This is the support you’d need for VLPFM

[MrBruceParticipant Total posts : 40]

Check out this recent remarks of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly

Before the New York State Broadcasters Association Summer Conference

June 23, 2015

Notice his remarks regarding pirate radio stations operating in New York’s Bronx.

Pay attention to his remarks which I’ll partially quote here:

To see the impact of New York broadcasters in Washington, you don’t need to look any further

than the letter to the FCC on the ongoing problem of pirate radio, which every single member of the

New York House delegation signed just two weeks ago. Getting all those signatures on one document is

quite an impressive feat and speaks not only of your high level of engagement and involvement with

your representatives, but also of the extremely serious nature of this problem, which I addressed in a

post on my FCC blog two months ago. Far from being cute, insignificant, or even somehow useful in the

broadcasting ecosystem, pirate radio represents a criminal attack on the integrity of our airwaves, at a

time when spectrum has become more scarce and precious than ever before.

Burdened with around 25% of the nation’s total pirate transmissions, New

York’s airwaves are a

target under continuous assault. As the Congressional letter highlighted, there appear to be 34 pirate

stations operating in Brooklyn and the Bronx alone, with more stations now spreading throughout the

state like poison ivy in a neglected garden. And where is the gardener? With enforcement actions on

the decline even as unauthorized stations proliferate, many feel that pirate radio has slipped far down

the FCC’s priority list.

Allocating spectrum and subsequently protecting license holders from interference is one of the

Commission’s original charter missions and remains our most fundamental responsibility. Without

vigilant, proactive enforcement of every license, the value of our spectrum, one of the most treasured

natural resources of the modern age, is irreparably degraded. And when the interference affects

legitimate, licensed broadcasters, Americans can be deprived of the vital and potentially life-saving

emergency alerts, weather updates, and news they need at critical moments. There can be no

justification for the Commission continuing to look the other way with everything that is at stake here,

and that is why I have called for a renewed focus on pirate radio enforcement along with consideration

of potential private remedies to give licensees more tools to defend against interference.

In addition, one idea that is worth exploring that I discussed with David is whether to put

building owners on the hot seat for hosting pirate radio stations. Most building owners wouldn’t allow

tenants to conduct an illegal gambling sites, sweatshops or drug activities, why should they be allowed

to be so passive with regards to illegal pirate radio stations? Shouldn’t there be an added burden to

make sure building owners don’t knowingly lease or rent to pirates? I don’t want to go overboard

because I strongly believe in property rights, but it seems like accepting a complete ignorance excuse is

insufficient. Such an idea may require a change in law, and therefore subject to Congress, but if it is

something that may help the cause, I’m willing to assist you in that effort.

The good news is that more help is on the way from the FCC. Thanks to all the recent efforts to

raise awareness of this problem, the Chairman has finally seen the light and committed to step up

enforcement against pirate radio operators in connection with the Commission’s initiative to reorganize

the operations of FCC field offices. My understanding is that the NY FCC Field Office is quite responsive

and capable. Our job at FCC Headquarters is to make clear to them that we place a high priority on their

efforts to eliminate pirate radio, are ready to provide resources, and expect results in the near term.

Next week, the FCC will be hosting several New York broadcasters, as well as your counterparts from

other markets, for a discussion to start formulating a plan of attack. So I am optimistic about the

chances of rapid, substantial progress on the enforcement front. I know that no one is happier to hear

this news than the community gathered in this room, and I commit to keeping the pressure up to

eradicate pirate radio for good.

The link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0623/DOC-334063A1.pdf

With all this going on, do you really think the FCC wants to have to contend with policing part 15 VLPFM stations?

Before long even legal part 15 radio stations will be subject to cease and desist orders as the NAB and the broadcasters say enough is enough. Part 15 will be looked at as being the ground floor for future pirate operations as users get more daring and try to push the limit. Thoughts will be, geese a few more feet really wouldn’t hurt, besides “that guy up the street says he can just about hear me, so if I push it a little bit more, he’ll be able to hear me better” attitude.

One guy got an NOUO and they didn’t even mention how much above 250uV/m @ 3 meters he was above. Link to NOUO: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-333751A1.html

With this going on, I really do not see the FCC willing to listen to a bunch of hobbyists about changing the rules for the FM broadcast band.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Absolutely MrBruce, I’ve been following the politically charged rhetoric of Commissioner Reilly, and if you want to hear some radio chatter that’s very much on this point look for my thread about the Radio Survivor Podcasts and download/ listen to Podcast # 3 where John Anderson, a media professor at Brooklyn College says he thinks this bluster from the FCC is a “Paper Tiger Team,” and he thinks the pirates in New York and anywhere will simply adapt to whatever is done.

The professor believes that radio piracy is a democratic part of the radio ecosystem and serves a purpose.

