I'm having a difficult time processing and understanding some of the negativity surrounding this discussion of increasing Part 15 FM range (effectively field strength).
I don't think that anyone has said that this will be easy. Or that the NAB and/or the FCC will welcome the request with open arms.
But there are some valid reasons for a modest increase in field strength for Part 15 FM broadcasters, particularly if either organization is willing to think outside the box.
And if they aren't, nothing will have been lost. We'll still be at the mercy of the FCC (or Industry Canada) and the NAB (or your local licensed broadcasters), as we are right now. Plus, there's so much misinformation being bandied about re Part 15 FM, and apparently a lot of misunderstanding; perhaps these and future discussions will serve to illuminate some (at least if they're willing to listen) and show the way to others.
I don't personally have anything against the NAB and licensed stations. I've found here in Canada at least that there has been a lot of support from the media in general, once they understand what you are trying to do (and doing it legally, I might add). And I can understand the reluctance of these stations who have paid a lot of money for the right to broadcast to support illegal (i.e., pirate) operators and the potential interference that they might cause. Put yourself in their place.
That being said, Canada has proven that you're not going to have anarchy over the airwaves with an FM field strength of 1000uv/m at 3 meters.
The overall cost of running the station is a fixed amount.
A percentage of that amount is an additional amount.
The additional amount doesn't exist to begin with.
If you took a percentage away from the internet and computer equipment that comprised the station, you'd get slapped with an "amount due" invoice for the money you extracted.
We're dealing in unreality.
I think there are two trains of thought here:
Increasing Part 15
Creating a new class
As stated in another thread, increasing Part 15 FM depends on what the FCC thinks about it. Is it supposed to be for iPod-to-radio devices and such, or is it for hobbyists? In either case, the NAB is going to crap all over it.
Creating a new class is the same problem - the NAB.
It's going to be a very steep uphill battle either way. I don't think anyone's really against the end result, it's just a question of which way will get us there?
Today, Saturday, June 27, 2015, 10:30 AM CDT, I, Carl Blare, acting on behalf of KDX Worldround Radio, a Part 15 Broadcaster, Charter Member of the ALPB, do endorse and support an upgrade to FCC 15.239 to match the Canadien Standard.
Which has got me wondering, does Mexico have a low power license-free regulation governing FM broadcasting?
Okay guys, I'm trying to be as positive feeling as I can be.
But let's look at a real life case here in the USA, my case.
WXTZ 87.9 Norwich was my station. it was never accused of operating on 87.9MHz as a pirate station, it was accused as a pirate for supposedly operating above 250 uV/m @ 3 meters. There never was any evidence presented to me that this was the case. The complainant was a local radio station that heard about us from a few of it's listeners. This statement was posted at HB's forum board. This information was never shared with me at the phone number that was provided both on air and on line on the facebook page that was also subject of the accusations.
Although, at the very beginning of this investigation against me, I did not understand why I was the subject of such investigation, time allowed me to get a better understanding of why it was being investigated.
We covered more ground by being a MULTI-TRANSMITTER FM radio station, the average part 15 station used ONE transmitter and covered a person's personal property gaining NO public listeners, just as Bill states at his HB site, FM is in house personal usage and has zero chance of ONE public listener.
Evidence on our Facebook page, showed we had 51 followers. Some followers were believed to have followed based on Facebook suggestions, as we had a few followers from other states and even over seas.
It appears, I will never be told what local radio station had us investigated and the real reason why. Those of you who have access to HB's member's only area, can see the thread where my station was being accused of illegal activity. Naturally, I got upset at the way things were being done and what was being said and really upset when my personal images were posted on that site without my permission and being called numerous names.
I posted out of anger and did not really understand WHY, WHY I was being subject to this abuse, I did not yet know, what warranted this investigation. Was one of the transmitters operating illegally? Was one malfunctioning? I never really, truly understood why MY STATION was the subject of an accusation of being called a PIRATE. The title of that topic was called "HUNTING DOWN A PIRATE" It did not say "Hunting Down A Pirate On 87.9" nor did the subject matter state "We all know 87.9MHz is illegal for part 15" making it clear I was accused of being a pirate for using 87.9MHz. I posted in another topic on this site, the entire words posted in that topic from HB. Those words, do not claim 87.9MHz as being the cause for the investigation. It was that the station was covering more than 200 feet in a given area, even though all the information that was publicly available, stated we used 8 transmitters and a few were located within range of the other. (Note: That information was available on our Wikipedia page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WXTZ_87.9_Norwich So, geographically, once you'd leave transmitter number one's range, you'd pick up transmitter number two. If this is the case, the signals of the two transmitters, which slightly overlap each other, will give you a signal that covers 400 feet. My numbers used above, are not an exact science, I used them as examples only. That Wikipedia article was also subject of that investigation over at HB.
