- Posts
Here is an interesting document, the NAB and Part15 FM Transmitters.
Total posts : 45366Thanks for the link to this interesting report.
The report alludes to increasing complaints of interference. It would be nice to know the numbers so we can assess if it is a large problem.
The report lists that many devices are not Part 15 compliant. I wonder if a compliant device would cause interference anyway since in traffic the vehicles are in close proxmity. Though not stated in the report, the implication is that removing the non compliant devices would solve the problem, but that may not be the case.
If this is a big problem and if compliant devices are involved, look for a move to amend the rules to reduce the allowed field strength or to eliminate FM band part 15 operation..
If I were a broadcaster, I would be more concerned with the number of listeners lost to the alternative programming as evidenced by the increasing interference complaints.
Neil
Total posts : 45366I’d also like to say thanks for that link! Aside from the purpose and conclusion of the report, that’s the best ‘review’ of Mp3-player-transmitters that I’ve ever seen. I’m taking this with me next time I need to go shopping for one 🙂
Total posts : 45366What a joke of a self-serving study! You think that maybe they could have claimed more interference if they had more TV tables to stack?
This appears to be nothing more than a paid study to combat any possible competition in any form to their paid membership. After all this is the same group that outright lied to congress and the public about the DTV fiasco. They made all kinds of outrageous claims and if you were gullible enough to call an 800 number they sent a letter to your senators and the FCC under your name without any previous notice to support their opinion.
They also have made false claims about LPFM to try to stifle any community based broadcasters.
For this survey to be believable they need to document complaints from the public. I find it hard to believe that anyone has complained about interference from any Part 15 device while sitting in traffic. I am skeptical anyone would set their device to a frequency in use because of intereference from the licensed broadcaster. It just doesn’t make sense. Likewise most of these devices are being used inside of metal vehicles, usually below dash level so the signal, and not on top of stacked TV tables. The vehicle metal would shield a great deal of the transmission. Also I’d be surprised that anyone would take the time to complain about a few seconds of interference, even if it did exist. If they did they would most likely complain directly to the FCC, not the local broadcaster, most of which would toss the complaint aside as ludicrous.
Total posts : 45366Very personal opinions follow and I hope you will read them with interest.
If the NAB uses this study to eliminate part 15 FM then it will be an excellent example of winning a battle and not the war.
The fact is that commercial broadcasters and especially the news networks are losing audience. Even major newspaper subscriptions are down.
I do not speak for others, but I will state that I have not viewed a local or network newscast in over 20 years. I found their focus (car wrecks, fires, misery, for example) to be outside my interest. I also was driven away by the burdomsome amount and content of commercials.
I can and do endure the five minutes of “complete” news on a local AM station at the top of the hour, then the switch goes off. I just renewed, for the third year, my subscription to the Rush Limbaugh program which is now delivered commercial free via the internet (even though a Rush hour without breaks is only 36 minutes). Say what you will about my choice of content, but I can listen without commercial interruption and that is where I believe the future of information dissemination and programming is heading.
Consider, for example, premium cable. I subscribe to 24 commercial free movie and special event channels. I am willing to pay for this so I do not have to be subjected to the constant interrpution of advertising. I was fortunate to be grandfathered in that I do not have to get the “basic” service and do not have to pay for advertising on channels which I do not care to view anyway to be piped into my home. If my provider ever bundles my service with commercial stations I will unsubscribe.
My point is that eventually good programming will be pay for service without advertising and the NAB is wasting its time if it pursues the weak notion that part 15 broadcasters are the root of the broadcast media problem. My opinion, based on my experiences and the comments of many of my family members, is that there is a paucity of good programming and the advertisements are too frequent and abusive and that is resulting in decreasing broadcast audience.
Broadcasters should not blame external sources for their problems; they should produce a product that people want and deliver it without incessant interruptions.
Thanks for tolerating my rant on this subject.