I may not be a pirate, but I admire anyone who might be.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

there always will be the ones who are careless even those Rich stations have caused Interference as well.  The Licensed stations want MORE POWER just the same.  Why do you think some big AM stations back in the day always wanted more power.  If Radio was serving the piblic than it would not be the way it is.  Now speaking of LIFE SAVING!!! Yesterday we had severe weather heading our way.  NOT ONE RADIO station mentioned A tornado WARNING for our county!!!!!  Not one BUT ME!!!!!  Yes I had the WTKR channel 3 app and my phone went off.  I Stopped my broadcast to alert folks that Severe weather was on the way and to listen to local TV Ch 3 or local Radio.  I went off the air and turn into the TV and heard about it.  But not one station I tuned to until 25 minutes later even mentioned the possible Tornado and worse yet when the warning was issued still no announcement from Radio.  So if my station was to have been able to be heard through the town I’d have saved a life.  Its not about just interference its about the rich greedy NAB wanting no competition and just like AT&T and Bell were broke up so too should these rich folks who too don’t care about lives otherwise you would hve heard about the warning on Radio as well as the smartphone and TV.  So around here if you depend on your Radio to warn you, you had better think again because you’ll have the tornado come and go and probably knock down your house before anyone will tell you.  Why?  Because they got to get those ads in and those chart topping tunes played.  Now that is a good case for VLPFM!  I’m not just gonna take that and walk away with my tail between my crotch.  These guys at the FCC think all commercial broadcasters care about lives??? Well that my friends is one huge example of yet more lies from the peanut galary.  Now Hams would have warned long before hand or a weather Radio.  But don’t depend on FM to warn you in bad weather its another thing most folks have believed.

 

Now I hope any troll who is against micro broadcasting and wants to end it reads this and rethinks their kill hobby Radio speach to the FCC!!!!!

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

My computer streams and part 15 transmitters are shut down for equipment security whenever violent weather arrives, and this morning at dawn the lightning and wind had me disconnected and listening to licensed radio.

Actually, only one station in town pretends to cover weather events, and they said over and over that heavy rain would continue all day and evening. But that never happened.

It rained for an hour, stopped, and at 4:30 in the afternoon rained for 5-minutes and the sun came out.

If it’s about public service those are only words with no action.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

Actually, only one station in town pretends to cover weather events, and they said over and over that heavy rain would continue all day and evening. But that never happened. … My computer streams and part 15 transmitters are shut down for equipment security whenever violent weather arrives. … 

Clearly, weather forecasts are not highly reliable no matter their source.  But at least that station relayed such a potential weather risk from their source to their listeners, and (most likely) stayed on the air during the period of that risk, to update their listeners.

Just wondering how any “Part 15” operator reasonably might expect to provide weather conditions/warnings to whatever listeners they might have if they shut down before, and during the period forecasted for such weather risks?

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

I actually think that MrBruce is right.  However, that doesn’t mean that a group of individuals shouldn’t attempt to change the current Part 15 FM regulations.  I just think that great care should be taken, if you want to have a chance to succeed, in what you ask for.

The work I’ve done with receiver sensitivity shows that it is possible to receive even very weak FM signals quite a distance away if you have the very best radio, are receiving in mono (or noisy stereo) and have line of sight to the transmitter.

The problem is that most potential listeners don’t have great radios.  They want to listen in stereo with quieting, and they won’t all be line of sight (even if you elevate your antenna).

So if you want to broadcast to a typical portable receiver with a good signal for, say, 500 meters, that same signal could easily many, many times that distance (depending on the desired SNR at 500 meters) in ideal circumstances. I suspect that wouldn’t fly, either with the FCC or NAB.

There is precedent for the field strength of 1000uv/m at 3 meters from Canada.  Perhaps that must might be the value to shoot for, as it can be justified from experiences similar to those in the U.S.  Or maybe something nominally higher, say 1500 or 2000uv/m at 3 meters.  Those latter maximums could give you over a mile of range in ideal circumstances, and bring FM up to the same levels as AM (which can also be used for justification that the sky won’t fall if they aren’t approved).

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Responding to Rich in Post#6 you do well to speak in defense of the licensed station I characterized somewhat poorly, that being KTRS 5kW 550 kHz, for in fact their morning program was well paced and nicely conversational. Except to say, the “rain all day and evening” forecast was pushed hard and presented as if it were an indisputable fact.

On Part 15 stations providing essential emergency information, well, some people believe prayer can alter wordly outcomes, so why not have faith in one’s well intentioned low power broadcast? Anyway, I’m not like that, I shut down when weather turns sour.

[Mark Total posts : 0]

If the FCC raises the field strength to say 1500 to 2000 uV/M @3 meters and then says OK, but if you are over….zero tolorance, bigger fines the more over you are, that would be fair in my mind.

As for giving power to private companies to enforce laws like vigilantes and not have enforcement  by a government agency that you vote for and not have your day in court is unconstitutional and a plain no no!

 

Mark

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

This is where things will end up. You’ll get your 2000uv/m at 3 meters, but you’ll be required to kiss the NAB’s royal ass and pay big fees like the full powered stations. The trouble with that, plus covering your music licensing fees is you’ll never be able to recoup your costs and go bankrupt. Full powered stations have tons of ad dollars coming in. Those ad dollars are something you’re not going to get because your 10 listeners are not going to get you those big ad dollars those licensed stations are getting.

Think about asking your Buick dealer to pay you $500.00 per add to reach only 10 people. Would YOU pay me $500.00 if you knew I could only reach 10 possible people when the other stations reach a minimum of 200+ listeners?

We’ll get what we want, but they will be laughing at us behind our backs as we go bully up before we even get on the air.

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Maybe this is all the more reason to allow a 1 mile Micro Broadcasting station.  I’m sure this paper tiger team knows that the Bronx is a very rough neighborhood.  But if hey allowed 1 mile sations and to receive the main stream over the net they would simply have small cells that won’t interfere with anything.  But we know the real issue with the NAB.  Next all micro broadcasters will be called Terrorists (they love to pull that card when they don’t get their way).

