The History of WXTZ is a wonderful Wikipedia entry.
The station is a noble idea and did not deserve such snarly crude treatment, but certain types of people are only able to be creative through cruelty. The web is an easy place to punk it up.
And some people claim that the FCC is over-zealous going after Part 15 radio stations (oh, actually, it's the same people that went after Bruce!). If anyone has a problem with a particular radio station, let the FCC take care of it, if you must get involved, but don't set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.
Anyway, I can understand your frustration, Bruce, but believe me, it's not worth it. While I don't have access to the private members page 'over there' (nor do I want to), all you have to do to get the lay of the land is to read several threads. Given their egos, attitudes and biases, why should anyone really active in and serious about Part 15 broadcasting care what their inner circle thinks?
[Cut to a recent thread 'over there'. Someone's Part 15 station had been vandalized, and good ol' Bill responded (with not a shred of proof) by saying that it was probably a frustrated amateur radio operator that did it!? In the discussions following that somewhat interesting remark, it came out that the inner circle didn't appear to have much respect for amateur radio operators, and that translated to their opinions. LOL!]
I will respond to particularly stupid remarks I read anywhere - that's just the way I am - but life's too short to get twisted up over it.
Internet radio is a great way to go, as long as you get the copyright issues sorted out (which you appear to be doing, as evidenced in your Facebook page). You have the potential for a lot more listeners, if that is your goal, and it can still be community oriented.
And you can still supplement it with a Part 15 AM broadcast, which has the potential of 1 mile + range. Use a certified transmitter, ensure that your antenna+ground+feedline is at most 3 meters, and there should be no issues with the FCC (although you always have the troll problem).
Good luck, and consider joining the ALPB - it's probably the ONLY group I've ever been involved in that doesn't have their own particular axe to grind.
Thank you Artisan for speaking well of the ALPB, you are one of the reasons the ALPB is like it is because you were in at the beginning helping to establish the Charter which describes in plain English what the organization is all about.
During the first meetings the ALPB talkked about having a "private members page" and we asked the question, "What would be the purpose of a private page?"
We decided that the only possible reason to have a private members page would be to talk behind the backs of non-members, say unkind things, plot schemes to carry out without anyone knowing what we were up to.
We voted unanimously to NOT have a private members page!
The KKK has a private member's page.
I have saved the thread as I had warned Bill I was going to do, so it can be viewed without access to his site. I don't think he believed me, but you can save a web page on your hard drive without ever needing access to the site again to view it. It clearly shows the whole thread along with photos and avatars. I have an image of the post where Bill accuses me by name and also hosted my Facebook cover photo showing my studio equipment, stating the pirate radio station in question and my equipment that I talked about on his site matched each other, so, see he knew it was me before I spoke up to defend myself.
I see no way to share a picture here without hosting it elsewhere.
Trust me when I tell you, one of Bill's spies has already seen this and are talking about it over there at that toybox web site, that's how it's always been over there, bunch of backstabbers following Hitler.
I also know for a fact that they are trolling my facebook page because we posted a link to his site and used his name and called him an AS*HOLE without the * and this jerk emailed me a threatening email 30 minutes later, that is proof he is monitoring the stations Facebook page. Were no longer on the FM band, why is this jerk still monitoring our page? I'll tell you why, first it's because he wants to be a HERO, the one who claims he caught a pirate, it's also because he thinks if he hangs on our page, we'll start posting we've resumed operations on 87.9MHz.
He's afraid he'll miss out on catching our relaunch on the FM band as a pirate and Ray F Burns? He's another piece of work, sounds like a 5 year old saying we caught a pirate! We caught a pirate! Do I get a prize?
Bill claims Ray F Burns is an engineer??? Bill claims he is an engineer? and Who the hell is Tom Terrell? If they were REAL engineers, they would have located the FM transmitter not the studios. The FCC usually conducts a visit to confirm the target building houses the actual transmitter in question. These knuckle heads picked a building with legit UHF television 4 bay and 8 bay antennas which were for HDTV reception and a legit radio shack scanner antenna which was connected to a Realistic Pro-2006 400 channel scanner, not any broadcast equipment.
Guys, I used to be a die hard CB'er years ago and one mistake we used to make when tracking down a trouble maker on the CB band was homing in on any building with a visible vertical antenna, sometimes we picked the wrong house because the trouble maker was mobile not base. So we almost got ourselves arrested for harassing the wrong party.
Besides, if I WAS broadcasting on the FM broadcast band, I would not have used a vertically polarized antenna, it would have been horizontally polarized. To my understanding, from two sources, they used horizontal polarization not vertical.
I'll say it again, we publicized a valid phone number, none of this people, neither engineers or station complainants ever tried calling that phone number requesting access to our studios, so further accusations being made against us could be put to rest. We welcomed visitors and we also encouraged those visits! Instead of doing that, these jokers supposedly sat out there somewhere monitoring the station.
