Unless and until your desired changes become codified by the FCC, I suggest that you refrain from posting your personal opinions on the same which are contrary to existing law.
Your way off the mark there, Rich, sharing opinions is exactly why these forums were created.
Thanks for providing a great title for my post, though.
Please review my comments about constructive communication, here:
http://part15.us/node/952#comment-2155
You are certainly free to share your opinions, to disagree and to comment.
You aren't free to tell people what to post, so please don't do that.
Experimental broadcasting for a better tomorrow!
Re-reading KK7CW's post about playing around on the public airwaves, I see that he might believe a license is needed, not the reverse. Therefore I publicly withdraw my reply that assumed otherwise.
//
I also apparently interpreted KK7CW's post wrong.
At my first reading of KK7CW's comment
And the arguement you shouldn't need to acquire a license just to play around with the public airwaves is faulty even in it's basic logic.
I thought that he was avocating "playing around" on the broadcast bands without a license. (I suppose we can do this now under part 15 regulations which include a non interference responsibility.)
On closer reading I see that apparently he suggests that a license should be required for experimentation. So I may understand this correctly, the phrase "to play around" causes me to ask him if he was referencing experimentation and if the phrase "public airwaves" meant the amateur bands rather than the broadcast bands? Perhaps I was confused by the colloquialisms.
In the context of the entire paragraph it appears that Marshall avocates experimentation by licensed operators on the amateur bands and the transfer of the knowledge gained thereby to the part 15 unlicensed operation in the BC bands. Marshall, is this correct?
Neil
I would be all for a licensed 1 watt station, kind of like they allow in most of Europe (and maybe Canada). One watt on the hill where I am would give me a pretty decent area.
Greg,
I thought your comments warranted a new thread so I started it here:
Hope you don't mind.
Neil
"And THE ARGUMENT YOU SHOULDN'T need to ACQUIRE A LICENSE just to play around with the public airwaves IS FAULTY even IN IT'S BASIC LOGIC."
I am not suggesting experimentation without a license. To the contrary, experimentation on any part of RF spectrum should REQUIRE a license. That is the reason experimentation has been allowed for over 50 years on the amateur radio bands. Experimentation is the basis for new ideas and new technologies.
And finally, I will post whatever opinion I choose to offer and the administrator of this site allows and deems proper as public discourse.
Marshall Johnson, Sr.
Senior Pastor, President
Rhema Christian Fellowship, Inc.
Rhema Radio - The Word In Worship
AM 1660 - FM 93.5
http://www.rhemaradio.org
This has kind of wondered a little off topic, but here is something to bring it back around. There is a standard that I don't remember being mentioned in the NAB report:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=21079&switch=P
So it looks like there is an ANSI standard that these units need to be tested under. Anyone know where this ANSI spec. can be found for free?
and it would be hard to get me to give them up. The best one goes across the whole FM band. the other two do only the lower part. Only 1 will do 87.9, which is the clearest low freq. The onslaught of the low power religious broadcasters really ruined the non commercial FM band. And this is a fairly rural area.