- Posts
Total posts : 45366A typical person would conclude that this FCC denial shows what two points need to be PROVED in order to obtain a waiver of rules… If you can SHOW that no interference will be caused or the public interest will be SERVED then you might stand a chance, is that what you think? For that matter, is that what WDCX is telling us?
I call that lazy brained and here’s a different viewpoint.
By using psuedo-intellectual rationalization in the Scalia Style here’s what I see…
The FCC is doing no more than shoving the request off the desk into a waste basket by its petty, dismissive and insulting “REASONS” for denial.
Here’s why. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how frequencies on the AM or FM bands are allocated, can draw a pencil sketch of where the proposed service would transmit and using computer generated charts like Rich does everyday come to an easy and undisputable showing that no interference would be caused. It’s basic math from grade school.
“Serving the Public Interest” is as subjective as it could be because there are an infinite number of ways of arguing what that is supposed to mean and as with any statistics or polls it can be contorted in faver of any outcome.
What the FCC is REALLY saying is this: “You are a nobody and have no money so dry up.”
Total posts : 45366Now, see, I read that with a completely different interpretation.
First of all, the guy already got busted running an illegal 6 watt AM radio station.
Then, he apparently tried to gain a waiver promising “no interference” and that it would be in the “public interest”. The notice states he apparently made no attempt to demonstrate there wold be no interference, or what his plans might be to serve the public interest.
This would be an example where the folks looking for more power might learn some things. Had this guy had an engineer work up some paperwork (remember, 1972 — no handy computer generating charts and studies available) that proposed a frequency, specified a transmitter, demonstrated lack of harmonics and spurs, etc. Then accompanied this with a nice workup on paper of his plans and how they would benefit the community, perhaps with letters from signifigant members of the community, etc, he might have had at least a snowballs chance in hell.
This was far to easy for the FCC to say “You’ve already been busted, you’re trying to get us to set a precedent, you’ve no engineering paperwork, and what’s your plan and how does it benefit the community, so, no.” At least with some serious documentation they might have at least given a more interesting “No”. The bottom line, basically, was also that he was trying to get a license that didn’t exist.
It IS possible to get some waivers and exemptions from time to time. Rare, yes. I won’t post any details now as I don’t know them all, but I know a guy — in a town of a couple thousand people, 50 miles from a big town that has radio stations, who wanted to start a small station in his town to braodcast high school sports. He bought a low power FM transmitter and started broadcasting illegally. Never got busted, but within a year convinced the FCC to give him what is basically a LPFM license, without waiting for another window, and circumventing most of the BS. He’s been operating for years now. This guy was an insurance agent and the town mayor, who simply wanted to broadcast the local kids sports, and do some local announcements. As the nearest stations were 50 miles away this town was pretty much ignored by radio.
He had a very interesting format. He got everyone in town to bring him their CD’s, and he dumped them ALL into his computer. The format would literally bounce from, say Patsy Cline to AD/DC to a chamber orchestra, to a barbershop quartet to Eminem. If you didn’t like a song, just wait because the next one would be something totally different. I *think* he’s tweaked the format to being more logical now.
TIB
Total posts : 45366The incident with the unlicensed 6 Watts is, by my thinking, a separate and distinct matter that does not overlap on the request for a waiver.
In fact, by shutting down the 6 Watts upon notification from the FCC the small-caster showed compliance.
Further, by seeking the FCC license he was told he didn’t have he acknowledged the FCC Authority which puts him in good standing.
The fact that the FCC requires licenses that don’t exist is proof that they are an unreasonable organization.
Because the FCC does sometimes grant waivers not covered by ordinary rules shows they are arbitrary.
My only “respect” for any federal agency is based on the implied threat that they can and will do damage to me if I don’t show cowering meekness.
Flags don’t fly. The whole thing is an abstract fabrication along with religion.
Total posts : 45366Ah yes, that was the story of Victor H .Fischer.. it’s kind of funny when you think about it..
http://part15lab.blogspot.com/2014/03/intended-use-of-part-15-in-eyes-of-fcc.html
Total posts : 45366And some here think the FCC will give in to a few hobbiests wanting more power, after reading that article?
Even some people as shown in some NOUOs are told to cease and desist at barely over the max limit.
And you’re told you need a licence you can’t get…..
Unfortunately the big corporations controlling the gov’t if had their way completely would have the FCC shut down all hobby radio because they don’t want one person listening to you instead of them.
Mark
Total posts : 45366… And you’re told you need a licence you can’t get. …
____________
Kindly note that NO license is needed for operators who understand and comply with the technical/legal provisions for unlicensed operation in the AM and/or FM broadcast bands.
Total posts : 45366Of course there are a few outstanding licensed radio stations across the nation. But the operative word is FEW.
MOST of what we find on the dial serves only one purpose… we can listen to each one long enough to recall why we don’t like them.
I would honestly pay money IF ONLY there were some part 15 stations in my area, or even a pirate station. That could make for fun listening and it is not illegal to listen to pirate radio!
Oh wait, that’s right, I’m surrounded by a great part 15 bunch of stations, all called KDX!
Total posts : 45366While I highly doubt the FCC would even consider giving hobbiest more power than the current 100mw input.. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request… Consider how much more effective our part 15 AM signals must have been back in 1972 when the above story took place?
Today it’s a wonder our signals can be heard through all the interferance at all, I notice a big change in just the last ten years or so. I can’t pull in far off AM stations late at night like I used to reguarly do when I was a kid, there’s just too much interference.