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Im not a mathematic genious but I get 10,000 total listening hours per month.  This is 30 listeners 24/7/month your part 15 station going 1/4 mile may get 10.  Now the CRIA isn’t pushing it in Canada.  The cost for them to litigate would far / away the the Pro they would get. We’re talking less than $15.00 a month for royalties. That would be the top they might and I repeat might get. I think there is a lot of paranoia along the lines of royalties. Being an Internet broadcaster I know all about royalties and what will not be tolerated and what the real keyboard won’t even look at. Part 15 is probably not going to be looked at unless you have 6270 Micro broadcasting stations in an area likes a New York. Besides ser su the mall campaigns for the internet hasn’t really gotten them anywhere.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

30 listeners 24-hours a day and 7-days a week? Right.

What are the odds that that exact number of people would devote their lives to listening only to your station?

That’s all fake, generated by the royalty agencies so they can charge you for listeners that don’t exist.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say and no one seems to be comprehending.

Little operators are being robbed, picked off, fleeced and ultimately slaughtered in unmarked graves.

But it’s not personal, it’s just business.

Other than that, it’s a fun hobby.

The ALPB knows the way.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

Canada has reasonable music licensing.  I’m licensed for my streaming only – they told me (and I have it in writing) that they didn’t care about my over the air broadcasts as they were limited in range.

SOCAN (the licensing body in Canada – nobody else has any authority here) has reciprocal agreements with all the major licensing bodies worldwide.

We pay according to our revenue, and there are various formulas for that, based on Canadian content and other variables.  To me, that seems fair – if I’m making money off of copyrighted material, then it only makes sense that the copyright holders get a cut.  The minimum fee is $100 (which is what I pay, because right now I have no revenue).

If you are a non commercial station, which is another way to get licensed, you pay a percentage of your gross operating costs (1.9% I believe).  That’s the way I was licensed on Bowen Island – if your Internet streaming costs are included in the calculation, then the license covers that as well.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Artisan, paying a $100 minimum for a station that earns no revenue makes no sense. Where is that $100 supposed to come from?

Equally illogical for a non-commercial station to pay 1.9% of operating cost, because that taps an amount of money that doesn’t exist.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

I guess it comes from the same money that is used to purchase a transmitter, computer, hard drives, etc. to run a micro broadcasting station.  Just part of the overall costs.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

I’m having a difficult time processing and understanding some of the negativity surrounding this discussion of increasing Part 15 FM range (effectively field strength).

I don’t think that anyone has said that this will be easy.  Or that the NAB and/or the FCC will welcome the request with open arms.

But there are some valid reasons for a modest increase in field strength for Part 15 FM broadcasters, particularly if either organization is willing to think outside the box.

And if they aren’t, nothing will have been lost.  We’ll still be at the mercy of the FCC (or Industry Canada) and the NAB (or your local licensed broadcasters), as we are right now.  Plus, there’s so much misinformation being bandied about re Part 15 FM, and apparently a lot of misunderstanding; perhaps these and future discussions will serve to illuminate some (at least if they’re willing to listen) and show the way to others.

I don’t personally have anything against the NAB and licensed stations. I’ve found here in Canada at least that there has been a lot of support from the media in general, once they understand what you are trying to do (and doing it legally, I might add).  And I can understand the reluctance of these stations who have paid a lot of money for the right to broadcast to support illegal (i.e., pirate) operators and the potential interference that they might cause.  Put yourself in their place.

That being said, Canada has proven that you’re not going to have anarchy over the airwaves with an FM field strength of 1000uv/m at 3 meters.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

The overall cost of running the station is a fixed amount.

A percentage of that amount is an additional amount.

The additional amount doesn’t exist to begin with.

If you took a percentage away from the internet and computer equipment that comprised the station, you’d get slapped with an “amount due” invoice for the money you extracted.

We’re dealing in unreality.

[macdev Total posts : 0]

I think there are two trains of thought here:

Increasing Part 15

Creating a new class

As stated in another thread, increasing Part 15 FM depends on what the FCC thinks about it. Is it supposed to be for iPod-to-radio devices and such, or is it for hobbyists? In either case, the NAB is going to crap all over it.

Creating a new class is the same problem – the NAB.

It’s going to be a very steep uphill battle either way. I don’t think anyone’s really against the end result, it’s just a question of which way will get us there?

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Today, Saturday, June 27, 2015, 10:30 AM CDT, I, Carl Blare, acting on behalf of KDX Worldround Radio, a Part 15 Broadcaster, Charter Member of the ALPB, do endorse and support an upgrade to FCC 15.239 to match the Canadien Standard.

Which has got me wondering, does Mexico have a low power license-free regulation governing FM broadcasting?

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Okay guys, I’m trying to be as positive feeling as I can be.

But let’s look at a real life case here in the USA, my case.

WXTZ 87.9 Norwich was my station. it was never accused of operating on 87.9MHz as a pirate station, it was accused as a pirate for supposedly operating above 250 uV/m @ 3 meters. There never was any evidence presented to me that this was the case. The complainant was a local radio station that heard about us from a few of it’s listeners. This statement was posted at HB’s forum board. This information was never shared with me at the phone number that was provided both on air and on line on the facebook page that was also subject of the accusations.

Although, at the very beginning of this investigation against me, I did not understand why I was the subject of such investigation, time allowed me to get a better understanding of why it was being investigated.

We covered more ground by being a MULTI-TRANSMITTER FM radio station, the average part 15 station used ONE transmitter and covered a person’s personal property gaining NO public listeners, just as Bill states at his HB site, FM is in house personal usage and has zero chance of ONE public listener.

Evidence on our Facebook page, showed we had 51 followers. Some followers were believed to have followed based on Facebook suggestions, as we had a few followers from other states and even over seas.