My points, everything about my stations operations were made public, we published pictures of WXTZ 87.9 Norwich's studios for the public to see. We did not publish the homes where the transmitters were located, simply put, there was nothing worth publishing other than a computer and Decade MS100 Transmitter. The studio had all the workings of the station that would interest the public.
Now that I covered everything in this topic that helps paint a picture, I have to publish my conclusion. I believe a local station became jealous of us. Why? Damned if Ill ever understand it.
But, if I had to assume and guess why, I come up with too many answers. The easiest thing would have been if SOMEONE had at least called the station's public phone number and talked to us about their concerns. This WOULD have been the BEST way to handle it don't you think?
But NO!!! THAT IS NOT HOW THEY HANDLED IT!!!!!!!!!!
So, I personally believe, this action took place, because a jealous radio station wanted us OFF THE AIR! No reasons given, just that they wanted us off the air.
When we originally tried to get help from engineers, as we had read elsewhere, that sometimes bored engineers are willing to help make sure a part 15 station is operating legally, MOST laughed at us and said YOU CAN NOT AFFORD ME LOL!!!! Others said "Sure, but I want what I get from the licensed stations and I do NOT think you can afford my fees"
People, we're a part 15 radio station with limited range, we'd never be able to get enough sponsorship to pay the same fees a 10,000 ERP station can afford.
Now on to the next subject.
I stated something that I believe was totally misunderstood here!!!
I stated that you may get your increase in legal field strength in the USA, but it may come at a cost, a cost that has to be paid to the NAB. That fee could very well be the same cost the currently licensed radio stations pay to them and somehow we got stuck on music licensing fees here and totally ignored my point.
I said, BESIDES YOUR MUSIC LICENSING FEES, You'll be required to pay the NAB the SAME fees licensed stations are paying. Can you afford to pay those fees?
We also got off topic talking about X number of listeners on Internet Radio. First off, Internet Radio licensing and terrestrial broadcasting licenses are two totally different licenses.
True, we can say, but I only serve 2 listeners on terrestrial broadcasting so I deserve a no fee license, but it does NOT work that way. I was licensed for terrestrial broadcasting, people wanted us to go on line so they could get us no matter where they were and we investigated the cost to use tune-in. We realized that to be 100% legal and cover our VINYL RECORD ALBUM COLLECTION, would have bankrupted us and prevented us from using our VINYL RECORDS at all!!!
WXTZ was a radio station that PLAYED THE WHOLE RECORD ALBUM, not just the charted top 100 or top 40 hits from each vinyl record. YOU CAN NOT DO THAT LEGALLY ON INTERNET RADIO!!! It's 3 songs per group per a required number of hours.
On the Internet, WXTZ would have been illegal. The copy right trolls would have fined us millions of dollars in copy right violations because we did not follow the number of songs per group rule.
My, point is not to rant about music licensing fees, it was to make a point that if we were allowed 1000uV/m @ 3 meters, the NAB would likely have a part in that ruling and you'd be required to pay what the licensed radio stations pay. Then you'd obviously go belly up, because there is NO way you are going to be able to pay that fee. Even if you try advertising for businesses, you trying to charge the same fees licensed stations charge for 30 second to 60 second ad spots, is not going to happen!
Your LOCAL coverage area compared to their LOCAL coverage area is TOTALLY NOT THE SAME! You can say you are covered on line via Internet Radio, but there is NO guarantee your Internet Radio audience is within 1000 miles of your local car dealership. Would you drive 2000 miles to buy a car you could buy for the same price in your local town? So saying your advertising reaches many on your Internet Radio station is NOT going to interest a local paying car dealership.
Local car dealerships are broadcasters number two paying clients, behind beer commercials.
True, if you get lots of breweries to advertise on your station, that could work out well as beer brands are sold nation wide (television networks do that during sporting events). But, car's for sale commercials are often related to a local dealership, which depends on a LOCAL audience for it's paying customers.