Even the FCC lets a station know something isn't right with the station's operations, this was never done. The supposed radio station making the complaint never made an attempt to contact us. And Bill mentioned there was a complaint of interference, the transmitters were supposed to be on 87.9 to avoid transmitting on a channel already in use by a licensed station, if the transmitters were on 87.9, what other station was also on 87.9? As far as I knew, no one ever experienced any interference on another channel across the FM band. In other words, while each transmitter was on air, the operators tuned up the FM band looking for a second image in the upper FM band and the aviation bands above 108.0
I personally do not think anyone complained, I think a licensed radio station caught wind of us and feared competition from us and wanted us shut down because part 15 stations have no rights or legs to stand on when a licensed station complains about you. You know the ole' rule, you can not interfere with them, but they can interfere with you and even shut you down rule?
My station was very publicly known station, so it wasn't hard for anyone in Norwich or nationwide to know we existed. Even our facebook page got visits from across the US and overseas.
Where Bill thinks he is helping the development of Part 15, he is actually hurting it, by boldly showing the FCC that people being allowed part 15 devices WILL eventually break the law. Instead of saying if the FCC lightens up and allows a little bit more field strength, there would be less people getting cited for violations concerning being slightly over the limit.
Yes I know, we'll always have someone say the more room you give people, the more room they will want. I still think the FM band should be allowed more then 250 uV @ 3 Meters, but that is a totally different argument I wish NOT to start here.
The hobbybroadcaster website is irrelevant. Don't worry about their accusations - I'm sure that they have absolutely no influence with the FCC, particularly with regards to what you have done and/or are doing. Let them play their little games in their little sandbox.
Meanwhile, in the real world of Part 15 broadcasting, this website, its members and the ALPB will continue forging forward.
So, welcome! There are a number of people here that have had Internet streams for quite a while, including myself, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
And remember, don't let the turkeys get you down.
I heard that Turkey and Greece are merging and the new country will be named Turkey Greece.
Good God, he really pissed someone off have a look http://radioinsight.com/community/topic/fm-pirate-in-norwich-on-87-9/
Also speaking of legal, wasn't Bill upset that one transmitter he wanted to include in his transmitter challenge was a kit to which he wanted sent to him already in an assembled state by the author, where it is clearly against US federal law to mail assembled kits in the USA? Am I correct about that?
It is illegal to sell and mail assembled kits in the U.S., as they're not certified. Not so sure about just mailing them for evaluation. A grey area, to be sure.
But herein lies the issue (back to topic) of the previous and perhaps current transmitter reviews. Flawed methodology.
If you're going to evaluate a kit transmitter, you have to first assemble it. Bill had to obtain an already assembled kit from some unknown individual, as he could not get one from the manufacturer. Why is immaterial. This transmitter had unknown build quality (as opposed to the other transmitters that he obtained directly from the manufacturer or distributor). In fact, he really didn't know if the AMT5000 he had was working correctly or not.
So when the transmitter performed not quite as well as expected, what do you do? Answer - in a true, unbiased, test, when you really don't know what you have, you get another example, try that one out and compare results. But he didn't do that. Instead, he just published the initial results with the implied statement that this transmitter was inferior to the rest.
That flies in the face of numerous ancedotal reports of actual use of the AMT5000 in the field by Part 15 broadcasters.
In actual fact, there were a number of reasons why the AMT5000 could have performed poorly in that little test. It could have been that the particular example of the AMT5000 was not built correctly, or not adequately. It could have been that the tester didn't understand how to correctly tune the transmitter - Bill admitted in subsequent postings in various forums just that (but, of course, he blamed the documentation as opposed to not actually going out and getting the information). Or it could have been any number of other factors.
It was only after hammering away at this issue for weeks that a plausible hypothesis was put forward - that the AMT5000 may not do as well as the other transmitters with a relatively poor ground, but that it might do as well or better than those other transmitters with a better one. It certainly has the theoretical capability to do better (i.e., the improvement in the 5000 might not be linear in comparison to the other transmitters).
Of course, that hypothesis was never tested.
I hope in the upcoming review of the 5000 that it's given a fair shake, both with poor and good grounds. I also hope that repeatability is considered (particularly since this is a kit transmitter) and several examples are tested.
Otherwise, why bother?
Two cars are each capable of moving at the posted speed limit.
Which car is better?
The one with the blonde in it.
The AMT5000 comes with a blonde in it.
They never even mentioned that.
I advocate for 'homebrew' transmitter construction to make its return, with simple reference design transmitters using common parts. That would knock some people back in their place, or at least provide an alternative and you'd learn something valuable too.
(channeling Dad)
Would-be broadcasters have become pansies these days, thinking that a pricy, store-bought transmitter is the only way to go when in the old days teens would build Knight Phono Oscillators and have a blast broadcasting to their friends around the neighborhood using a kit that cost $10 and used actual tubes with high voltages. I only built a crystal radio receiver on a piece of wood at camp that long ago, not a transmitter, but I learned about radio from that.
I'd like the hobbyists on these sites collaborate on developing a part 15 am transmitter reference design that most could build, and put it out as an open book for the community. Surely with all of the engineers assembled here it could be done, a good easy transmitter, modulator, and coupler design. Someone could even cad up boards and offer them, as Radio Electronics used to do for their circuits.
Agreed Neil.
No you are not.