No License No Problem

This may help.  87.9 is FM Channel 200. It was/is used as a Guard Band between VHF TV Channel 6 and FM Channel 201 or 88.1 mHz.  So am not sure I would fire up with 1 watt on 87.9 just yet.

Oh, I see. I can understand why 87.9 would be, too. Thanks.

I wasn't going to fire up anything just yet lol. Not until I undestand what's going on with this.

How do you think 87.7 would factor into all this?

How do you think 87.7 would factor into all this?

Probably good to go.

I'm busy working, I was looking at this while eating lunch. I'll take a closer look at it later.

Thanks!

I wouldn't get too excited about this.  The rules state that these Part 15 devices, "must be capable of accessing a database over the Internet that provides a list of available TV channels at its geographic coordinates."  Or the transmitter needs to have "spectrum sensing" abilities.

I don't think the average Part 15 FM TX has those capabilities.  And, of course, all these devices need to be certified.  Clearly the Commission is restricting their definition to WiFi devices and wireless microphones.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/part-15-tv-bands-devices-0

What I do find interesting is that there is a gap in the Part 15 rules between 76 and 88.1.  The FCC did assign 87.9 to a couple of Class D stations that were forced to move.  But those frequencies are not actually regulated under Part 15.

Carmine5 is right as to what the document actually says.

Yet, it's within reason to raise the argument that a wireless mic and a Part 15 transmitter are the same device.

As far as 89.9 being a guard band is concerned, I think it is only a guard band when a local Channel 6 TV station is on the air.

Devices can access databases over the internet. That's not impossible. In fact, I've written hardware before that did just that.

GPS is ubiquitous now.

As for spectrum sensing, how is that a problem?

So a transmitter CAN be built to do this. 

To what Carmine5 said:

The rules state that these Part 15 devices, "must be capable of accessing a database over the Internet that provides a list of available TV channels at its geographic coordinates."  Or the transmitter needs to have "spectrum sensing" abilities.

What MrBruce Says:

When I read that part, it made me think about what forum member TheLegacy proposed in his petition, that before a transmitter transmitted on any FM channel, it first, had to scan the FM band, to assure that there was no other broadcast station also operating on said channel.

I am wondering if they were actually listening to his words.

Bruce.

MrBruce you are right, I remember The Legacy predicting devices that could "sniff the air," so to speak, and everyone poo-pooed the idea if I recall. Now the FCC has "borrowed" the idea! We must give credit to The Legacy for being prophetic.

I'm not saying such a Part 15 FM transmitter can't be built, only that one hasn't been built yet (that I know of).  And, of course, it would have to be certified before it can be put into service.

But since these R&Os (or MM&Os) are for a post-repack era, expect to see more and more TV stations going back to channel 6.  Indeed, should the FCC approve allowing LPTV stations the opportunity to broadcast an analog audio channel along with DTV on 6, I expect to see a lot of LPTV stations apply for that channel.  You'll probably find a TV station on channel 6 in every DMA.

The point is that the opportunity to broadcast on 87.7 or 87.9 is going to be practically nonexistent in a post-repack world.

Or...maybe not.

Also, we never had a channel 6 in NYC. Ever. I don't expect one to pop up anytime soon.

Ok, so what would go there? I can't imagine anything in this competitive market ever going there. Even LPTV.

As we know, with our current 8VSB standard, DTV does not propagate well on low VHF.  However, with ATSC 3.0 and COFDM, researchers are finding that DTV propagates very well across the entire VHF band.  Should the FCC approve 3.0, and there is every indication they will, we will be seeing more stations move back to VHF--especially so in congested markets like NYC, Los Angeles and Chicago. 

This won't be happening for three or more years (TV stations are required to move to their new channel assignments within 39 months). But broadcast television will be losing about 21 UHF channels.

OK I'm going on a gray area on this.  Yes it was me who invented the idea.  When I talked to Brian of Whole House he did say he was going to talk to his company about my idea.  And I didn't have a NDA.  I talked about the idea OPENLY.  So I'm sure it was read, heard, and borrowed from me.  Now if I scan the frequency myself technically it would not be legal, but if you don't jam a channel 6 (Which we don't have one) then by using my SainSonic at 1/2 watt on that frequency I'm in a legal gray area.  The FCC would have no reason to inspect my station unless it did interfere with something.  But I will say this once a certified transmitter with the scanner I invented does come to market I may sell mine and get the one at 1 Watt because it will be more powerful than mine and I'll try and make sure its Stereo as well.  I could buy the 1 Watt SainSonic (If I can find it) because I don't want the 7 Watt that can go down to 1 Watt due to horrible issues I've read about.  The 1 Watt version will be the one I'd go for and I'd try and sell this one once its 100% black and white.  I really want to see a Stereo certified transmitter with the scanner on 87.9 Mhz.  87.7 here has a spur from 88.3 so I can't use that frequency even at 1 Watt.  Yes this could be exactly what I predicted as I have a feeling the FCC read my proposal on the Radio Survovor forum and another anti Pirate Radio site where I spouted it off there too.  So yes they listened to me.  Plus I got emotional one day and said it over the air too.  I wanted it to get out and used.  Looks like I got what I wanted.  Thanks for remembering I was the one with the idea.