It appears, I will never be told what local radio station had us investigated and the real reason why. Those of you who have access to HB’s member’s only area, can see the thread where my station was being accused of illegal activity. Naturally, I got upset at the way things were being done and what was being said and really upset when my personal images were posted on that site without my permission and being called numerous names.

I posted out of anger and did not really understand WHY, WHY I was being subject to this abuse, I did not yet know, what warranted this investigation. Was one of the transmitters operating illegally? Was one malfunctioning? I never really, truly understood why MY STATION was the subject of an accusation of being called a PIRATE. The title of that topic was called “HUNTING DOWN A PIRATE” It did not say “Hunting Down A Pirate On 87.9” nor did the subject matter state “We all know 87.9MHz is illegal for part 15” making it clear I was accused of being a pirate for using 87.9MHz. I posted in another topic on this site, the entire words posted in that topic from HB. Those words, do not claim 87.9MHz as being the cause for the investigation. It was that the station was covering more than 200 feet in a given area, even though all the information that was publicly available, stated we used 8 transmitters and a few were located within range of the other. (Note: That information was available on our Wikipedia page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WXTZ_87.9_Norwich  So, geographically, once you’d leave transmitter number one’s range, you’d pick up transmitter number two. If this is the case, the signals of the two transmitters, which slightly overlap each other, will give you a signal that covers 400 feet. My numbers used above, are not an exact science, I used them as examples only. That Wikipedia article was also subject of that investigation over at HB.

My points, everything about my stations operations were made public, we published pictures of WXTZ 87.9 Norwich’s studios for the public to see. We did not publish the homes where the transmitters were located, simply put, there was nothing worth publishing other than a computer and Decade MS100 Transmitter. The studio had all the workings of the station that would interest the public.

Now that I covered everything in this topic that helps paint a picture, I have to publish my conclusion. I believe a local station became jealous of us. Why? Damned if Ill ever understand it.

But, if I had to assume and guess why, I come up with too many answers. The easiest thing would have been if SOMEONE had at least called the station’s public phone number and talked to us about their concerns. This WOULD have been the BEST way to handle it don’t you think?

But NO!!! THAT IS NOT HOW THEY HANDLED IT!!!!!!!!!!

So, I personally believe, this action took place, because a jealous radio station wanted us OFF THE AIR! No reasons given, just that they wanted us off the air.

When we originally tried to get help from engineers, as we had read elsewhere, that sometimes bored engineers are willing to help make sure a part 15 station is operating legally, MOST laughed at us and said YOU CAN NOT AFFORD ME LOL!!!! Others said “Sure, but I want what I get from the licensed stations and I do NOT think you can afford my fees”

People, we’re a part 15 radio station with limited range, we’d never be able to get enough sponsorship to pay the same fees a 10,000 ERP station can afford.

Now on to the next subject.

I stated something that I believe was totally misunderstood here!!!

I stated that you may get your increase in legal field strength in the USA, but it may come at a cost, a cost that has to be paid to the NAB. That fee could very well be the same cost the currently licensed radio stations pay to them and somehow we got stuck on music licensing fees here and totally ignored my point.

I said, BESIDES YOUR MUSIC LICENSING FEES, You’ll be required to pay the NAB the SAME fees licensed stations are paying. Can you afford to pay those fees?

We also got off topic talking about X number of listeners on Internet Radio. First off, Internet Radio licensing and terrestrial broadcasting licenses are two totally different licenses.

True, we can say, but I only serve 2 listeners on terrestrial broadcasting so I deserve a no fee license, but it does NOT work that way. I was licensed for terrestrial broadcasting, people wanted us to go on line so they could get us no matter where they were and we investigated the cost to use tune-in. We realized that to be 100% legal and cover our VINYL RECORD ALBUM COLLECTION, would have bankrupted us and prevented us from using our VINYL RECORDS at all!!!

WXTZ was a radio station that PLAYED THE WHOLE RECORD ALBUM, not just the charted top 100 or top 40 hits from each vinyl record. YOU CAN NOT DO THAT LEGALLY ON INTERNET RADIO!!! It’s 3 songs per group per a required number of hours.

On the Internet, WXTZ would have been illegal. The copy right trolls would have fined us millions of dollars in copy right violations because we did not follow the number of songs per group rule.

My, point is not to rant about music licensing fees, it was to make a point that if we were allowed 1000uV/m @ 3 meters, the NAB would likely have a part in that ruling and you’d be required to pay what the licensed radio stations pay. Then you’d obviously go belly up, because there is NO way you are going to be able to pay that fee. Even if you try advertising for businesses, you trying to charge the same fees licensed stations charge for 30 second to 60 second ad spots, is not going to happen!

Your LOCAL coverage area compared to their LOCAL coverage area is TOTALLY NOT THE SAME! You can say you are covered on line via Internet Radio, but there is NO guarantee your Internet Radio audience is within 1000 miles of your local car dealership. Would you drive 2000 miles to buy a car you could buy for the same price in your local town? So saying your advertising reaches many on your Internet Radio station is NOT going to interest a local paying car dealership.

Local car dealerships are broadcasters number two paying clients, behind beer commercials.

True, if you get lots of breweries to advertise on your station, that could work out well as beer brands are sold nation wide (television networks do that during sporting events). But, car’s for sale commercials are often related to a local dealership, which depends on a LOCAL audience for it’s paying customers.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

The NAB is not The National Association of Beer, I only say that to be nonsensical, it is, of course, the National Association of Broadcasters.

http://www.nab.org

A quick look at the NAB website indicates they represent commercial and non-commercial radio and television broadcasters with fees based on revenue.

