Carmine5 said:
While I have no interest in promoting any site, I will respond if someone unfairly criticizes a site as happens here frequently with Hobbybroadcaster.
MrBruce Said:
Look I'm NOT here to start a war with anyone, but you are NOT going to fool me with that statement, I once had full access to that entire forum and I KNOW WHAT WAS SAID BY THE SITE OWNER HIMSELF about part15us and I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENT "OVER HERE, IT IS A PIRATE'S HAVEN". His commander in cheif Ray F Burns criticized a member from here, posting over there, like to say, his being here at all makes him a bad guy.
I did not see those remarks removed and they still to this very day, remain in plain sight. I do not think this sight promotes piracy in any shape or form and comments like those are to me counter productive to the hobby and give this place a bad name it does not deserve.
So what if people post at both sites? I am not comdeming that, but I do condemn the fact that this site has a bad name over there and people are warned not to come here for advice related to LEGAL part 15 operations. That is what upsets me.
Also, my being upset should not give this place a bad name either, it's just not fair to place a bad name on a site that is here for the same reasons HB is here, to promote the LEGAL use of part 15 communications, nothing more, nothing less.
Bruce.
Say what you want about any site, this place has FAR more pissing contests than ANY forum I have EVER been a member of. I still love Part15.us, but good lord you guys are getting increasingly hostile.
FWIW, neither site promotes or encourages bashing of really any kind. In Bill's defense, this place HAS had a history of being more lenient on part 15 rules. In his eyes that does promote piracy, I'm not saying he's right or wrong either.
I too have full access to the HB site, I could at ANY time post screenshots of the members boards and show you they are for the most part, EMPTY.
I don't see any evidence that this site promotes piracy.
As I said, we can talk about the "what if?" more here than there, but show me where anyone posts about their pirate station on this forum.
How does a site promote free exchange of information and at the same time keep posts from becoming "bashing" of other sites or people? Two ways come to mind: one is to delete all references to other sites and people, the other is to ask posters to be factual and respectful. The second is preferred.
My observation is that Part15.us and HobbyBroadcaster.net have different "personalities" yet both exist to promote Part 15 operations and having two prominent sites such as these is an advantage. People are free to choose to participate at one or the other or both.
Some of the previous posts in this thread are on the borderline of being beyond what is acceptable here so my advice is to end the discussions about HB now and get back to the original topic.
Neil
I completely agree with Neil.
FWIW I do not, nor ever have thought Part15.us promotes piracy. This is a very good site for the experimenter.
In response to one of Neils points,
I believe it is outside the scope and purpose of this website to even discuss other websites or persons unless it constructively adds to the discussion. As such I would support the removal of posts that break that idea.
Back to the original topic, it is obvious from reading that Facebook page that there are a lot of people involved in low power broadcasting that either 1) don't understand the Part 15 rules or 2) understand them but just don't care to follow them for whatever reason.
While most aren't the blatant high powered pirates you generally hear about, it's also obvious that the FCC has a big problem. I just don't see them getting more lenient with the rules when there are so many that can't or won't follow the existing ones. Unless, of course, they decide to get rid of the problem by moving low power broadcasters to their own part of the RF spectrum where they can only interfere with themselves and not anyone else. Much like CB.
One more thing I belonged to the Elizabeth City Yard Sale on Facebook a Closed group. Does this mean they are allowing the illegal sales of stuff that is against the law in the USA? Hardly the case here. Too much paranoia here on that subject. If you don't like Part 15 AM and FM on Facebook than don't be a part of it. If you would rather be a part of censorship than by all means don't join that group and be a part of a group where everyone is afraid to speak their mind. That is why we have FREE Thinker Radio as a part of this site here.
EDIT: I overlooked where you said FM. I seem to recall the FCC treated FM the same as .221 for campuses However.
After some digging, it seems there may be a provision that allows the FCC to fall back from .239 to .209 which may then allow the jump from .209 to .221 for Educational use.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
========
As far as I know the FCC still allows educational campuses additional coverage within their property, no grey area here. In fact, there is an entire section dedicated to campus broadcasting called 15.221 section B.
you have been asked not to discuss HB or Bill negatively yet another questionable post appeared and as a result it has been deleted from this thread.
Neil
As far as I know the FCC still allows educational campuses additional coverage within their property, no grey area here. In fact, there is an entire section dedicated to campus broadcasting called 15.221 section B.
Kindly note that from careful reading and accurate understanding, FCC §15.221(b) does not permit such additional "campus" coverage for unlicensed FM systems -- only for unlicensed AM systems meeting those conditions.
So could I set up an FM station that would go the entire range of the campus which is one quarter mile Square?
See Reply 26 above.
Duplicate.
See my above edit Rich, I overlooked Legacy's mention of FM operation. It seems the FCC MIGHT do 150 uv @3 meters from property line under .209. Of course the only folks that would really know is the FCC itself, as far as I know there is no written rule that mentions any of that.