Bruce.
The NAB is not The National Association of Beer, I only say that to be nonsensical, it is, of course, the National Association of Broadcasters.
www.nab.org
A quick look at the NAB website indicates they represent commercial and non-commercial radio and television broadcasters with fees based on revenue.
It is not specified, but I imagine an FCC license is required for membership, although we might use the "Tim Method" of joining the NAB by sending them a check, and if they cash it, your Part 15 station becomes a member.
The NAB has nothing to do with music licensing, but maybe I misunderstood something you said MrBruce, where it seemed like you equated the two.
The notion that the NAB is "anti Part 15" is an assumption, along with the suspicion that licensed stations resent unlicensed stations for having a free foot in the door. We hear that the NAB opposed LPFM, which seems likely, even though LPFMs are probably welcome to become members.
Carl said:
The NAB has nothing to do with music licensing, but maybe I misunderstood something you said MrBruce, where it seemed like you equated the two.
Carl, I can understand your misunderstanding. I was not associating both the NAB and the music licensing agencies as being the same agency. I was simply stating "That besides paying your music licensing fees to what ever agency you pay them to, you'd also be required to pay the NAB for the rights to be on the air.
I do not know about the rest of the USA, but in my personal experience, with my local area, I do not think part 15 radio is welcomed here. But what do I know? That unknown station that opposed my part 15 radio station did not even have the decency to work with us or contact us. Instead they supposedly hired an engineer to gather information to send to the FCC to have us shut down. It never got that far because, as soon as I seen the bullshi*t I seen happening at Boobybroadcaster dot net, I shut the whole network down preventing any further action from those boobs.
The last thing I need is a bunch of jealous radio station owners sitting at a desk laughing at me and saying NOT IN MY VALUABLE MARKET AREA!!!
I have another post coming up, but I want it separate from this one.
Bruce.
Bruce I think you have this part way right. What I've been saying all along is that Canada has 1000 uV/m and yet has not required users to pay the same fees as licensed broadcasters, pay hefty fee's for this royalty, that broadcast organization. The matter is will this cause interference on the dial and that answer has already been answered by our friends to the north and this is a definite NO so the NAB saying it will cause anarchy on the dial already is debunk. Now if they cry our listeners will be lost and every Johnny on the street will have one? Again is this what happened in Canada? Just how many Decade CM-10's are sold in Canada? How many of these stations are heard while you drive along Canada? Yes they are gonna throw up some nonsense just to hope you'll go away in sheer fright. But having the numbers and data of other countries already allowing hobby broadcasting is a good defense against trolls looking to kill Micro Broadcasting for their benefit (which isn't much of one). Plus from what I heard at Radio survivor paves a reasonable means to have this service. Radio history repeats itself. There is a need and certain folks will figure a way to provide the means to fill that need. I don't see charging thousands of dollars for a station that may go ¼ mile even slightly realistic in the real world though they will try to propose this at the NAB in order to scare folks from even persuading the FCC any further. Yes I appreciate the devil's advocate way of preparing us for what is in store. There is realistic stunts the NAB can pull and some they can't be so successful at. Remember we do have the 1000 uV/m example in Canada and New Zealand as an example with their 1 Watt allowance. Plus lets talk about the history of Pirate Radio since this is something they'll want to sling at us as a weapon not to mention the threat of terrorism with more powerful micro broadcasting stations. They'll most definitely pull the emergency broadcasting system as a trump card as well but my example of what happened with the cell phone warning me way before Radio in this area did and the fact that the very micro broadcasters hated by any would be trolls are the ones who may have saved a life even if it was less than 5 people who may have heard my puny little transmitter in the first place. Now their gonna say we have no right, but I say we sure do because most geeks who have transmitters or who'd buy them would most likely have a cell phone. So like I said we know what we have to deal with and we need real folks willing to try this and not give up when they reach the first stumbling block. Again the likelihood of forcing Johnny quarter mile to pay a fee is as likely as forcing that Realtor with a Talking House AM Transmitter to pay a fee for advertising houses on AM going a mile. And if and I say If part 15 was not suppose to be to run a micro Radio station than what was the deal of the Remco Planet DJ years ago? It was sold as a Mini Radio Station. Any kid could have connected a long wire to it and got that quarter to 1 mile and yet no copyright infringement notices were sent. Micro broadcasting and 5KW Radio stations are not one and the same. We could even pull the Educational learning tool card for them to try and trump too. To beat a troll you have to think like one.