It is not specified, but I imagine an FCC license is required for membership, although we might use the “Tim Method” of joining the NAB by sending them a check, and if they cash it, your Part 15 station becomes a member.

The NAB has nothing to do with music licensing, but maybe I misunderstood something you said MrBruce, where it seemed like you equated the two.

The notion that the NAB is “anti Part 15” is an assumption, along with the suspicion that licensed stations resent unlicensed stations for having a free foot in the door. We hear that the NAB opposed LPFM, which seems likely, even though LPFMs are probably welcome to become members.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Carl said:

The NAB has nothing to do with music licensing, but maybe I misunderstood something you said MrBruce, where it seemed like you equated the two.

Carl, I can understand your misunderstanding. I was not associating both the NAB and the music licensing agencies as being the same agency. I was simply stating “That besides paying your music licensing fees to what ever agency you pay them to, you’d also be required to pay the NAB for the rights to be on the air.

I do not know about the rest of the USA, but in my personal experience, with my local area, I do not think part 15 radio is welcomed here. But what do I know? That unknown station that opposed my part 15 radio station did not even have the decency to work with us or contact us. Instead they supposedly hired an engineer to gather information to send to the FCC to have us shut down. It never got that far because, as soon as I seen the bullshi*t I seen happening at Boobybroadcaster dot net, I shut the whole network down preventing any further action from those boobs.

The last thing I need is a bunch of jealous radio station owners sitting at a desk laughing at me and saying NOT IN MY VALUABLE MARKET AREA!!!

I have another post coming up, but I want it separate from this one.

Bruce.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Okay post number two.

I hear all talk about support for rule change. A rule change that allows people like us to operate an FM transmitter or AM transmitter with a new field strength.

A field strength that allows your station to reach a potentially larger listening audience.

I seen mentions of a supporting agency, but no mention of it’s name. Perhaps, there is a reason that agency is not mentioned out in the open in this forum board. Such as possible TROLLS from Boobybroadcaster.

Okay, I’m game.

I’m all for rule change. But look at the examples of the NAACP.

Although progress is slow within the NAACP, their strength in numbers and their being a nationally known agency is what gets their words heard and acted upon.

I hear talk about the ALPB, but how well known is the ALPB to be nationally known well enough to be recognized as a supporter of rule change?

My intension’s are not to insult anyone here, but unless the ALPB is nationally known by the right agencies, it’s word will have no voice where it counts.

Please look at the NAB for example, why do you think broadcasters pay fees to them? It’s because they are the radio and televisions station’s back bones. When the NAB talks, the FCC and Congress listens.

In order to get the rule change you’re asking for, you’d need the same type of support the NAB gives broadcasters. Now, where is an agency like that for us? Tell me and I’ll send them a payment instead of buying $600.00 worth of records each month. But it can’t be an agency that turns out to be a go nowhere scam.

There is talk about lawyers who know broadcast laws, but where are they?

Sorry I am not trying to discredit anyone here or mock your attempts to get what we all know we want. I am simply asking where is this support?

You get a lawyer, you get a nationally recognized agency going in support of rule change and I’ll be the first to support it financially.

I am not sure if my mentioning Radio Spark here http://radiospark.org/rfree is anything you were quietly referring to, but I am member there and used them when I attempted to get a LPFM CP back in November of 2014. This agency is very helpful in getting support and even lawyers who support future LPFM stations. They do have many success stories.

We could ask them about part 15 broadcast radio support, but then it is up to them to say okay that sounds possible, I am sure we can work something out to support that type of service. But, as I said before, strength is in numbers, the more people who approach them with such a request, the more viable it sounds and may get positive results.

BUT! And I do mean BUT! If I am the only one who asks, then those who listen to me will say, you’re the only one out of 300,000 possible people who are asking for this and we just do not see a big enough interest for your ideas to be feasible enough for consideration.

Get a charter, get a support group such as the NAB or Radio Spark group and I’ll support it 100%

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

The ALPB is a group of people interested in Part 15 broadcasting and is very much like an audio version of this Part 15 forum here at part15(dot)com, as was mentioned by Chairman MRAM 1500.

As a new organization the ALPB is small, but very open to discussion, as current members know.

For example, TheLegacy is a new member and he has started lengthy conversations about the interest in a more generous Part 15.239, giving better field strength.

MrBruce, if you have not joined the ALPB, I hope you do so, because the more active members there are the stronger it gets.

There are no membership fees (dues) which means the ALPB does not have the financial resources to lobby Waskington DC, and we want to keep it free, so maybe we limit ourselves.

Getting back to the NAB, I don’t believe licensed stations are required to be members. If I’m right about that then the NAB does not speak for all broadcasters.

If the NAB has an official stance about part15 broadcasters they might be willing to voice it, someone might give them a call and ask.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

Any reason why you continue post redundant comments about your plight on 87.9? I get it.  You feel like you have been wronged by some on HB. Time to move on or share new info. 🙂

 

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

WDCX I am not here to lock horns or argue with you.

You may play down what I went through from someone I trusted.

You may agree with Bill Defelice and stand behind him 100% that I am guilty of running a high powered pirate station and I got caught doing so.

You may play down the word pirate as a kid’s name calling episode in a school playground.

I know differently.