Neil
Total posts : 45366Neil is correct that the NAB will likely try to use this paid “study” as evidence to further restrict unlicensed broadcasting and unlicensed tranmitting devices. I suggest we as part 15 broadcasters do our own study. Does the public want locally operated and community oriented stations? Do many people listen to distant stations. If not, what’s the point of 50,000 or 100,000 watt FM stations. Wouldn’t the spectrum be better used by lower powered stations (10,000 watts or less) which would free up more frequencies for community stations and public access? It would also put all stations on a equal footing rather than granting super station status to a select few. It would also mean that many communities would get their local stations back. Since the current rules allow a station to locate its transmitter just about anywhere as long as the city of license has a high quality signal many small communities found their “local” stations “moved” to nearby cities. The result is a lot of high powered automated stations with no local presence in their communities of license. The whole point of the higher power class C FM stations was to allow some stations larger coverage to reach rural areas not served by local broadcasters. That need just isn’t justified anymore.
Anyway we should conduct our own survey/study and find out how many people would like a locally operated station. Also if the public feels that current broadcasters are serving the needs of the community. Do people feel that low powered local stations should be allowed to operate on unused frequecies if no interference is caused. Has anyone ever experience interference by a low powered broadcaster? You get the idea. If we can conduct this study and submit it to the FCC we have countered and reduced the effectiveness of the NAB survey.
Neil – I agree with just about everything you said except Rush Limbaugh. Have you checked out FTA satellite? I get 35 tv channels from across the country(with commercials) free. Better still are the free audio channels of various formats, all commercial free. My whole system cost less than $70 and we get two of the programs for our radio station that way as well (we have permission).
Total posts : 45366I couldn’t agree more, and I’ll add this. I think that if you are managing a corporation, and that corporation’s stock is traded on Wall Street, you’re going to be very eager to blame your internal problems on external sources.
Remember the record companies screaming that file swapping was responsible for lost sales? Most of us knew that lost sales were due to a drop in investment in new acts, big cutbacks in A&R budgets, price fixing (to which the recording industry was eventually forced to admit), total obsession with low risk, tired tried and true formula music, excessive focus on the fickle teen/tween market segments, rip off CD productions with two good songs & 7 dogs, and industry consolidation that resulted in a lack of variety for music buyers. The real reason the RIAA went after file swappers was to prevent Wall Street from discovering the business model was dead.
Radio has gone down the very same road, and now wants the investors to believe that excessive power from FM modulators is bringing down the industry.
Hmmm, you don’t suppose the NAB is behind the new drive to make using a cell phone while driving illegal, do you? Gosh, it would be so much better if drivers were prevented from calling friends when stuck in traffic jams, force us to listen to their radio stations, yeah, that’s it!
It’s like watching a gold fish who accidentally jumped out of the fish bowl, lying on it’s side on the floor, gills heaving helplessly. Self inflicted mortal peril, it’s not just for breakfast, anymore!
Total posts : 45366Techpuppy,
Thanks for the tip about FTA satellite (though I am not excited about commercials) and you thoughtful reply to my rant.
I think you got my point that folks such a I am not satisfied regarding broadcast media programming and format. Your suggestion about FTA illustrates that there are alternatives such as community based radio, part 15 or licensed, and they could certainly be of value and might attract listeners such as I. In the good old days, the local DJs formed a sense of friendship with listeners that is very much missing today. One local personality does this and has a successful call in program, but again, the advertising is a big negative to me.
If you have any further ideas about a survey, I would like to read them. Marshall Johnson, who posts here, has commented on this type of action and I hope he will give us his thoughts.
And no, I have never, ever, experienced interference from low power broadcasters including myself.
Neil
Total posts : 45366Why can’t Part 15 stations get together and form our own kind of NAB? Then we would have a voice. I would be willing to join such a group, as long as it’s active in protecting what little rights we have, and helping us gain more rights. We need something like this to keep Part 15 not only alive but to thrive. If the NAB has it’s way, you wouldn’t even have access to internet streaming, let alone your tiny Part 15 station. Can’t we get together to stand up to this?
