The two Initiative/Petition Projects are healthy for the Part 15 hobby because the processes are very educational. We are learning a lot about the rules, technology and philosophies behind the the entire structure of how "Part 15" is put together.
The rules can be daunting for hobbyists unschooled in legal and technical language, except the more simplified rules like 15.219 and a few others, which are written at a child's level; for example I understood "10-foot antenna" when I was 9-years old.
Technology gets murky for anyone without college level physics and mathematics, so we try to do what we can with "200-feet" and other simple measurements.
Philosophy is a higher level of intellect where we take an overview of what we're doing and answer questions about why we're doing it. It would be helpful if FCC rules contained a philosophy section explaining the reasoning for providing legal low power transmission by individuals.
If there were a philosophy section in the FCC rules I think it would explain that the Part 15 "Intentional Radiator" rules were intended to provide a personal radio voice for individual people and those in their immediate circle. In the same way a person can throw his/her voice for up to 200-feet, with Part 15 one can throw an electronic voice to about the same distance.
15.219 allows a shout, whereas 15.239 is closer to a whisper.
the whole petition idea at both forums is beginnng to flounder for various reasons.
me and @Artisan Radio seem to be the only two really serious about putting somehting together and sticking with the effort.
it is what it is.
i'll leave forum and library up and if someday we get a group of smart techically minded people who want to take the effort seriosuly it will still be there 🙂
the forum started out great lots of good on topic dialogue, but has seemd to taper off already.
i do encourage everyone to register over there (especially newcomers to part 15) though and take advantage of the vast resource library. there is lots of good info there that will not be censored only to chosen ones who reach a certain level like another forum does.
if Niel or JP are interested i would be happy if JP would provide a FTP account for me and some kind of guide to convert BB Code to what code this forum will accept and would duplicate the library here as well.
the library should be in multiple places to garuntee it's long lasting availability. i want it to be available to all.
I personally do not think everyone has lost interest, I think a lot of us lack the actual legal knowledge to make any legal proposition and might also lack the technical knowledge needed to present such proposals in terms that sound professional.
I would love to help, I just lack the knowledge.
Knowing how ohms law works, knowing how to solder a wire, knowing how to talk or write does not mean I know how to contribute to these petitions as far as offering professional input.
Perhaps, we need to invite more engineers into the crowd, there are forum boards where engineers hang out.
If you lack that information, I can try to provide some sites, where you can invite the members to join your forum board and perhaps, if the purpose is a good one, they might join in and offer some advice.
What you really need here is engineers, who understand radio broadcasting to the fullest.
I do know, Bill DeFelice of Hobbybroadcaster hangs out in some of the engineer related forum boards, which relate to licensed broadcast stations. His support of part 15 is good, as far as asking for more power or more range, I believe, he might agree with it, if it can be done without causing interference to licensed broadcasters or safety systems such as EAS, or air ports.
Perhaps, there is a possibilty, that some radio service is possible, if the right thoughts are put on the table and everyone sees a potentially good idea that can possibly be done or legalized that won't cause any new problems with the current state of the public broadcast bands.
If your proposition is a sensible one, does not cause interference, interfer with safety systems, has a purpose that supplements or supports the current systems in place, I think people will listen who have that knowledge and participate in the cause.
I want to caution you though, some people won't be willing to leave their favorite forum board to join yours. So perhaps in this case, it would be better to meet with them on their turf and create a topic there and discuss your proposals and wait for their professional input.
If you offer an invite and they join your forum, that is also a plus.
Bruce.
Part 15 Engineer I'm responding to your Post # 15 Titled: "I Think"...
In Post # 16 MrBruce stated a key fact that applies to many of us; to paraphrase: "We do not have the knowledge to make useful suggestions."
As a member of both initiative/petition sites, I visit them daily and follow the comments.
I have yet to post in either place because I literally cannot think of anything to say that would get things past the present status.
Many wish lists have been written naming frequency bands and power levels that would be desirable for expansion.
I don't have a wish list but have e-mailed Artisan a few opinions I have about modifications that I think would be reasonable.
The contribution from Michelle at REC has flooded the engine with a view from space informing us that International Frequency Allocation Agreements are involved, something we didn't anticipate. We thought all we had to do was say the right things to the FCC.
My biggest problem is that I'm able to live comfortably within the rules as they are, but I also understand why some might desire more range and I don't believe the rules we have are Commandments of God that cannot be changed lest the Devil gets released from Hell.
My Input is this: Keep those initiative/petition threads going and think months or even years... it's a fabulous learning experience.
I still have interest, I'm just not entirely sure where to proceed at the moment. I'm still leaning on shortwave personally. Anything to get the foot in the door.
I disagree with a some of the comments posted.
