Now, the only proof Bill had that the station allegedly operated above part 15 rules was this thread he created at Radioinsight.com entitled FM PIRATE IN NORWICH ON 87.9
http://radioinsight.com/community/topic/fm-pirate-in-norwich-on-87-9/
BILL DEFELCE: Anybody catch or know anything about the pirate on 87.9 in the Norwich area?
JAYDAY: I heard them about a month ago on 395 from exit 79- exit 84. Not bad.
A private PM to Jayday indicated that the station he was referring to was on 98.7 WNLC owned by HALL Communications.
Bill used that information as being accurate, as he stated in my last post with the dialog from his forum board. Quote: I know a broadcast engineer out in that area of the state but I wanted to verify things with my own independent research. One reply I got to my query was that this 87.9 operation was received between exits 79 thru 84 on Interstate 395. That’s no Part 15 signal level, that’s for certain! Again, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!
As you can see Bill used false information to make his conclusion that the station operated above part 15 rules. Very unprofessional!
Bruce.
Oh, by the way where Bill made this comment: I've seen other sites (and people) welcome obvious pirates into their ranks and that's something I want to even get involved with.
He was including this site in his accusations.
Bruce.
I'm one of the moderators here, but I speak only for myself right now.
This site was formed to promote Part 15 broadcasting. It does not condone pirate activity, nor postings promoting pirate activity, no matter what some administrator for another website might believe and say.
That being said, we are also not the radio police. It is up to each individual Part 15 operator to ensure that they meet the Part 15 rules. And that is easier said than done, as we all know from various discussions here that those rules are not black and white. As moderators, we can only control what is posted (and that's all we should be controlling).
Going back to the original theme of this thread, I personally believe that it is better to identify yourself in your broadcast/stream/Facebook page, etc. If you feel that you are operating within the rules, there is no reason not to. And it shows to everyone, including the true radio police - the FCC (or Industry Canada in my case) - that you are attempting to operate within those rules. Pirates hide.
And yes, I know that some don't feel comfortable with identifying themselves, even if they are complying with Part 15. That's OK too, but you also have to realize that since pirates hide, and your not identifying yourself could be misinterpreted as hiding, you may have some explaining to do if the FCC (or Industry Canada) comes along and they find issues with what you are doing.
Like I said before, there's always risk. Everyone has to determine what kinds of risks they are willing to live with.
Why are we so subject to someone complaining about something on air they didn't like, but the commercial stations air some of the stuff they do but that's ok?
Why can't I for example complain about the rap and hip hop and the offensive subject matter it deals with, and get them off the air!!?
Just a thought.
Mark
At Mark
Because of the NAB and the fact those stations pay BIG bucks to them and YOU don't.
According to the NAB part 15 radio broadcasters are nothing but spectrum stealing pirates, who pay nothing to them and therefore are a worthless cause and an intrusion for their paying members.
Bruce.
At ArtisanRadio yes you are correct each person is responsible for their OWN broadcast equipment and that it operates according to FCC part 15 rules.
Therefore my point is that means that I am NOT responsible for the actions of a private transmitter owner, regardless if it is rebroadcasting my studio feed with my permission. My studio did not use any broadcasting equipment to supply the feed, therefore my studio, My telephone number, home address and my real name should NOT have been brought up in those accusations.
If Mr Bill is so worried about the FCC related IP addresses visiting his web site and forum board, apparently there is a reason for that, perhaps they don't trust him, otherwise why would they be visiting his site so often as he claims they do and why is he so worried about someone who doesn't follow the 250uv @ 3 meters rule 150%? I mean if I told him I was at 260uv @ 3 meters he would post some stupid long pre-written jargon that his site is part 15 compliant only BS in big black bold lettering!! Good God!
I recall posting something in regards to one of his featured radio stations that is listed in his home page. The person's FM signal traveled more than TWO miles (In the South-Western USA) and when I asked Bill why he was alright with that station covering TWO MILES and being presented on his site as such, he said that his job is not to question another member on his site on how they operate their station. That member clearly stated his station covered over TWO miles and Bill still allowed it as a featured station knowing this.
Now we see another side of Bill who says just the opposite when it came to my station and I never claimed to cover any geographical areas around my city, never said we cover ONE mile for that matter, so no claims were made by me. But this member of his clearly posted his signal covered two miles and beyond that on an FM car radio. We're NOT talking AM here.
I think he is part 15's worst nightmare and it is people like him that will eventually cause the FCC to make owning and operating a part AM or FM transmitter illegal in the USA.
Bruce.
Mark, you can complain.
In Canada, the CRTC regulates programming content, and they do have a code of conduct for radio stations (including those operating under BETS, our version of Part 15). I recall that one licensed station in southwest Ontario did get a complaint for playing uncensored rap songs early in the evening (they claimed it was a mistake). I can't remember exactly what happened to them, but it did make the news.
The sad part is that we are becoming so forgiving of vulgar language and inappropriate content in today's society that complaints are few and far between.
I always try to keep my broadcasts (and internet stream) 'clean'. It's certainly easier with 50's & 60's music than the more recent stuff.
I'm on the same page with the ID's which was one of the reasons I started the thread. My out of the box thinking was that if I'm running the station and trying to be sure my station is not jamming anything and that I want my signal to be clean and only transmitting on the frequency I intended frequency the best way to find out if and when my transmitter acts up so I can correct it or change trasmitters is to give the audience a way to get ahold of me the operator of the station. I can almost safe say that most of not all of us on this site don't intend to keep operating knowing our transmitter is a issue with other stations and services. There is always that person who wants to play God and this is something you'll either deal with right away or when Mr God desides to make complaints to the FCC field instector. I'd think the FCC will take less offence to someone who tries to run a clean station than someone who tries to hide by not IDing themselves.