Bill’s recent article at radio world about legal part 15 radio being called pirates, what caused Bill to write that article was based on his HB thread about my radio station operating under the title part 15 when it was found to be operating as a pirate station hiding under the title of part 15. that article is here: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newbay/rw_20150520/index.php#/29/OnePage

I ran a law abiding radio station, nothing I personally did was above anything Bill’s site would recommend. The accusations made against me were not school yard name calling, it was the intent to have me jailed for a crime I did not commit and the accuser was Bill Defelice himself.

Just like Bill feels he needs to defend part 15 radio in a public publication, such as Radio World, I feel the need to show how he himself is guilty of a crime. Now true, he did not mention me by name in his article but he was thinking of me I’ll tell you that!  He has also published my name on his website for all to see who visit there and it is my understanding that that thread still exists on his forum board as a reminder to members of his site of the crime he claims I committed and making ME his personal example.

Here we are trying to change a law for the better of part 15 and we have a vivid reminder of that criminal who broke the law operating an FM radio station.

The reason I repeat myself is because I was accused of what Bill says legal part 15 operators are accused of by none other then the writer of that article…Bill Defelice himself!

So, oh yes, I know what it is like to be accused of being a BLATANT PIRATE, but I would never have thought it would have been by the same guy who wrote that article or the one I put my trust in as my teacher of learning how to run a legal part 15 radio operations!!

I have something to say to those who are against the field strength being raised for FM and I have a case in point true to life story that needs to be told and that is supporters of rule change can also be anti-productive and cause just the opposite to happen.

I did not start this episode with HB, HB started it with me! Whatever assumptions you’d like to throw my way in support of Bill’s decisions for accusing me, I know what I did and didn’t do and I know what I owned and operated and didn’t own and operate.

That whole thread over there was a personal attack against me and me only. In fact, Bill even addressed me by my LAST name in an email he sent me. So although some may play stupid, I know what REAL name both Bill and Ray F. Burns had, it was my REAL name, not a DJ’s name.

Their intent was purely to have ME prosecuted for a crime I had no part in or to have the FCC throw a large fine on me and you expect me to play this down like it was all a game of ‘fox hunt’ and nothing serious was at stake?

My point is people CAN be wrong and people WERE wrong and I did not so much as get an apology from my accusers! So what does that tell us? It tells us that although I plead innocent, a certain person running a forum board still believes and preaches to his membership that MrBruce is a law breaking pirate who came here to my legal part 15 website to break the law and I want you all to know that and that won’t be tolerated here at HB!!!

I have no word over there to defend myself, he blocked me and I personally do not feel that is fair to me, to be accused and made a fool of and not being able to stand up and defend myself with the truth!!!

I personally believe my stance bothers you because you also believe what Bill says that I am guilty of operating a pirate station and got caught doing so.

An Apology goes a long ways and I feel I deserve one!

Bruce.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Oh, and one last thing.

That email I spoke about that Bill sent me wasn’t sent to say HI, it was a threat against me saying if I continue to slander his site he will ask Tom Terrell to call the complaining radio station and have them continue the complain to the FCC.

Here he is slandering my name and he’s worried about his forum board that hosts false accusations and stolen photographs.

Now, what caused Bill to send that email?

If he wasn’t trolling our radio station Facebook page where he was stealing our images from, he would not have seen the post that said FUC*K YOU BILL and your Boobybroadcaster website too! If he wasn’t looking for trouble, he’d have never seen that. And, that was posted AFTER he banned me from HB and after the accusations were made and after the station was shut down, not before. Our listeners were angry and we told them why we shut down.

Before too much longer, I’m going to really start getting pissed and start making that email and the thread from HB that accuses me public, so the whole world can see it and the truth will be known.

I do not fear him bringing a law suit against me, I have attorneys in my family, but one thing is for sure, there is NO evidence that proves I personally owned and operated a transmitter in violation of part 15 rules, but there is proof that he stole and hosted what does not belong to him on a website registered to him.

Those images are watermarked and that watermark is present in the ones he hosted, trouble is, he doesn’t know where to look for it or how to notice it.

Trust goes a long ways, but how can you trust someone who is a thief but claims he stands up for the laws of our country? If you believe in our laws, you support all of them, not just pick and choose between them as you seem fit.

Does hypocrite sound like a good word for this situation?

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

MrBruce I believe your experience completely and have no doubt at all that things happened exactly the way you have described.

For awhile this website wanted to discourage reports of unhappy experiences on other websites, and keep the threads here devoted to conversations happening here and not there.

Part15(dot)us is not the opposing army in a Part 15 battle between websites.

BUT, I think the webmasters here have become more aware that a real dysfunctional situation exists regarding a website that has a darkside and does harm to the good hobby.

That is why testimony from MrBruce (and others) has been permitted and not deleted.

But once the story is told we must close the book and go on to new business.

I don’t see Part 15(dot)us becomming a drone or warship taking shots at the enemy of Part 15.

Therefore, this case is closed. We are moving on to new business.

All in favor say “I.”

[Mark Total posts : 0]

The small fee collected from a hobby station by Socan helps to provide income overall to get to the artists.

Interesting in another post it was mentioned that a loud outdoor stereo could be heard by the same number of people as a part 15 radio signal…in fact more because they don’t have to turn on a radio to hear it.

