Marshall,
It was not my intent to "bash" amateur radio repeater coordination, but rather to point out that since without coordination of some form an extended range radio service in not workable and that coordination itself can lead to problems. Repeater coordination was only an example of how such regulation could evolve. I have been the trustee of a 2 meter and a 220 MHz. repeater, and I have served on the state coordination council and what you state regarding shared effort between the applicants and the coordinators agrees with my experience.
When the FCC opened the 2 meter "sub-band" for repeaters, I recall there was a scramble for the new frequencies and coordination was not organized. The thinking at the time was that repeaters on the air at this time would be grandfathered so clubs with the resources quickly put systems on the air pretty much using all available pairs. Those slower to react lost out. Within a couple of years, coordination became effective but pairs in metro areas were scarce. Necessarily, not everyone who wants a coordinated pair can get one. I believe the same thing will happen with increased power microbroadcasting and it will no longer be a simple matter of finding a quiet frequency and operating as we now do on part 15 AM.
It was my observation of this startup period which lead me to my vision of what could happen with microbroadcasting AM if, as we seem to agree, some form of frequency oversight is required. Part 15 AM is now available instantly to anyone who wants to use it. Due to the limited range, there is room for hundreds of thousands of stations. I oppose the use extended range AM since if frequency oversight is needed there will be far fewer opportunities for the hobby use of the band. One need only consider LPFM to see where this could go.
I do not see a way to provide 5 to 10 mile range for stations without excluding many others who want to use the band for hobby activities. Those who desire to community broadcast have other options such as streaming on the internet. Those who enjoy experimenting with radio and yardcasting have no options. (Amateur radio is great for experimenting and emergency service but broadcasting is prohibited.)
I appreciate your response to my post and I am in general agreement with what you said regarding the mechanics of coordination. I don't want to crush anyone's dreams but I believe realistic discussions of what has or could happen are useful. Perhaps someone wiser than I can suggest how a new extended range AM service can accomodate the needs of all.
Neil
Neil,
Please forgive my passionate expose' on the amateur radio repeater coordination process. I was not attacking you or your comments. And I remember the start of the repeater band plans along with you. They have been in a state of change ever since.
However, the question you raise as to a plan for extended range AM is not too different from the solution, or at least a derivetive, of the amateur repeater band plans. First take a portion of the AM band containing the least amount of groundwave and skywave interference/noise and dedicate it for the use of extended range low power AM broadcasting. Regulations would have to include daytime signal contour protections for licensed commercail stations. Using the "X" band as an example, stations with one to ten watts could be spread across the country in greater number and more effectively that the mess the FCC created with LPFM. And Part 15 experiementation could continue on the rest of the AM band and elsewhere. The orginal "daytime" only commercial license plan used the same theory and process.
The 3rd adjacent channel protection screw up with LPFM is evidence the regulatory process is driven more by politics than any kind of technical standards. Another example would be the recent treatment of the FCC with Broadband over Power Line (BPL). They simply don't use any sane technical standard to establish regulation. They have in fact ignored the age old international definition of harmful interference. So, that begs the questions; could the FCC loosen up the power levels slightly (5-10 db) for Part 15 broadcasting, establish a band plan and a permitting process? Could the FCC allocate dedicated areas in the country that could benefit from this service? The answer is all too obvious; YES.
Many rural communities would, for the first time, have a local broadcast service. Getting communities to rally around the home computer isn't going to happen. The highest concentration of home computers and the high speed internet services necessary for streaming audio is NOT in rural America. Plus, population density has a great deal to with the success of such a service. Out West, we don't live next door to our neighbors. The FCC still requires licensed broadcast services who want to make signal contour changes to still serve these people, even though they count only a hundred people or so. The point being, the regulatory will exists. The political motivation doesn't.
