- Posts
[EDIT Please note that the “initiative” discussions have moved to this site: http://the-initiative.boards.net/ and comments about this can be posted there. This thread is no longer needed so it is closed.]
Total posts : 45366Artisan, I was waiting for one of the project leaders to respond to your question, but see that you have not yet received a reply so I can fill in some of the highlights from the “Initiative Meeting” as soon as I grab a cupo of coffee.
There was talk of a “threat to part 15 as we know it” which took the form of an NAB effort from 2006 to strongly reduce the power of FM transmitters used to transmit iPods to dashboards, and the fear was that perhaps this effort was still in the works, but we reasoned that because nothing has happened in ten years it is probably a dead issue. We would like to hear about any such actions still in active status.
Jeff Station8 has taken a leadership role in stepping forward as the writer of a sample document for later review and criticism as the Initiative forms a proper request for change to present to the FCC.
Sensitive to criticism and disinterest expressed toward the Initiative by some responders to the Initiative on this and other public forums, it was agreed that the ALPB, while not being an actual party to the Initiative, will provide a membership only forum area at thealpb(dot)org. Anyone wishing to join the Initiative talks contact TheLegacy or Jeff Station8.
Total posts : 45366Very well put Carl, I was thinking the same about letting Station8 or thelegacy speak about it.
I think it went well, wished more people had participated, because we need as much input as possible and yes, we invite comments that state why it won’t work, but I would prefer more words than it won’t work, I would prefer a descriptive explanation or response, including evidence and any proof of previous failed attempts that is related to broadcasting that could also be associated to/with or related to part 15.
That is an invitation open to all both pro and con. There is now a place to discuss this at the ALPB.
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366I’m not sure hiding from critisism is the best idea, ideas that are kept behind closed doors tend to fester and get out of touch when you have everybody with the same exact thoughts and opinions. The negative repsonse that has been given is mild compared to what the FCC is going to say. In Fact, I’d venture to say the negative feedback is the most important feedback any movement can have, it makes you learn and truely think out your ideas.
I am in agreement that simple statements of “It won’t work” aren’t quite enough. However I believe the reasons why the current movement won’t work have been made quite clear by this point in the SEVERAL threads this topic has spawned.
Total posts : 45366mighty1650 Said:
However I believe the reasons why the current movement won’t work have been made quite clear by this point in the SEVERAL threads this topic has spawned.
MrBruce Said:
Yes, you are correct to say “several threads”, that is the problem, there has become an issue with following up with the many responses or comments made when they are scattered among 6, 10 or 20 different threads.
Over at the ALPB, a thread strickly related to this inititive has been created where everything said remains in one thread, making it easier to follow up and not having to view more than one topic, getting lost in the scatttered pieces of information.
The purpose of “hidding”, if that is what it is what you want to call it, is not to avoid criticism, it is to avoid having “new comers” reading the forums, who might try things that are simply out there for open discussion and not out there to be encouarged or tried by those “new comers” before any authorization is granted. Anyone can read “these” forums without actually logging in with a screen name.
Hopefully, my point is made without going into great detail, but being the web can teach people both bad and good, we would prefer not to cause public confusion and the risk of people new to the hobby might misunderstand and think something is legal because it was talked about on a public part 15 website.
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366MrBruce Said: “Hopefully, my point is made without going into great detail, but being the web can teach people both bad and good, we would prefer not to cause public confusion and the risk of people new to the hobby might misunderstand and think something is legal because it was talked about on a public part 15 website.”
I Say: Your point has been made perfectly and that makes perfect sense to me.
Total posts : 45366mighty1650 took the words right out of my mouth.
This is a friendly environment. The criticism you’re receiving is intended to help for the most part (even if it isn’t taken that way).
But it’s nothing compared to the vitriol that you’re gong to receive once the petition is filed, where every minute detail, every grammatical and spelling error, every unsupported assumption is going to be attacked. In addition to that, every aspect of your lives is going to be put under the microscope – professional experience, educational background, Part 15 background, pirate background, etc. You’re going to be called lots of names and it won’t be very nice. Anything that’s been said to date is going to look good by comparison.
There’s a difference between having a private website or forum to assist in actually writing the document, and publicly publishing information about the document and/or inviting criticism. I’m actually rather surprised the former hasn’t happened already, as you can’t write a document out in the open. Too many cooks, etc.
However, I have yet to see any defnitive statement that anyone can wrap their heads around about what this Initiative really is and what it is going to go for. I don’t know how you can even start writing a document until you make those kinds of decisions. And it is that kind of information that needs to be put ‘out there’ in forums such as this. Make up your minds and go for it. You can always revise as you go along and run into roadblocks.
If there is a definitive ‘this is what we’re going for’ statement, and it’s focused (i.e., not everything to everybody and all over the map) you just might get more people involved and/or be willing to help.