Mark

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Right, Mark, and the loudspeaker listeners can’t turn it off like a radio.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Bruce I think you have this part way right. What I’ve been saying all along is that Canada has 1000 uV/m and yet has not required users to pay the same fees as licensed broadcasters, pay hefty fee’s for this royalty, that broadcast organization. The matter is will this cause interference on the dial and that answer has already been answered by our friends to the north and this is a definite NO so the NAB saying it will cause anarchy on the dial already is debunk. Now if they cry our listeners will be lost and every Johnny on the street will have one? Again is this what happened in Canada? Just how many Decade CM-10’s are sold in Canada? How many of these stations are heard while you drive along Canada? Yes they are gonna throw up some nonsense just to hope you’ll go away in sheer fright. But having the numbers and data of other countries already allowing hobby broadcasting is a good defense against trolls looking to kill Micro Broadcasting for their benefit (which isn’t much of one). Plus from what I heard at Radio survivor paves a reasonable means to have this service. Radio history repeats itself. There is a need and certain folks will figure a way to provide the means to fill that need. I don’t see charging thousands of dollars for a station that may go ¼ mile even slightly realistic in the real world though they will try to propose this at the NAB in order to scare folks from even persuading the FCC any further. Yes I appreciate the devil’s advocate way of preparing us for what is in store. There is realistic stunts the NAB can pull and some they can’t be so successful at. Remember we do have the 1000 uV/m example in Canada and New Zealand as an example with their 1 Watt allowance. Plus lets talk about the history of Pirate Radio since this is something they’ll want to sling at us as a weapon not to mention the threat of terrorism with more powerful micro broadcasting stations. They’ll most definitely pull the emergency broadcasting system as a trump card as well but my example of what happened with the cell phone warning me way before Radio in this area did and the fact that the very micro broadcasters hated by any would be trolls are the ones who may have saved a life even if it was less than 5 people who may have heard my puny little transmitter in the first place. Now their gonna say we have no right, but I say we sure do because most geeks who have transmitters or who’d buy them would most likely have a cell phone. So like I said we know what we have to deal with and we need real folks willing to try this and not give up when they reach the first stumbling block. Again the likelihood of forcing Johnny quarter mile to pay a fee is as likely as forcing that Realtor with a Talking House AM Transmitter to pay a fee for advertising houses on AM going a mile. And if and I say If part 15 was not suppose to be to run a micro Radio station than what was the deal of the Remco Planet DJ years ago? It was sold as a Mini Radio Station. Any kid could have connected a long wire to it and got that quarter to 1 mile and yet no copyright infringement notices were sent. Micro broadcasting and 5KW Radio stations are not one and the same. We could even pull the Educational learning tool card for them to try and trump too. To beat a troll you have to think like one.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Thelegacy I support your ideas and will be there 100% if those ideas get to the point of a nationwide voice.

I could sit here and make believe my voice will be heard and the FCC will act and say this guy makes sense and we believe this service is a must have for the better of our airwaves.

I agree with you as I have already mentioned in another topic that the likely requirement will be to have installed and properly functioning EAS system. LPFM stations are required by law to have an EAS system installed that blocks the programming when the tones are sent across the system.

I looked into the pricing of the required systems just to see if I could provide that service to my listeners. To my understanding, you’re required to have two systems actively monitoring for the EAS tones and you have to do the required tests and log those tests.

I used a scanner to monitor the EAS channels and also, our Comcast cable has an EAS system that activates when a local EAS tone is sent, that EAS can be sent to mobile devices as well as long as you’re a Comcast subscriber. So, to some degree WXTZ had a generic EAS system, but NOT the kind that is legally required for LPFM or broadcast stations alike.

Previously, mention was made in this thread about weather forecasting. How did WXTZ get accurate weather forecasts?

I’ll share that information with you all right here, right now.

We used a computer with Internet, like any of you can also do.

Our websites for weather are the following.

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/WxMap.aspx

http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/

http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane

and finally

http://thunderstorm.vaisala.com/explorer.html

You set everything up for your local area that can be set up and use those local maps, use the forecast predictions, use the analysis graphs, use whatever it takes for you to forecast your local area forecast accurately. Be sure to use all 4 sites for a better more accurate analysis!

Use a few of your favorites, BUT stay away from Radio and Television websites for weather forecasts, your only using their scripts just like your competitors are doing. BAD IDEA!

I can not teach you over a forum board how to accurately compose your local weather forecast to out do your local radio station’s forecast. But, let me tell you, WXTZ’s forecast was 100% accurate compared to WICH 1310 AM’s forecast which was sent via Internet from WFSB television channel 3 from Hartford, Connecticut. They just read off what is written on a piece of paper that was copied from WFSB’s website weather page. Those updates are far and in between, so the reading of those forecasts are outdated within minutes of them being written on the DJ’s liner notes pages.

We on the other hand, looked at the LIVE graphics on the satellite, put those images into motion so we could determine the direction of the weather. Let’s say Hartford Connecticut had a thunderstorm, now when we look at the radar, we see that cluster. Now for us to forecast Norwich Connecticut’s weather accurately, we have to put the radar in time lapse motion to see the track of the cell. If it is moving south-easterly, that would mean it is heading toward Norwich. BUT! What we also have to focus on is Norwich’s weather is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. Thunderstorms need a VERY unstable air mass to survive.

Hartford Connecticut is 50 Miles inland from the south shore of Connecticut, Norwich is 7 miles inland from the shoreline and has a river that enters the Long Island Sound basin called The Thames River. This river often has air currents from Long Island Sound that comes up it and cools Norwich’s upper atmosphere, thereby stabilizing the air mass before those cells reach us.

The result is, these thunderstorm cells die off and dissipate before reaching us, as they move south-south-easterly the rain associated with that cell also dries up and we get NOTHING from that cell, not even a drop of rain. But, WICH will say “Chance of rain today, rain heavy at times with a thundershower possible, temperatures around the upper 70’s”

Now you know how to out do your local outdated weather forecasting radio station.