Left to its own devices, low power broadcasting will either be included in the orderly garden of available spectrum by the FCC, or it will grow as a weed to be eventually out lawed and eradicated, just like in other countries of the world. The evidence for what could happen to Part 15 broadcasting is all around us. We just need to be aware of our surroundings.
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
Gents,
The proposed 10-watt AM service before the FCC would be a licensed service and, therefore, would also be coordinated. (The English one-watt AM service is also licensed and coordinated.)
Frank
www.easthillradio.com
Marshall and Frank,
I used the amateur radio repeater coordination only as an example that radio systems which have appreciable range require oversight whether through "voluntary" coordination or licensing. My point, at the risk of repetition, is that this could exclude many who desire to participate and may eliminate part 15 AM stations.
Marshall has thought this through much more than have I and I need to say thanks for the food for thought. I hope this will work out without loss of the small use of the spectrum we now have under part 15 AM. For those who are not familiar with amateur radio regulations I mention that the ham bands are already allocated according to license class and operating modes. Perhaps such an approach to the AM band which preserves unlicensed part 15 AM yet allows the 1 to 10 watt stations would ease my concerns.
Neil
(Amateur radio is great for experimenting and emergency service but broadcasting is prohibited.)
So broadcasting TWIAR (This Week In Amateur Radio) over a repeater network is prohibited? I remember reading where many repeater networks were carrying this over their nets.
---
I see no real issue with 1-5 watt licensing. I would go so far as to say that 5 watt daytime and 1 watt night time should be a licensed service. NO commerical enterprise should be licensed for this power level or freqs in the "x" band, it should be licensed to individuals only.
If they move commercial brodacasters away from AM (as if that would ever happen), you could even break the band down farther. 501(c) series in one range, religious in another, TIS in yet another segment and finally individual community stations in the final "X" band area.
Regarding TWIAR on a repeater, the emergency service group I belonged to would do this sort of thing on repeaters and simplex frequencies. If there was two way contact established between stations or a net was in progress it was not considered broadcasting. We paid a license fee to the program producers so copyright issues were not a problem and we obtained the audio program over the telephone. No music was used.
Weather spotter nets work in a similar manner with an active net where NWS information is often transmitted to the net.
I don't know the specifics of what you mentioned but that is how we did it.
Neil
First of all I am rather disappointed with the response to my original post. But then I've always been more of a "if you don't take action against something, you have no right to complain about it."
The NAB has spent in excess of $2 Million in contributions to elected officials. Most interesting was their fraudulent CD that they sent to senators claiming it was a demonstration of intereference to FM reception. Even the FCC denouced the CD:
(Begin of Quote from FCC)
We are concerned that Members of Congress have received misleading engineering information about alleged interference from low power FM radio stations.
One particularly misleading disinformation effort involves a compact disc being distributed by NAB that purports to demonstrate the type of interference to existing radio stations that NAB claims will occur from new low power FM radio stations. This CD demonstration is misleading and is simply wrong.
* The NAB CD does not portray actual interference that might be experienced. The NAB CD was produced by artificially mixing two previously recorded radio signals and is not a demonstration of actual interference between two FM radio stations.
* The type of "crosstalk" interference suggested by NAB, that is, where you can intelligibly hear portions of both transmissions, does not occur from LPFM stations operating on 3rd adjacent channels. Any such interference that might occur would only appear as noise or hissing. The NAB "crosstalk" demonstration simply does not represent actual FM radio performance and therefore is meaningless.
* The NAB also incorrectly states that the FCC considers a 3% level of total harmonic distortion plus noise from interference to be acceptable. This too is wrong. The FCC Report and Order refuted a similar previous NAB assertion and clearly indicated that the Commission based its evaluations on a 1% level. To continue to make the argument in this CD about the 3% level can only be viewed as a deliberate misrepresentation of the FCC's findings and analysis.
(End of Quote)
So the NAB's tactics has been to create fictitious evidence to make a case for a non-existent problem. Sound familiar like their documents on part 15 operations?