Yours Truly,
Mark Shannon
AM 1690 WOQ/Omaha’s FUN Station
Total posts : 45366The reality of standing up to the political clout of the NAB is this: “money talks and ‘*******’ walks.” Not only would it take a large and growing group of microbroadcasters to agree to join together in consensus, but it would also require a membership willing to provide the cash to get the job done on Capitol Hill. How much are you willing to contribute on a regular/annual basis to hire a professional lobbyist? Ultimately, the FCC will not make new regualtions doing away with Part 15 devices with their support of Broadband Power Line (BPL) and other projects underway by the feds. They will wait for a sense of the Congress before they step off that cliff.
The LPFM’ers after decades of beating their collective heads against the stone-wall of the FCC, finally created the Prometheus Project and others to get Congress to create a community FM service. The same folks just had Congress pass a law to do away with the LPFM 3rd adjacent channel protection for licensed broadcasters. Licensed translators weren’t even required to be under the same stringent technical regulation.
Please remember the three most important words in agency politics: justify, justify, justify. This is the exact reason for the submission of the report from the NAB. After gaining the attention of the FCC over converting broadcasting to digital, licensed broadcasters will now go on the offensive to protect their turf. The NAB loss in the House and Senate over the 3rd adjacent channel rule for LPFM should indicate to everyone who will listen to us and who won’t.
Right now, find out who your Congressmen and Senators are and begin a flurry of well written letters to them and their staff members explaining the realities of public oriented broadcasting in our communities and how microbroadcasting fills in the blanks. Be substantive, be positive and offer future help when the time comes to make a decision on Part 15 broadcasting.
A national association will require consensus, money and a gathering of the flock of Part 15 believers in D.C. to demonstrate solidarity on the cogent issues facing all of us. And finally, it will require individuals willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Is that you?
Marshall Johnson, Sr.
Senior Pastor, President
Rhema Christian Fellowship, Inc.Rhema Radio – The Word In Worship
AM 1660 – FM 101.3
http://www.rhemaradio.org
Total posts : 45366[quote=kk7cw]The reality of standing up to the political clout of the NAB is this: “money talks and ‘*******’ walks.” Not only would it take a large and growing group of microbroadcasters to agree to join together in consensus, but it would also require a membership willing to provide the cash to get the job done on Capitol Hill. How much are you willing to contribute on a regular/annual basis to hire a professional lobbyist? Ultimately, the FCC will not make new regualtions doing away with Part 15 devices with their support of Broadband Power Line (BPL) and other projects underway by the feds. They will wait for a sense of the Congress before they step off that cliff.
The LPFM’ers after decades of beating their collective heads against the stone-wall of the FCC, finally created the Prometheus Project and others to get Congress to create a community FM service. The same folks just had Congress pass a law to do away with the LPFM 3rd adjacent channel protection for licensed broadcasters. Licensed translators weren’t even required to be under the same stringent technical regulation.
Please remember the three most important words in agency politics: justify, justify, justify. This is the exact reason for the submission of the report from the NAB. After gaining the attention of the FCC over converting broadcasting to digital, licensed broadcasters will now go on the offensive to protect their turf. The NAB loss in the House and Senate over the 3rd adjacent channel rule for LPFM should indicate to everyone who will listen to us and who won’t.
Right now, find out who your Congressmen and Senators are and begin a flurry of well written letters to them and their staff members explaining the realities of public oriented broadcasting in our communities and how microbroadcasting fills in the blanks. Be substantive, be positive and offer future help when the time comes to make a decision on Part 15 broadcasting.
A national association will require consensus, money and a gathering of the flock of Part 15 believers in D.C. to demonstrate solidarity on the cogent issues facing all of us. And finally, it will require individuals willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Is that you?
______________________________________________________________________Yes, that’s me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