Lets just hope I don't run into another Bill who wants to go after micro broadcasters.
Yes, much easier, but then some songs like the Bobbetts "I shot Mr. Lee" from 1961 among others which were hits back then played on radio, so even "our" stuff has some questionable subject content in some songs.....and I'm complaining about rap!...ha ha! And I'm playing that!...Maybe I should take it off!
Mark
There was a group called the Fugs in the '60s. While they never had a hit (or tried to), their music certainly couldn't be called 'clean'.
It really is incumbent upon all Part 15 operators to police their content.
I've noticed this week that the hobbybroadcaster site seems to be down. I've tried it from several computers, browsers and isp's. So it can't be a localized problem to me. Anyone else notice this?
I do from time to time visit there and actually have perfectly satisfying conversations and have even learned some things. So I won't be getting involved in the controversy about them. Just wondered if anyone else could get there?
Tim in Bovey
listen Tim, I had nothing against them either, you can take it lightly if you want to, or side with them that I did something illegal, but I didn't deserve to be treated the way I was. Okay so what it was MY radio station, but I did not have control over the transmitters, nor was one of them broadcasting from my home.
I didn't give my self away, if you think for one minute that Bill didn't already know it was MY station guess again! He even admitted that the station's Facebook photos matched my station equipment description posted on his site and the disapperance of the Facebook page triggered that thought because he and Ray F. Burns were correct, the Facebook page was hidden as soon as we seen it was being a victim of photo theft and that was being talked about at Hobbybroadcaster. The minute we hid the page, they noticed it and said the DOES THE FOX SMELL THE HOUNDS? Therefore the FOX must be a member HERE at HB. You think Bill didn't check who was viewing that thread? Of course he did and my IP address would have been logged as one of the viewers of that thread! He also knew I lived in Norwich Connecticut, so, don't try and convince me that he and Ray didn't already KNOW it was my station. I'm NOT stupid either!
They were downloading our Facebook photos and we had no way to ban them because they did not subscribe to the page allowing us the ability to ban them, so we made the page unpublished and they were still stealing our photos, so we deleted the page.
What laws says Bill can steal and host our photos on his hobbybroadcaster website without our consent? If I wanted our photos to be public domain I would have published them that way! That guy is a CROOK!
I did nothing wrong and did not appreciate being called a piece of work and a few other insulting names called at me by member Ray F. Burns including being called the name PIRATE.
I don't care what evidence Bill claims he has in my posts that I bought and continued to own and operate a FM transmitter with a power output of 25 Watts.
I KNOW DAMNED WELL THAT I SENT THAT TRANSMITTER BACK TO THE SELLER AND DID NOT PUT IT IN OPERATION!!! My mention of attenuation the signal of a higher powered transmitter, was a question I asked that if I was to use a higher powered FCC certified transmitter, could I get it to operate legally for part 15 by adding an external device to the transmission line. That did not mean I had it in operation at full power.
You may play it down, but I tend to think being called a PIRATE is a pretty insulting word to be called and it has serious legal and lawful consequences being one.
All I did was call Ray F. Burns a BULLY, BIG DEAL!!! Does being called a bully really bother him? Sticks and stones will break your bones Ray! But being called a PIRATE, I'm sorry, but that has the same level of name calling as being called a pedophile, both are law breaking losers and I take serious offense to being called a PIRATE!
Another thing I noted over there, it reminds me of being a Nazi, if you do not agree with and kiss Hitler's ass, you're not welcomed there. Which is why I'm banned I do not agree with being called a PIRATE!
Bruce.
Oh and Mark, sorry I over looked the fact you are in Canada, so the NAB does not have anything to do with Canada if I'm not mistaken.
All I am saying here in this topic is publishing your contact information on air and on line does not stop FCC wannabes from going beyond their rights and harassing you.
My station did everything possible to make our selves known to the public and provided contact information. We were called insulting names because we published our phone number, we were called insulting names because we published photos showing our studio from the inside and we also published photos showing the outside of our studio and its exact street location.
Doing that, we get called idiots and other choice names. So see no matter what you do, your going to have FCC wannabes who aren't going to be happy no matter how you do it!
Bruce.
Yes Mrbruce you may have something there but these are people that are unfamiliar with legal unlicenced radio and are in everyone elses business without a life or anything better to do....sorry for the trouble you've been having. But I still think that I have nothing to hide when I am not breaking a law. Every one around me here in Toronto knows about my station and a sign is on the mailbox down the street. And all I get is "you only get it right around here", "why don't you go much farther"....Even a part 15 forum member a while back who was on my street and was listening said I should go farther. I say if I could I would, that I want to keep doing this and I have to do it legally and have no worries. The Canadian rules are not quite as strict as the US so I can cover enough area around me which is fine with me.
By the way, Canada has the broadcast standards council(which stations are a member of) which may(or may not be) be similar to the NAB in the USA. You hear from time to time ads on the stations saying if you have any comments or concerns about something you heard contact the station and we will send you info. and address your concerns.
Mark
Well mark what we did was feed several transmitters via an Internet feed.
Besides the one you have at your location, you could allow someone else the right to re-transmit it in another location just outside your location where it just intersects your outer signal zone. Sort of how cell towers operate to cover a triangular zone area.
I am sorry to say though, that our biggest complainant was from people who ARE familiar with part 15, that is why I have brought that other part 15 related website into this topic in the first place.
Bruce.