At this point in time, The ALPB is not involved with negotiating regulatory changes. We have neither the expertise nor resources to faciliate such endeavors.
The ALPB is not limited to USA member stations. As such, regulatory issues would be far to envolved for the scope of our organization.
Our sole purpose is to improve the quality of our member stations, helping to produce quality sounding programming and providing help with technical issues such as studio operations and transmitter/antenna setup.
Our goal is to win public support of license free, low power broadcasters by supplying the public a media resource they desire - Bringing Radio Back To The People.
ALPB Chairman MRAM 1500 is saying what must be said at this stage, the ALPB is a very small, powerless gathering of sincere Part 15 operators who care about the hobby, profession, and practice of low power legal unlicensed radio.
In a sense, the ALPB is an audio forum, compared with the texting forums found here.
However, I would like to add that we do discuss the ongoing happenings that arise, such as the recent actions against Part 15 persons.
Everyone who practices Part 15 is given reason to take alarm when one of our group is blind-sided by an unforeseen attack which appears to ignore the boundaries of ordinary rule.
Perhaps the ALPB might be helpful afterall, through collective discussion, and this could be the perfect time to become a member.
Where is this online chatter? All I've seen is what is here, and on the Radio Discussions site. Is there more information out and about, because I prefer facts over idle speculation.
It's difficult to judge why the FCC did what it did, in the manner in which it did it, without that additional information. They don't tend to make a habit of raiding legal, Part 15 stations.
Radio Systems is investigating (with tyhe help of Bill Defallice) both incidents. i have suggested to bill that he discuss with radio systems them releasing whatever FCC Certification info they have to users of the iAM / TH-5.0 to offer an added level of protection against fcc action.
Again, that thread on Radio Discussions seems to indicate that the FM station was the reason for the raid (the one that the operator admitted used 'slightly more power' than the Part 15 rules allowed, and that was heard throughout the city of McKinnley and neighboring areas).
As has been discussed here many times, it's not power, but field strength that determines the legality of Part 15 FM in the U.S. And if you can't measure field strength, range (typically 200 feet to an ordinary consumer radio, maximum 800 feet to a sensitive car radio with no obstructions - and if you do the calculations, as I have, even those ranges are pushing the boundaries). Obviously, this station far exceeded these ranges.
Perhaps the other transmitters mentioned, including the Talking House, were just caught up in the maelstrom of whatever happened. And it's difficult to determine exactly what happened without further information, which doesn't appear to be forthcoming (who said and did what, when and how). I for one wouldn't condemn the FCC without that information, as it does seem with the available facts that that FM station was operating illegally (you can't be 'slightly' illegal).
We should all know the rules of the game before jumping in. And I, for one, who runs the Canadian equivalent of a Part 15 station, have very little tolerance for those who knowingly break the rules - they reflect poorly on all of us who work hard to stay within them (regardless of whether we feel they should be changed).
And for all those who are using or thinking about using Part 15 (or Industry Canada) certified transmitters - I wouldn't worry about using a transmitter with that FCC/Industry Canada certification number, period, including the Talking House V or the I.A.M one.
I wouldn't worry about using a transmitter with that FCC/Industry Canada certification number, period, including the Talking House V or the I.A.M one.
One caveat: according to information posted on various "Part 15" lists over the years, transmitters FCC-certified under Part 15 and having an FCC indentifying number still resulted in FCC NOUOs for some users, depending on how the transmitter systems were configured and operated.
Keep in mind that a leading reason this case is special is that there was no NOUO.
The situation began with a surprise ransacking.
That makes it quite different from what we ordinarilly expect.
Agreed, Rich. I guess I should have been more detailed in my response. The certified transmitters need to be installed and operated according to the manufacturer's instructions (which form part of the certification).
I understand that, Carl. But what initiated that raid (the interest presumably generated by the illegal FM operation)? Surely something was said or done? Did the FCC arrive and ask to inspect the site, were given permission and then saw something? Sometimes it isn't the information we have, but instead, the info we DON'T have that makes a big difference in our perception. This is a bizarre one of, and I'm not ready to blanket condemn the FCC until the entire situation is known (if it ever is).
