our homes? What changed that all of a sudden we have the worthy attention of the FCC? Maybe my idea of forcing the mandatory scan before transmitting could have a better effect. Who is going to construct the transmitter for us? Who is going to do the uV/M test to prove that not all transmitters that are certified even meet the max of 250 uV/m at 3 meters? Who is going to show the range of a legal transmitter at 100% legal power now? How can we show this may decrease the effect of already poorly made transmitters from being used instead of the newly certified units. I want this really bad, but unless there is 100% guts in the group without waiver we don't have a part 15 initiative that will make FM available to the hobby Radio operator. Already I hear FREE Ride initiative with that too. Expect litigation for quite some time to come up with an idea that the opposite organizations who their job is to Guard FM for every inch of their lives. Their going to throw FREE Ride out there and criticize you at every turn that Is their job just as its our job to rebut, prove their wrong, show the public their motive for proving us wrong and make certain each time we win a point its known. There would need to be a way to have once each point is proven posted public and yet a private site so we can say what we want without fear of lawsuit while we hash out why we are angry about certain things said about us and how we nip it in the bud. It takes pure T whits here too. Then you have some who are in Radio already who don't want the embarrassment of being a part of what we are trying to do for fear of their jobs. And companies may threaten your job security if you are a part of any sort of part 15 initiative which I'm not sure anyone has thought of. In the organization I was in some had to use alias names and be clear of the parties who could find out and threaten their jobs. Some folks who were a part of ISP's helped us underhandedly of course. Just some food for thought.
I'm all for the construction of any part 15 initiative. But be for warned its not a fun and games aspect. It can seem personal at times too. Are you ready for the BIG TIME? If so come walk with the big dogs or stay on the back porch as the saying goes.
I have never seen the FM initiative as activist. If it was then I would not be interested. There is a time and place for activism, when all else has failed, and for really important social issues, but this is not that time. If that confrontational approach is taken, then all you will do is piss off (sorry for that term but it is the most accurate) those who you want to convince. There is a well defined method of achieving what is wanted and no one has said no yet. Finally, all I have heard is talk. I was prepared to help write the petition (even though I am not in the US) and asked people to help but no one has come forward with anything tangible other than Tim. It is time to actually do something in a reasoned and professional manner. Or move on to other topics of discussion.
I agree not to jump to activist maybe its not a good term for what we need to do but I'm not good at it. OK I realize the think tank process needs to happen and I am in on this too. I'm willing to try my best to make it work. But We'll have to see how it all plays out. Sometimes I don't have the answers I'll not pretend to. But I do know its a long hall. Its what I'm getting at. And the organization I was in did try at first to reason without pissing others off. So right now we are still in the study process and trying to see who is all in on the process of petition writing when it is time and we all weould have to agree when that time finally becomes.
I completely inderstand Artisan's backing away from the term "activist" because it is no doubt equated with demonstrators, picketers, placard carriers and strikers.
When I used the term back awhile ago I meant it in the more personal sense of "taking action" versus being merely "passive" on the FM initiative.
To repeat myself as to my position on the Pro FM Initiative, I support in principle the increase of 15.239 to match Canadian BETS.
I have also posted opinions about 15.239, calling it "a joke" on the part of the FCC, giving such a silly low power making it virtually useless even for decent home use.
And, stepping close to a semi-active participation I have offered to serve as "an adviser" in the petition process, which in a sense I have been doing all along with my comments.
As far as written proposals are concerned the most I can offer is to proof-read what the team composes, looking for opportunities to suggest edits.
Whereas many have offered tips and ideas toward the Pro FM Initiative, it seems the truth is that we lack the numbers of passionately interested parties to really get on this and make a push.
I detect a tendency toward impatience and quickness to throw in the towel and call it quits.
Finally, I won't change my thinking until the ALPB puts it to discussion on September 5th at the next meeting.
The FCC probably knows about our feelings that the FM rules are rediculously too limiting. Radio8z said in a post a while back that the FCC does read this forum, and I'm sure they know all about Canada and BETS. I think that if the rules were relaxed a bit to allow at least the same as Canada there would be a lot less disobedience and a more willingness to obey the rules since they would be more reasonable.
Mark
I agree with that. It was stated on some so called Pirate Radio sites where as some folks didn't want to cover even as much as LPFM. So does the FCC consider those statements as proof or would we have to take a pole via a third party study group as proof to the FCC with pure T facts?
Mr Blare wrote in Reply #8 above: ... I have also posted opinions about 15.239, calling it "a joke" on the part of the FCC, giving such a silly low power making it virtually useless even for decent home use. ...
It is true that, while the legal, unlicensed, radiated fields permitted by FCC §15.239 are inadequate for useful "broadcast" reception by typical, indoor, consumer-level receivers more than 100 feet or so away, that does not mean the FCC was playing "a joke" when it enacted §15.239.
Systems compliant with FCC §15.239 do permit low-noise, wireless connectivity between the electrical output(s) of an audio source to FM receivers close enough to that (legal) transmit system.* An example from the past would be to send the mono audio signal from a record player to a nearby FM receiver in the same home.
AFAIK, there is no evidence that the FCC intended §15.239 setups to serve as micro- or mini-broadcast stations, serving the surrounding neighborhood for a radius of several hundreds or thousands of feet.
*This appears to be supported by Mr Blare from his posted use of a presumably legal Part 15 FM setup as a program link serving his Part 15 AM transmitter.
The FCC attempted to Normalize Canada and the United States during the Part 15 Subpart J write-up. A good place to start maybe?
I must be missing something as I googled this and it talks about interference caused by computing devices. I didn't see anything on field strength. Just wondering what I'm missing and how this can relate to FM transmitting.
We're just going around in circles with all the petition talk.
At this point, I believe the only way to solidify a position is to get a group together that will write the petition. I wasn't attempting to shame anyone into volunteering or not volunteering.
That being said, if there's really not enough interest, I'm more than happy to work on other things (I'm in the middle of setting up a ProCaster to compare its results with that of my Decade MS-100 at my current location).
While you make a point with regard to very close-together transmit-reception scenarios that perform well with a certified transmitter, my expressed disatisfaction with the field strength as-it-is does not amount to the counterpart to "broadcasting to the public."
My interest in slightly better power allowance reasonabley seeks enough strength to reach other rooms of the house and some portion of the yard outdoors.
It's weaker than it needs to be and I find it insulting.