Okay post number two.
I hear all talk about support for rule change. A rule change that allows people like us to operate an FM transmitter or AM transmitter with a new field strength.
A field strength that allows your station to reach a potentially larger listening audience.
I seen mentions of a supporting agency, but no mention of it's name. Perhaps, there is a reason that agency is not mentioned out in the open in this forum board. Such as possible TROLLS from Boobybroadcaster.
Okay, I'm game.
I'm all for rule change. But look at the examples of the NAACP.
Although progress is slow within the NAACP, their strength in numbers and their being a nationally known agency is what gets their words heard and acted upon.
I hear talk about the ALPB, but how well known is the ALPB to be nationally known well enough to be recognized as a supporter of rule change?
My intension's are not to insult anyone here, but unless the ALPB is nationally known by the right agencies, it's word will have no voice where it counts.
Please look at the NAB for example, why do you think broadcasters pay fees to them? It's because they are the radio and televisions station's back bones. When the NAB talks, the FCC and Congress listens.
In order to get the rule change you're asking for, you'd need the same type of support the NAB gives broadcasters. Now, where is an agency like that for us? Tell me and I'll send them a payment instead of buying $600.00 worth of records each month. But it can't be an agency that turns out to be a go nowhere scam.
There is talk about lawyers who know broadcast laws, but where are they?
Sorry I am not trying to discredit anyone here or mock your attempts to get what we all know we want. I am simply asking where is this support?
You get a lawyer, you get a nationally recognized agency going in support of rule change and I'll be the first to support it financially.
I am not sure if my mentioning Radio Spark here http://radiospark.org/rfree is anything you were quietly referring to, but I am member there and used them when I attempted to get a LPFM CP back in November of 2014. This agency is very helpful in getting support and even lawyers who support future LPFM stations. They do have many success stories.
We could ask them about part 15 broadcast radio support, but then it is up to them to say okay that sounds possible, I am sure we can work something out to support that type of service. But, as I said before, strength is in numbers, the more people who approach them with such a request, the more viable it sounds and may get positive results.
BUT! And I do mean BUT! If I am the only one who asks, then those who listen to me will say, you're the only one out of 300,000 possible people who are asking for this and we just do not see a big enough interest for your ideas to be feasible enough for consideration.
Get a charter, get a support group such as the NAB or Radio Spark group and I'll support it 100%
Bruce.
At the Meeting a group was mentioned but I can't remember its name. Could have been Radio Spark. It was a group that helped LPFM and the idea was to try and ask them for help in getting the field strength raised for a mile to a digital boom box. We started talking about what field strength it would take to get the 1 mile range and what power to a rubber duck antanna since I know what 500mW will do at ground floor to a rubber duck. Then we talked about an outside antenna, but field strength should be raised so every hobbyest can easily obtain the legal limit and use a nice transmitter that won't cause interference. Now I don't know if Radio spark was the name I don't have a tape of the meeting. I probably should have recorded it though there is a recording of our meeting. There is nothing wrong with asking Radio Spark for assistance in this and they could tell us if a new class of service would have to be asked for or could they simply help us as Micro Broadcasters. Since John Anderson of Radio Survivor's podcast see's reason why Pirate Radio is a useful service maybe we can get him to assist as well as Radio Spark. I'm all for that because the more groups well known we have to support what we are asking for that we can put into our back pocket the better it will be. We may even have to operate under the Radio Spark's license if need be sort of like StreamLicensing does. All in all I don't see why in some areas where the FM dial has blank frequencies that we can't at least get the same treatment Canada already gets in field strength.
The ALPB is a group of people interested in Part 15 broadcasting and is very much like an audio version of this Part 15 forum here at part15(dot)com, as was mentioned by Chairman MRAM 1500.
As a new organization the ALPB is small, but very open to discussion, as current members know.
For example, TheLegacy is a new member and he has started lengthy conversations about the interest in a more generous Part 15.239, giving better field strength.
MrBruce, if you have not joined the ALPB, I hope you do so, because the more active members there are the stronger it gets.
There are no membership fees (dues) which means the ALPB does not have the financial resources to lobby Waskington DC, and we want to keep it free, so maybe we limit ourselves.
Getting back to the NAB, I don't believe licensed stations are required to be members. If I'm right about that then the NAB does not speak for all broadcasters.