The case of Jerry Gaulle seems to be intertwined with this one, when it's, at least in my opinion, totally different. I was not aware of it (I didn't understand why his name was being brought up in the context of this thread), so I will paraphrase what I've just learned. He claims that he was running a Talking House from a 2nd floor apartment, with the wire antenna strung to the ceiling, ungrounded (other than through the AC adapter). He was issued an NOUO (by the same FCC agent who went after Ken Cartwright) for apparently transmitting with an FCC certified transmitter that appears to be installed correctly. I guess he decided not to fight it, because he did cease and desist. However, if what is being said is correct, I would have thought that the FCC would have gone after the manufacturer of transmitter they themselves certified - Radio Systems - if they thought it was illegal, rather than someone who was obviously attempting to use it within the bounds of the law. Hopefully, Radio Systems can get to the bottom of the situation and clarify it.
But as to the other, I'm still listening.
In the Jerry Gaule case the violation notice claimed that field strength exceeded 15.209 limits.
But the violation notice did not mention whether 15.219 was considered, and in my opinion, must be considered in such a case.
According to Jerry Gaule's account, he was in compliance with 15.219.
Further, the Talking House transmitter (TH) is certified for use at 15.219, therefore it's a key point.
The agent bypassed 15.219. That is the important factor in the Gaule case.
I have a TH V5 and would feel a little better if the fcc compliance sticker on the unit's bottom mentioned 15.219 rather than just being the generic sticker that warns that the unit may not cause interference and must accept interference.
Also, I'm wondering if the field agent involved believes a part 15 transmitter must meet both 15.209 and 15.219.
One other thing, does part 15 state that the transmitter must either have a permanently attached antenna or a detachable antenna with a unique connector? I ask because my TH V5 has only a thumb screw and an f connector.
Exactly Carl. Jerry Gaulle did have a case, if he had wanted to, to escalate the issue higher within the FCC. I wonder if he mentioned the 100 mw limit compliance to the FCC inspector?
But his circumstances appear to be very different than the one that started this thread. The two shouldn't be lumped together, in my opinion.
Agreed that the two cases are separate, but I think they got connected together because they happened within the same time period.
I didn't personally bring the Jerry Gaule story to this forum because I thought that choice should be left to Jerry, just as we might not have discussed The Crow's situation except that he came forward to report his experience.
Naturally we all want to know about these cases and the bottom line is that Part 15 practitioners want to know where they stand when it comes to enforcement.
There have been and continue to be some gray areas and doubts about whether we are in compliance even when we go as far as possible to comply.
Sadly but truly Part 15ers are not going to be cordially served by government agencies, as we are not money bags.
All of Part 15 land should mourn The Crow's slaughter.
I just listened to Low Power Hour No. 11 in which Jim The Crow shows himself to be a broadcaster at heart, a creative man, someone who managed to build an entire network of affiliated stations, which is something the rest of us have only talked about.
The Crow was careful about not interfering with any other radio service and in my opinion was treated way out of proportion with slight over-power on fm. It would be like grass 1-inch above the municipal code.
Putting The Crow entirely out of the radio game is a hideous abuse of power by a character with characteristics of psychological disorder.
It's sort of embarrasing how meak and "see no evil" people tend to get when a good man is shipwrecked.
There's been no crime, no victim, no societal benefit to this dispicable action.
Odor would indicate that Part 15 is being scapegoated for the problems of licensed radio.
When you get picked off wouldn't you like the rest of us to care?
as i stated bill defallice (cheif cook at HB.net) and dan braverman (prez & ceo of Radio Systems) are not letting these two incidents go without an investigation and it is urged that Gerry Gaule and Mighty1650 cooperate with bill and dan in getting these issues resolved for the benefit of those who still use the TH/iAM/ATU system.
also anyone else who has had FCC enforcement issues when using the iAM/TH/ATU system contact bill defallice over at HB.net
it is imperative that we find out what is going on with both of these incidents to resolve any future issues before they start.
i will say it again and again if needed.
every owner of the TH/iAM/ATU should be provided with the FCC Certification and test data exibits that get submitted to the OET as part of the certification process and that these documents should be kept in a conspicuous folder right next to the iAM/TH5.0 transmitter system as part of the stations fcc file should a visit occur.
look at the oet equipment authorization site at the procaster (FCC ID: VCJ AMTX100) data for an example of what the exibits look like.
these exibits are different from the proprietary schematic and do not reveal any trade secrets and should be provided as part of the sale and be provided to exisiting customers.
i have stated this about not only Radio Systems, but Rangemaster, Decade, and other popular part 15 transmitters.
given the recent incidents it is only common sense to provide these documents as an added layer of protection against a NOV, NOUO, NAL
i have emailed dan braverman and politely asked for and explained my reasoning for the requested documents. i know he has read my email as i got a read reciept back. hopefully dan will contact me sometime this week about the recent issues and/or requested fcc test documents and that i will get a positive result from the communication with him.