“..Even some people as shown in some NOUOs are told to cease and desist at barely over the max limit..”
Not sure what you are reffering to there; The NOUO’s I’ve noted (for AM) all appear to have been well beyond permitted rules and regulations.
Total posts : 45366How much would you pay Carl?… I might be interested. Is there a boat dock nearby?
Total posts : 45366Rich Powers, there are some docking facilities within 30 miles… maybe just out of range for part 15.
But be sure to understand what I said…
I would honestly pay money IF ONLY there were some part 15 stations in my area, or even a pirate station.
The key word is SOME. You would need to be more than one station to get me to pay.
I figure picking up a lunch tab once a month should do it.
Total posts : 45366The NOUOs I was referring to just barely over was for FM posted here a little while back.
Back in 1972 AM was king of the airwaves, and all those tube radios that were so good still were in every household and reception was interference free unless there was a thunderstorm.
Back then I would be on AM not FM and I would get listeners but now it’s not like those days anymore…that’s why I don’t go on AM
Plus the fact the only AM transmitter certified for use in Canada is the Procaster and it’s expensive and don’t have my own property for the install that would give me decent coverage.
Mark
Total posts : 45366As I have said in many posts in the past, if we want change, we have to start looking at ways to make sure interference is not an issue with our part 15 devices.
Anyone who has the title of “broadcast engineer” and has a background in radio communications and understands how radio waves influence the world around us, could conduct tests for the purpose of proving that certain criteria can be met to prevent harmful interference to licensed radio services.
There appears to be engineer related people out there that dwell in part 15 radio services, that should be capable of conducting tests and apply the needed fixs to stop potential interference.
I am not a broadcast engineer, but if I had chosen that career as my number 1 interest, I would then be capable of understanding what is needed to make sure that I provide proof that a part 15 device can be used without interference to licensed services.
We speak many times about interference, but speak very little about what can be done to prevent it.
If an engineer spent time working on circuit ideas that can be implemented into part 15 radio devices, that filters the final output stage to prevent, spurs and other out of band interference, part 15 might stand a chance with more relaxed possibilities.
If a 10,000 watt transmitter used by a licensed station is not causing spurs or out of band interference, or intermod, why can’t a 1 watt transmitter? The difference of 9,999 watts versus 1 watt, you’re telling me that no one can come up with a way for that 1 watt device to operate without causing harmful interference to other frequencies across the broadcast spectrum? I just don’t see it as being impossible to make that happen!!!!
Reading that document from the FCC posted in post #1, interference seems to be the number 1 concern with the FCC in regards to their denying the request. What is so hard about manufacturing a transmitter AM or FM that prevents such interference in the first place?
Instead of the engineers simply stating the rules are the rules because they guarantee no interference to licensed stations, how about they take the time to do some research and find ways to guarantee the FCC that such RF devices can be used with zero interference possibilities to licensed broadcast stations?
What is the sense in being involved in part 15 if you do have engineering skills and not find a way for the FCC to view part 15 as an interference free service? I wish I had the knowledge they possess, because I would be using that knowledge to do case studies that proves that part 15 can be used without causing interference to other radio services. Why can’t those who have the know-how do the same???????
They preach from their soap boxes about the rules are what they are, so live with it, but none have tried to dispute those rules and suggest ideas for change.
To say the rules have proven there is no way part 15 devices can operate at laxed levels without causing harmful interference, is to say, you’re closed minded and not willing to learn new ideas or ways to help prevent interference if the rules were allowed some type of increase, whether it be antenna length or RF power increase.
It is those closed minded people that should stop dwelling in part 15, because they are hurting the service more then they are helping it! So why bother with it at all?
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366MrBruce wrote: “…we have to start looking at ways to make sure interference is not an issue with our part 15 devices. …”
There is no way to design and operate a transmitter to make sure it does not cause interference. That depends on its operating environment (and operator).
The FCC generally requires that licensed AM broadcast stations protect each other so that the co-channel interference levels at their 0.5 mV/m groundwave field contours are not greater than -26 dB with respect to that 0.5 mV/m field. That is a multiplier of 0.05, so the interfering signal could not exceed 0.5 mV/m x 0.05 = 0.025 mV/m = 25 µV/m.
Unlicensed systems operating strictly compliant with FCC §15.219 can produce fields up to one mile away that are greater than 100 µV/m. Even perfect Part 15 AM systems are capable of producing co-channel interference to the 0.5 mV/m fields of AM broadcast stations using the Part 15 Rules now in place, so the FCC probably has little reason to relax them.
Total posts : 45366Mr Bruce raises a good point about equipment designed to minimize the potential for interference and such designs do exist. A little talked about provision of Part 15 specifies harmonic and out of band emission limits and even simple designs can meet these requirements. This is not an impediment to employing relatively inexpensive transmitters.
The problem is more in line with what Rich posted, namely dealing with co-channel and adjacent channel interference which does not depend on transmitter design but rather results from the need to share the spectrum. Though I understand the terminology and numbers Rich cited, I am not equipped to make such measurements in order to predict interference which raises the question of how does a user of a proposed increased range Part 15 station do so?
Under current Part 15 rules, the chance of such interference is small due to the very small signal strengths allowed by compliant transmitters. It would be helpful if a means of providing such assurance can be stated regarding higher strength transmitters and antennas.
Mr Bruce is right about interference but harmonics and spurious emissions are not the only issues.
Neil
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