I also haven’t seen much willingness to really (and I mean really) listen to some of the criticism that is being brought forward by many who have a great deal of experience in the broadcast industry and thus in dealing with the FCC and licensed broadcasters in general. They’re not FM trolls or the enemy.
Even the simple statement – ‘That won’t work’ is worthwhile – there has to be a reason for it, and it’s up to those involved to find out what that reason is and come up with effective strategies to counter it. Or go along another path. As an example, just because the Initiative might want to be able to dedicate 87.9 to unlicensed broadcasting doesn’t mean that the FCC or the NAB would want it, or that it can realistically be done.
Anyway, thanks Carl for the update. I hope this thing doesn’t go completely offsite and underground, as it will be the death knell for it.
Total posts : 45366I can certainly understand your entire statement.
Some here, may feel your words fall on death ears, but I can assure you, that is far from the truth.
Just because one member seems to steer clear, does not mean everyone else has passed through and ignored the importance of all feedback the membership here has offered.
I’ll speak for myself. I encourage all input including the reasons why it won’t be easy or what stumbling blocks we are faced with.
I do not personally care if other people want to get mad or frustrated because the whole world will not cave in and say hey this will work and you guys are going to win. I am a dreamer, but I know when dreams have to be put aside and the seriousness of real life has to prevail.
If anyone of you out there wants to feel I am going to talk bad about you behind your back because you’re throwing reality checks out there, guess again, I want the input, the most important to me is the negative and I do not want people to stop sharing those thoughts with me.
But everytime we create a thread regarding this input it gets posted in various different threads and it really makes it tough for me to follow and place all of that info in my mind as I think about that input those of you have contributed thus far. That I expect when I do research on various websites and the FCC website, but not in the same forum board.
I personally, would like to see more subforums here at part15dotus, but I am not currently posting to the admins asking for more forum board catagories, I am responding to the questions I feel deserve an rightful answer. In my opinion, that includes any questions or concerns, or negative or positive feedback any of you might have. I assure you, I certainly won’t attack you for participating and your words are being read and I am spending my time thinking about what you said with an open mind.
Join the inititive forum and participate.
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366Persons wanting to be in the Initiative as a commenter are welcome to contact TheLegacy or Station8 and ask to be included.
Artisan, I was more encouraged when it seemed like you might head the effort, and that was never really voted on one way or the other, but whatever role you take I hope you accept the invitation and become a participant.
To Mighty 1650 Retro Radio, you too… get inside the Initiative where your valuable experience and input can be part of the discussion.
We will assume that anyone who doesn’t ask to be included in the Initiative has no reason to criticize it as an outsider.
Total posts : 45366I agree with Carl, take the plunge, your input is most important to us.
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366I still for for SW. A hal-wave antenna that’s at least 30 feet at the feed point should offer world-wide coverage when the band is open.
Total posts : 45366That’s my pesonal opinion too, John.
But I think that the Initiative needs to finalize their objectives before going any further.
Once that’s done, the job becomes mechanical.
I’m willing to help out on setting the objectives, and then, based on that, people can decide if they’re in or out. Including myself.
Total posts : 45366My mind has changed like a revovlving door since all this started, now all of a sudden I think the prospect of a Shortwave Initiative is a much better idea than anything else.
Shortwave has already been seriously vacated and gone into decline, which makes a proposal for Part 15 Amateur Broadcasting very plausible.
Whereas by comparison, FM is the most in-demand band in the history of radio and the hope of getting an increase for Part 15 is super unlikely.
I’m going over to the Initiative Forum and enter my latest position.
Based on what you’ve just said, Artisan, I’m going to seek access to the Initiative Forum on your behalf, since I don’t have the authority to hand out the password on my own.
Total posts : 45366Honestly Shortwave really does have the best bet, yet I have a strong feeling that will be totally ignored and the push for FM will continue.
Something I thought of for FM, make a distinction between mobile and fixed transmitters. Keep the mobile (car mp3 crap) limited to the old power level or lower, let the fixed transmitters get the boost. There is nothing more annoying than jamming to my favorite tunes only for them to be completely run over by whatever crap the car that just pulled up next to me is playing.
Also, as far as AM goes… You drop that antenna limit and you can easily (frighteningly easily) get 100 mW to travel several miles during the daytime.
Total posts : 45366Mighty1650 posted: “…Keep the mobile (car mp3 crap) limited to the old power level or lower, let the fixed transmitters get the boost. There is nothing more annoying than jamming to my favorite tunes only for them to be completely run over by whatever crap the car that just pulled up next to me is playing. …”
Just to note that many entertainment systems in cars these days have a stereo input jack and input choice for an external audio source. Even my old-ish (2008) KIA Optima has this capability.
That mode doesn’t require the use of FM transmission/reception whatever the degree of compliance with FCC §15.239 — which would eliminate the possibility of “crap” from a nearby car using an FM transmitter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