If the NAB has an official stance about part15 broadcasters they might be willing to voice it, someone might give them a call and ask.
The small fee collected from a hobby station by Socan helps to provide income overall to get to the artists.
Interesting in another post it was mentioned that a loud outdoor stereo could be heard by the same number of people as a part 15 radio signal...in fact more because they don't have to turn on a radio to hear it.
Mark
Right, Mark, and the loudspeaker listeners can't turn it off like a radio.
Thelegacy I support your ideas and will be there 100% if those ideas get to the point of a nationwide voice.
I could sit here and make believe my voice will be heard and the FCC will act and say this guy makes sense and we believe this service is a must have for the better of our airwaves.
I agree with you as I have already mentioned in another topic that the likely requirement will be to have installed and properly functioning EAS system. LPFM stations are required by law to have an EAS system installed that blocks the programming when the tones are sent across the system.
I looked into the pricing of the required systems just to see if I could provide that service to my listeners. To my understanding, you're required to have two systems actively monitoring for the EAS tones and you have to do the required tests and log those tests.
I used a scanner to monitor the EAS channels and also, our Comcast cable has an EAS system that activates when a local EAS tone is sent, that EAS can be sent to mobile devices as well as long as you're a Comcast subscriber. So, to some degree WXTZ had a generic EAS system, but NOT the kind that is legally required for LPFM or broadcast stations alike.
Previously, mention was made in this thread about weather forecasting. How did WXTZ get accurate weather forecasts?
I'll share that information with you all right here, right now.
We used a computer with Internet, like any of you can also do.
Our websites for weather are the following.
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/WxMap.aspx
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/
http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane
and finally
http://thunderstorm.vaisala.com/explorer.html
You set everything up for your local area that can be set up and use those local maps, use the forecast predictions, use the analysis graphs, use whatever it takes for you to forecast your local area forecast accurately. Be sure to use all 4 sites for a better more accurate analysis!
Use a few of your favorites, BUT stay away from Radio and Television websites for weather forecasts, your only using their scripts just like your competitors are doing. BAD IDEA!
I can not teach you over a forum board how to accurately compose your local weather forecast to out do your local radio station's forecast. But, let me tell you, WXTZ's forecast was 100% accurate compared to WICH 1310 AM's forecast which was sent via Internet from WFSB television channel 3 from Hartford, Connecticut. They just read off what is written on a piece of paper that was copied from WFSB's website weather page. Those updates are far and in between, so the reading of those forecasts are outdated within minutes of them being written on the DJ's liner notes pages.
We on the other hand, looked at the LIVE graphics on the satellite, put those images into motion so we could determine the direction of the weather. Let's say Hartford Connecticut had a thunderstorm, now when we look at the radar, we see that cluster. Now for us to forecast Norwich Connecticut's weather accurately, we have to put the radar in time lapse motion to see the track of the cell. If it is moving south-easterly, that would mean it is heading toward Norwich. BUT! What we also have to focus on is Norwich's weather is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. Thunderstorms need a VERY unstable air mass to survive.
Hartford Connecticut is 50 Miles inland from the south shore of Connecticut, Norwich is 7 miles inland from the shoreline and has a river that enters the Long Island Sound basin called The Thames River. This river often has air currents from Long Island Sound that comes up it and cools Norwich's upper atmosphere, thereby stabilizing the air mass before those cells reach us.
The result is, these thunderstorm cells die off and dissipate before reaching us, as they move south-south-easterly the rain associated with that cell also dries up and we get NOTHING from that cell, not even a drop of rain. But, WICH will say "Chance of rain today, rain heavy at times with a thundershower possible, temperatures around the upper 70's"
Now you know how to out do your local outdated weather forecasting radio station.
Bruce.
First you do your fact finding and research, to understand exactly what it is that you are going to be asking for. That's what is being done right now, and it is a worthy exercise in and of itself, if only to correct some of the misinformation that is being spread around elsewhere, and, quite frankly, some misunderstandings here.
Then you look around for support BEFORE you go before the FCC. That hasn't been done yet. It may be some time before it's done. And it's difficult to judge how long that phase will take.
Finally, there's the writing of the formal petition. While that may be the easiest task of the lot, it's going to take time and resources to do it so that it has a chance of succeeding.
We're just starting down this path, and nowhere near done. I don't think it's time to throw in the towel just yet.