I don't believe that the problem is lack of engineers. We actually have several individuals participating who I would put against any so-called 'professional' engineer out there. Would more be preferable. Sure, the more the merrier. But it's not lack of technical knowledge that's holding this thing back.
I also don't think that it's lack of knowledge of the FCC or radio spectrum allocations or who to liase with, or anything like that. Were we missing a few things. Sure - that's to be expected at this stage of the game. REC(Net) filled in a few blanks, but at this stage of the game, a lot of those details aren't really important (I'll explain that in a minute). We would have come across that same knowledge pretty quickly in any event.
I think the real issue is organizational structure, and lack of a methodology to get something done. That starts with the process to decide what to do, all the way through to who should actually do what, when and how.
Right now, everyone has an opinion as to what should be done. Those opinions are all over the map. Some may have some legs, others not so much. And around in a big circle we keep going.
Moving even backwards from that, there are really no objectives. Are these initiatives or petitions aimed at producing the best argument to get something accepted (the realistic approach), or are they just asking for as much as possible and hoping (the wing and the prayer approach)? Is the eventual plan to get more listeners and better compete with the big boys, or to experiment, both technically and with programming? You don't have any criteria to make decisions on what to do if you don't agree on the objectives.
I keep on saying - this is not rocket science. There are some well understood (but not often followed) methods to get from the start (where we still are now) to the finish (petition document produced and presented).
It always looks more formidable at the beginning, particularly if you're in chaos (which we are). If I can use an analogy, it's kind of like running a marathon. You want to run one - it would be really cool, get you in shape, etc. Thinking about running 26.21875 miles in one go is almost mind boggling (that 0.21875 miles at the end really is significant, by the way, at least from my experience). But if you plan properly and train properly, and think of it as running 1 mile 26 (and a bit) times, it's not so bad. Trying to do it all at once without that planning and training is just a recipe for disaster.
As for REC(Net), I think that most here were kind of overwhelmed by their apparent experience in the broadcast industry, and their participation in previous petitions, and their confident, almost arrogant, pronouncements. But it has to be understood that they are only one organization of many 'out there' who are involved with radio, low power or otherwise, and I don't think that the FCC listens to them any more than anyone else, at least from what I've been able to gather. If they do listen, it's because their arguments are sound and their approach and documents are professional. That, anybody can do.
And we also don't know what the objectives of REC(Net) are in getting involved with Part 15 efforts. Their primary focus seems to be LPFM, and the establishment of an LPAM service. So it may be to their advantage to hold back some Part 15 efforts, even though they say they support a loosening of antenna restrictions in the AM X-Band (back in 2003, they stated explicitly that they did not support any loosening of Part 15 AM rules, and one of the reasons was their attempt to establish that LPAM service).
While I welcome anyone supporting these efforts, we have to be careful in understanding what they hope to achieve (and not achieve). At the end of the day, this has to be a Part 15-led initiative/petition. Whatever it ends up containing. And if it ends up at all.
So, I'm not as negative as others. I still think that there is a chance that something can be done, somewhere. But you have to get the groundwork established before jumping in with your ideas. To continue on with my analogy, flawed as it might be, you have to get that training schedule in place before actually running.
Maybe third time will be lucky.
you appear to be on good terms with HB.net
maybe you can extend a invitation to bill and other at HB to come over and contribute to the petition discussions.
i bet bill would have just as much to add as rich would if he were to come over.
i agree with AR we still don't know where RECNet's interest lie but as long as they are adding constructive dialogue they are as welcome as anybody else.
When the first initiative was conceived I already suggested Artisan as project leade because of the organizational skils he offers, as long as his leadership is accepted.
Part 15 folks are able to respond to leadership as we've seen with the ALPB. At the very beginning of ALPB Bob MRAM took control as Chairman, and each week everyone follows the format and things run very smoothly. That's the kind of teamwork Artisan will bring to the petition efforts if everyone accepts his framework.
Part 15 Engineer has a highly worthwhile idea in building a bridge with hobbybroadcaster. They have commented from afar, they would certainly add dimension to a combined effort, and the part 15 community would finally have a unified front.
Just stuff old disagreements into a shoebox and put it down in the basement.
Part 15 Engineer has posed the idea to Retro Radio, but if Retro isn't available I know another good diplomacy man if he's interested... a guy who could be our "John Kerry" (only far less boring) and negotiate with hobbycasters. Can you guess who it is? His last name rhymes with "Towers".
ArtisanRadio I read your entire post and have read many posts made by others here in this forum.
Not filling this post with with proof of other people's lack of this or that, but I do see a lack in every member's abilities.
We all want to get a petition going, but, if some members lack the true knowledge of what they are signing and supporting and they can't answer the question, then one would ask why did you sign off to something you did not fully understand?
Okay, I won't drag anyone else's name through the mud, but do you really think I understand everything Rich posts in his graphs? Actually I don't. There are other things people post about and to be honest, I do not fully understand what they are talking about.
