There was a hearing held yesterday for draft legistlation on penalizing those who aid and abet, as well as operate, so called pirate radio stations.
More details here:
http://www.radioworld.com/article/fcc-pirates-remain-a-priority/278422
After reading this, it struck me...is there anyway to reach these congress folks and educate them on the finer points of pirate vs. part 15 broadcasting?
Or does that require a large lobby with all kinds of money to have the congressional types become educated easily?
What about a mass email campaign to all of the members on the subcommittee, including Rep. Greg Walden, a former broadcast owner?
ADDITIONAL Resource:
Video of the actual meeting. It is rather lengthy, but amusing to see the FCC Commisioners being taken to task on how they are running things. If you have 3 hours, watch the entire meeting or view the pertinent discussions at 1:07:42, and 2:50:00.
The video page includes info all of the congressional subcommittee members, as well as the FCC commissioners.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?407082-1/fcc-oversight-hearing
These people are supposed to work for us, right? I believe the FCC only answers to congress, in the end.
What say you?
-T
I see no problem with contacting our representatives and stating our concern over the confusion between legal Part 15, license free low power broadcasting and Pirate broadcasting.
Yes, I believe that unless pressure comes from Congress, the FCC will probably not move on our account.
Any of us can do this. To make it easy a form letter stating our case could be made available to simply forward from each of us to our representatives.
Who's good with letter compositions...
Tim in Bovey has already written the letter.
He'll be distributing it and linking it in the days to come.
I commented on the article at Radioworld.
it should also be noted that 15.221 also covers am broadcast band and a neutral loaded carrier current operation can cover substantial square mileage while still remaining legal along the length of the power line system. i have a friend in Wyoming running such an operation and is covering 4 square miles over the neutral lines on his local power grid. he has been investigated by the FCC on multiple occasions for both his FM and his AM and found to be in compliance during all the field inspections on both his FM which covers two blocks to a car radio and his AM which covers 4 square miles. there is also 15.219 which is authorized by power and antenna limits and there have been several occasions of a legal 15.219 installation covering 3 miles to a car radio. so not every signal on the am and fm broadcast bands covering a couple blocks for FM and as much as multitudes of miles on the am broadcast band is a pirate of course receiving setups dictate range as much as the transmitting setup with a combination of a good receiver setup and transmitter installation legal ranges can be a long distance. so if an FM operation is only going a couple city blocks to a car radio or an am operation going 3-4 miles to a car radio or in the case of carrier current a house radio then maybe the station might be legal. some food for thought.
... there is also 15.219 which is authorized by power and antenna limits and there have been several occasions of a legal 15.219 installation covering 3 miles to a car radio. ...
______________
For consideration, please:
Below is a graphic showing the groundwave fields existing at a radius of just 1 mile from a transmit antenna system, for the other conditions shown.
The only system configuration there that actually is _compliant_ with all of FCC §15.219 is shown at the intersection of the X and Y axes, at the bottom left of the graph.
The 30 µV/m field strength that configuration can produce at 1 mile for those compliant conditions probably is below the ambient r-f noise level at most receive locations -- regardless of the receive system located there.
Receive systems 3x more distant would be even less likely to receive consistently/reliably useful signals, unless those transmit systems were non-compliant with FCC §15.219 -- as illustrated by the fields at 1 mile produced when using the longer lengths of vertical conductors shown along the X (horizontal) axis in the graph.
Sorry if this information is a bit technical, but hope it will give some insight on this topic.
his blatantly legal installation gets out over 7000ft according to him. i have heard of elevated installs which are ungrounded going out to a range of 3 miles to a car radio.
We get what are claimed to be "accurate" graphs, charts, plottings and techni-talk but to my knowledge these "scientific" claims are never subjected to peer review.
They are accompanied by words like "sorry this information is a bit technical", serving as acknowledgement that we won't have a clue what it means nor whether it's authentic.
Meanwhile, as Part 15 Engineer and others are aware, many legal part 15 stations in full operation, some of which have been subjected to FCC visits, cover useful ranges with great success.
Perhaps truth is being denied by "truth".
i have heard of elevated installs which are ungrounded going out to a range of 3 miles to a car radio.
________
Does hearing/reading about a range of 3 miles to a car radio necessarily mean or prove that such is true for reception from an unlicensed transmit system claiming, or supposed by some to be compliant with FCC Part 15?
Post # 10 intimates previous claims are lies with his loaded question: "Does hearing/reading about a range of 3 miles to a car radio necessarily mean or prove that such is true(?)"
Answer: YES, because the individuals stating their results are credible and trustworthy.
Mr Blare posted, in part: these "scientific" claims are never subjected to peer review.
________
They are, in that my "claims" are posted in public here.
I invite anyone (including Mr Blare) wishing to evaluate/dispute the technical accuracy of my posts to do so, and post their comments here -- along with their justification(s) to support such.
Answer: YES, because the individuals stating their results are credible and trustworthy.
_______
And upon what, or who's conclusions?
The "scientist" pushes it: "And upon what, or who's conclusions?"
A. Not yours.
Since Carrier Current can work so well, I'd like to see more investigation into it, and promotion of its use. What info I've seen is scattered all over, showing vintage gear for the service, and talking about what it was used for at schools, but very little on actual working stations seems to have been saved, even historical information on schools or community organizations that might have used it. LPB INC was bought out and closed, and it looks like they took a lot of the information with them down the tubes.
It seems so much is in favor of the antenna radiator crowd right now, but I can think of advantages to both antenna and carrier:
Antenna:
Small low power self contained transmitters,
Proven technology,
Transmits well to car radios,
Consistent signal pattern out from the antenna,
No shocks, no danger really except falling from a high place while installing or lightning looking for the antenna.
Easy to deploy portable, like the guy with the car cruise, with vintage music for AM radios inthe old cars.
Carrier Current:
No external antennas, good for houses and apartments with antenna/ wire, landlord or condo housing association restrictions. In fact it's so stealth that it could be good for freedom or grievance broadcasting, or if you have differing politics than your neighbors. Covering a complex of buildings or subdivision should be easy, as in campus radio.
Seemingly better in-home coverage due to power lines coming in to homes. Stable listening areas compared to cars, which could drive in and out of the over the air station's antenna coverage in minutes.
That could lead to a different kind of audience, one that's relaxed and more contemplative, with a longer listening span, rather than a driver with distractions. That could lead to running shows with deeper meanings, discussions, classical and jazz music and long progressive rock pieces.
Carrier Current seems to be done with higher power transmitters with more power consumed, and requires a tuner-coupler for the lines, and for serious stations that means seperate boxes, I've never seen it all in one for high power, like 5-30 watts. The upside is the equipment seems to be solid, and not cost much more than the top dollar of the over the air systems.
Ther'es more shock potential from the AC, sure, but common sense rules, and our ancestors worked with Knight photo oscillators on the AC lines, 600 volts on tube plates of audio amplifiers, so there's danger in anything.
If more knowledge was out there, some of the objections to carrier would fall away I think.
Can you get your friend to talk about his 4 square mile CC station? If the friend doesn't want to put his station in the press, have them write the facts and keep out the identifying details.