There are some opportunities in the AM band, as Rich points out above. I believe there are very few in the FM band. But Shortwave - there it's practically virgin territory and there are plenty of opportunities if they're framed correctly.
My personal opinion after all of this and a year of thinking about it is that you're banging your head against a brick wall for AM and FM expansion of a very low power service (unlicensed or licensed). If Shortwave is focused on, there might just very well be a chance that something could get done. Dedicated frquencies, more power, less chance of interference with existing services - it seems to have it all.
And if there are broadcasts there that people really want to listen to, they will get the necessary receiver if they don't have one already.
OMG we have SO MANY TOPICS covering the same subject, I don't even know which one to post in anymore.
WHY OH WHY are we starting yet another topic related to the same topic?
So our words are not buried in 1000's of other posts?
God, I posted in another topic and damn I DO NOT KNOW WHICH ONE ANYMORE, because the need is to start another topic talking about the intitive again.
Really, we need to stop starting new threads or posting unrelated stuff to other threads because the points people are trying to make are lost in the mess of related posts.
RULE NUMBER 1...DO NOT COME ACROSS POSTING WORDS LIKE "THE ENEMY" THIS OR THE ENEMY THAT!! This is not a WAR damn it!!!
I have been PRO from the beginning, but now, even I am loosing interest when I am agreeing to be at WAR with an enemy, if I continue my support.
This attitude and choice of wording needs to stop, if you want me to stay on board with any interest.
I can rant and rant and rant, but yet another new thread will be created harping the same horn notes as many others already created.
Please, for the love of God, don't call us to war with anyone. This is the attitude of children who do not know any better, we are adults, act like such. Because acting as such won't get you any time of day from the FCC, trust me on that.
To clarify, I have seen rants in various diffreent threads in the last two days mentioning the word "ENEMY"
I'm a bit ticked off I am not even editing this for errors.
Bruce.
It is easy for me to agree with points of view expressed above by Rich Powers and Artisan Radio, so I add my voice to saying that shortwave right now is prime for relaxation of the rules, but the medium wave band is not settled and is going through change.
The AM band is blighted in ways we are aware of: it is noise laden and stations are on the decline as viable businesses.
The chitter-chatter about "revitalizing" the AM band is not promising, in my opinion, as I predict the translators and/or digital fixes will simply exhaust the budgets of those that waste time trying it. Moving to the X-band does nothing; if a station does poorly at 820 kHz it will do poorly anywhere else.
AM is (probably) on the way out. It could eventually become a feast day for part 15.
The worst of all possible times to ask for any changes on FM is right now, and the fact that some users want to present music that's not available from licensed stations is not a reason that has any standing in the eyes of the FCC, NAB nor anyone of importance.
My little opinion that 15.239 is needlessly weak remains in effect, and my position that increasing power for a few hundred extra feet would not matter in the overall picture, but I also believe that women should voluntarilly do anything I ask. There's a greater chance that 15.239 will be upgraded.
Every post I go to seems to related to this topic, and it's madning..
By the way, who took my chicken and why?
The chicken has been chased over into the WHAR thread!
The sky falls in more than one place.
I'm going to spill part of the beans here because I just have to do so in the safety of my own sanity because no one is getting it so I'm sorry if I make some of my members mad. Those of you who use FM right now think 250 uV/m is useless for what you are trying to do? Those of you who enjoy AM and the ability to connect an ATU/outside antenna to your transmitter better listen up to this finding an I'll say it one time here and after that no more will be said because you'll never get the point after that and it just talking to someone who does not nor will not get it. A certain organization who I already have a deep seeded hatred against wants to limit the FM field strength to 48 uV/M @ 3 metes for FM plus and here is the big plus ELIMINATE EXTERNAL CONNECTORS FOR PART 15 TRANSMITTERS!!!!! AGAIN ELIMINATE ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTORS SUCH AS ANTENNA CONNECTORS. Plus the antenna wire will be a certain gauge ONLY!!!!! This was recently and part of a legal document being presented to the FCC here, NOW. So this means that your precious Rangemaster, Talking sign, Procaster AM transmitters may be ILLEGAL if this passes. It will start with FM, then AM. In the document this was well hidden among some other thing the organization wants at the same time in that same document. And there is talk about us wanting too much and why we won't get our petition passed. Point being is that even the C. Crane FM transmitter at legal level would be illegal at 48 uV/M @ 3 meters. You won't even be able to reach across your room at that level. So call me crazy if you want, but if that is not a cause for an alarm than nothing will be and when your hobby is done, don't say that we at the Initiative didn't already warn you. This is again why we need to focus on something that may pass and do so before all is lost. The document will be revealed at the meeting. And now I bet this won't even remain on part 15 (dot) us long for fear of a lawsuit. Some things can't be said on a forum, but my integrity of the Initiative is being questioned here and I have to defend what I stand for here. Again I urge you all to be a part of the meeting @ 8PM Friday as this truly is not a chicken little situation here. I warned folks about the possible fate to Internet Radio and it fell on def ears, now too I see a repeat of the same thing here. Its time to Stop, Look, Listen. I'm not saying I'm not taking your suggestions for SW in consideration. Remember we have the document under construction. So we could present 1 of the bands only if we feel the need. But in ugly construction we have them all. FM may be a lost cause or we may be able to save it for us. But I have to get everyone to understand the finings at this point before we can get pasting this road block.