Some of you have some strengths and some of you have weaknesses, but not everyone is gifted enough to understand what another person understands, our level of understanding is not created equal.
I can tell by member participation, that some people are just great on air talent, but understand very little in the real world of the technical field of terrestrial broadcasting, or they are very limited in that field, but are otherwise great at everything else radio.
I think a lot of people are willing to learn, but those people might be still green behind the ears when it comes to the engineering part of broadcast radio and have not yet reached that level of understanding.
Some of the suggestions I have seen, some of the requests I have seen posted on these and other forums, I have to be honest, I have no clue what you are asking for when you start suggesting Long Wave or Short Wave broadcasting as part of the request.
I can not provide an educated answer or respond to your request about those wave lengths, because I have been studying everything AM and FM broadcast related so I have a clear understanding what I am saying when it comes to that part of the initive.
What I am really trying to say is just because you understand English fluently, does not mean everyone else does.
Engineers are engineers because they made a career of being such and have some type of degree behind them, to back up their level of knowledge. I doubt very much, if a licensed station would hire me, just because I know how to turn on a radio, I believe they would expect me to have some proof of an education in the broadcast engineering field.
That being said, if ever in thee event we are asked a techical question, someone better have their words professionally in the right order, or they will be laughed out of the room by the opposing group of nay sayers.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like a few engineers on the crew before anything is pushed forward. Would you bring a back yard auto mechanic to your court trial or a lawyer? I'd rather bring the lawyer to tell you the truth, because the back yard mechanic knows nothing about law and the lawyer to be licensed, obviously must have spent 4 years in law school to be such.
We need teachers to teach the less knowledgeable people, but before anyone signs a petition, they have to have some clear understanding of what they are signing, for it to count.
I shouldn't bring the LPFM-AG intitive into this, but they made many, many mistakes in their request for increased power and the right to play commercials like commercial stations do, but I am not here to bash or make fun of them, so I really should not use them as an example. Let us not be the next to use piss poor examples asking for change.
Bruce.
Bruce, there ARE engineers involved. I don't claim to know exactly what they're saying all the time, but we do have those skills. More would be nice but that's not the problem as I see it.
What I DO understand is project management and how to get things done. That's where I believe the issues are right now.
Technical issues are rarely the cause of project failure. Almost never, in fact. It's almost always project, process and people management. They're the 'soft' skills that everyone says are common sense, but rarely are they fully understood and followed. They're imprecise, often messy and difficult to measure.
While I'm not diminishing technical skills and experience in the slightest, as they're absolutely necessary, they're also the most precise, exact and easy to measure (and also the most fun with the kinds of people involved in this hobby). As a result, it is perfectly natural to jump right in, feet first, with the technical stuff. And while a lot may be learned, and lots of interesting discussions may ensue, nothing tangible gets done. Because you haven't taken the time to understand what it is you want to do, and how you want to do it.
And if that's OK with everyone, that's great. But if you want to actually get a petition in front of the FCC, in a reasonable period of time (i.e., before everyone starts to lose interest) there are very definite things you have to do up front, and then very definite ways you have to move forward.
Or it won't happen. Which is where we're at today.
I've said the exact same thing before. Now I've said my piece again. I won't be saying it another time (some people may breathe a sigh of relief at this point). I'm more than willing to help out with all of this, but there has to be at least some level of acceptance that this is the right approach, which I haven't seen yet.
ArtisanRadio I love your input, I also like the FACT that you are willing to stick it out, because you really don't have to if you didn't want to.
Let's hope people ARE listening to you, because you do make a lot of good points.
I'll give you two thumbs up, two pinkies and two little piggies thrown in for free ^^^^^
Bruce.
HB has very, very little interest in either of these groups, I'll leave it at that.
Their approach is hands off based on past history of getting the FCC involved in Part 15 and the resulting increased restrictions. I can't say I don't agree with that either, thats why I can't get fully behind expanding the traditional bands at the moment. Especially with the current Revitalizations plans, the timing could literally have not been worse for a petition like this.
Thank you for your candor, Retro Radio.
Hobbybroadcaster has a valid reason for staying clear, considering what you've mentioned.
Although part15(dot)us itself is not at fault, the character referenced in this statement, "past history of getting the FCC involved in Part 15 and the resulting increased restrictions", spends his days keeping watch.
For a part 15 increase petition to have a good chance of going anywhere it would be helpful if someone convinced their Senator to push for it. Without a congressional push the FCC can practically ignore or stall any action.
Good for some part 15 operators, stvcmty, but for me, I am the only part 15 operator I know of in this state and am not personally seeking a power increase.
A few states have numerous part 15 stations and their senators might lend an ear.
Therefore it is good advice in some cases, which might be enough to make a difference.
Hear that fellow Petioners and Initiators?