TECHNICALLY, certified transmitters aren't supposed to have antenna connectors. Though I think that applies to the FM band only at the moment.
Also I do have to ask, who outside of us and a few radio peeps even know or care what Part 15 even is? Even then who knows about part 15 enough to want it gone? Doesn't make sense and it is very unlikely the FCC would increase restrictions and make several devices unusable. Also I believe the FCC has to put everything up for public comment.
I see no danger to part 15, but I am curious to what you found.
Edit: psssttt...
https://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoom/pdfs/NAB_Part15_Study.pdf
Oh.. all the threads sound the same so I have no clue as to where I am.
With your feet in the air and your head on the ground
Try this trick and spin it, yeah
Your head will collapse
But there's nothing in it
And you'll ask yourself
Where is my mind
Where is my mind
Where is my mind
Way out in the water
See it swimmin'..
I think I've figured this out. Its the NAB, they've been talking about this for atleast 10 years and have gotten nowhere the entire time.
Thelegacy opined: ... Point being is that even the C. Crane FM transmitter at legal level would be illegal at 48 uV/M @ 3 meters. You won't even be able to reach across your room at that level. ...
_______________
Could Thelegacy (and/or anyone else) explain/prove how an FCC-certified, unlicensed FM transmit setup producing a field intensity less than 20% of that permitted 3 meters away from its transmit antenna AS NOW PERMITTED by FCC §15.239 would become illegal for the suppositions they now post, and apparently fear?
Thelegacy, I don't think anyone is questioning your integrity.
The conclusions that you're drawing? Probably.
Just as we (the collective we) would like to get more range (and therefore more field strength of power) for unlicensed broadcasting, the NAB and perhaps even others would probably like us to go away. We have become a convenient scapegoat for a lot of their problems, at least in their own minds. And although pirates can and do present interference problems, I wouldn't say that interference is a licensed broadcaster's biggest issue. Quality programming, or the lack thereof, certainly ranks right up there. But again, pirates are another convenient scapegoat.
Does it mean that what 'they' want (whoever 'they' is) is going to happen by itself? I doubt it very much.
Could this be used in a positive manner to help our cause? Most definitely. I say - offer to leave FM (or have the field strength limits reduced - they're already so low it's almost unuseable anyway if you're legal) in return for one or more shortwave bands dedicated to unlicensed broadcasting. With reasonable (whatever that is) power output limits and NO antenna restrictions.
Win - win.
At least the NAB might think that at first. It also might be their worst case scenario. Because then they'd have nobody to blame for their problems (except pirates, of course, but the hope is that the pirates move to shortwave as well).
With all due respect here: If the field strength is reduced from 250 uV/M @ 3 meters (what we have now) to a laughable 48 uV/M @ 3 meters (And the C. Crane puts out 100 uV/M @ 3 meters) that would put your less than legal now C. Crane @ 52 uV/M @ 3 meters beyond the legal limit of the new rules part 15:239 for LEGAL unlicensed broadcasting for FM. Why this does not hit you on the head like a psycho with a frying pan hitting you on top of the head is beyond my scope of comprehension. Again with all due respect here. You have a Decade CM-10 even @ 250 uV/M @ 3 meters now puts you @ 202 uV/M @ 3 meters past legal at the new rules for FM. It does not stop there for FM AM part 15 is in grave danger too. No more external antenna connectors for you either. And you can FORGET ¼ to 2 miles with LEGAL broadcasting now. We are in a state of emergency here and no one here gets it except a few of us at the Initiative. Yes we may get shortwave. However even that may be a hard sell. Jumping on board with Alan Weiner is the best bet here. 6.9 Mhz could be nice to get some range. Oh and 5mW on AM is not likely to give you much sky wave. 1-2 Watts will do sky wave. Maybe 100 mW to a really good antenna as I've done it on CB with a 100 mW Miland CB Walkie Talkie. Again we need to hash all of this out at the meeting. Its only your hobby at stake.
Thelegacy opined "... the new rules part 15:239 for LEGAL unlicensed broadcasting for FM. Why this does not hit you on the head like a psycho with a frying pan hitting you on top of the head is beyond my scope of comprehension."
________
Sorry about any scope of comprehension, but please link us to the "new rules part 15:239 for LEGAL unlicensed broadcasting for FM" to which you refer.
Many thanks.
It has not been passed yet. The key word is yet! However this is exactly what is being demaned by the NAB. So if they get their way again like what happened a few years back? Remember when the wireless FM Mics and FM Transmitters were cut down back in the late 70s to early 80s? Remember around 2006 (I can't remember the exact year). Now round 3 is comming harder and faster and this time includes AM if I have my information right. Even if not it still could on count of some demands and the wording of those demands. It does not stop there. OK it really needs to be talked about in an auio real time convesation because questions and answers can be done in real time. Because somewhere we're getting our wires crossed and the point of danger just is not making it through some how.
"... if I have my information right. ..."
Probably that is a key phrase that should be considered by the readers of Reply #44 above.
"... OK it really needs to be talked about in an auio real time convesation because questions and answers can be done in real time. ..."
But are real time answers to real time questions necessarily as accurate as those posted after taking the time needed for due research and understanding?