Bruce.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

First you do your fact finding and research, to understand exactly what it is that you are going to be asking for.  That’s what is being done right now, and it is a worthy exercise in and of itself, if only to correct some of the misinformation that is being spread around elsewhere, and, quite frankly, some misunderstandings here.

Then you look around for support BEFORE you go before the FCC.  That hasn’t been done yet.  It may be some time before it’s done.  And it’s difficult to judge how long that phase will take.

Finally, there’s the writing of the formal petition.  While that may be the easiest task of the lot, it’s going to take time and resources to do it so that it has a chance of succeeding.

We’re just starting down this path, and nowhere near done.  I don’t think it’s time to throw in the towel just yet.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

First, I will join the ALPB.

Second, I just want you all to know that regardless of IF I ever energize my C-Quam AM stereo transmitter or not, I am still going to stand as a supporter for you all.

I have a story to tell and my story is not the same as some who would tell, only because they had an audience by way of pirate radio broadcasting. I am sorry I deleted my Facebook page, as your visiting there would show you how we had people who listened to us and were angry that Boobybroadcaster dot net started their shit* with us. One member said tell that Bill dickhead to go fuc*k himself and crank up the rock n’ roll! We had callers who called to hear their favorite music, like Steve Earl’s Copperhead Road album, Nirvana’s Unplugged in New York album, The Rolling Stones Some Girls album, Honeymoon Suite Feel it again album.

For a small time gig, you’d be shocked to really see my music collection, I just received a very large 45 RPM collection of 907 45’s all in VG++ to NM grade dating back to 1949 up to 1998, plus I’ve had a collection of 45’s I’ve collected since the late 1960’s that I personally bought from record stores brand new.

I just wish, I can find a fair use license to allow me to play every record I own without restrictions over Internet Radio. It’s a shame to have such a collection knowing I can’t do what I wish to do with it and that is to give every song a play time.

We really need to find a way to get that restriction removed. If I have a record and it is not covered by any of the music licensing agencies, then that label or band could nail us for public exhibition without the required authorization. You really never, never, know when someone’s lawyer is going to slam you with a citation.

Back to the topic.

I am here as a supporter for what you are standing up for. Let me know when the voting is open and I’ll be there with a YES vote.

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

At the Meeting a group was mentioned but I can’t remember its name.  Could have been Radio Spark.  It was a group that helped LPFM and the idea was to try and ask them for help in getting the field strength raised for a mile to a digital boom box.  We started talking about what field strength it would take to get the 1 mile range and what power to a rubber duck antanna since I know what 500mW will do at ground floor to a rubber duck.  Then we talked about an outside antenna, but field strength should be raised so every hobbyest can easily obtain the legal limit and use a nice transmitter that won’t cause interference.  Now I don’t know if Radio spark was the name I don’t have a tape of the meeting.  I probably should have recorded it though there is a recording of our meeting.  There is nothing wrong with asking Radio Spark for assistance in this and they could tell us if a new class of service would have to be asked for or could they simply help us as Micro Broadcasters.  Since John Anderson of Radio Survivor’s podcast see’s reason why Pirate Radio is a useful service maybe we can get him to assist as well as Radio Spark.  I’m all for that because the more groups well known we have to support what we are asking for that we can put into our back pocket the better it will be.  We may even have to operate under the Radio Spark’s license if need be sort of like StreamLicensing does.  All in all I don’t see why in some areas where the FM dial has blank frequencies that we can’t at least get the same treatment Canada already gets in field strength.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Ok Bruce once you join the ALPB you will get the Teamspeak server address and pass and times for the meeting.  I think Radio Spark was the group we talked about.  I know id like to hear your voice.  You are a good example of how certain trolls will mimic a part 15 board and turn on them like an aids cell does.  At least you know the ALPB is not a bunch of trolls working for boobybroadcaster.net and the enemy.  Yes I kinda started the FM fan club based on talk about a petition.  Station8 told me the ALPB was not Anti FM.  I was scared to join at first for fear of any mole in the group but Station8 asured me and im glad I joined. Id like more experimenting on AM with Album Rock to happen too.  I think you will be a great member.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

He gave info on a group that can help us FM Fans out there Radio Spark if that was not one of the groups we were talking about for I have forgotten.  Plus we need to know what the Anti FM Trolls are doing because some more of you who don’t have over power stations could be another target for trolling and taking you down.  Some of us would really like to know who the culprit was that killed his station and how to deal with other would be trolls out there for I know there are some.  Some always come in on the Light O Rama forum whenever someone says “Oh I bought the Whole House FM Transmitter and I got out 900 feet.” and some troll threatens to have them shut down.  So we need to watch out for trolls.  Best thing to say if someone asks you how far your TX goes find out what type of music they like and feel them out first before you give any info in public.  Me if your not an Album Rocker I won’t give much out or if your not in the ALPB I won’t give much out either.  We need to start an FM fanclub for only Elite members and that way we weed out any would be trolls.  Now I really don’t see any yet here, but again the ones who lurk and don’t post could be a troll.  You don’t know who the trolls are till we have a good profile of what an anti FM troll may do.  Anyway just join our group Bruce and be at some of the meetings and that way we can keep the good folks on our Teamspeak server and the losors won’t have access so they won’t know what we’re talking about and can’t use anything you say against you.  Its all good as we continue to try and push for higher power.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

There is something we did learn. What we learned was that separate Transmitters running 250 microvolts per meter at 3 meters is the same as one  . Apparently the FCC looks at it as the number of Transmitter you’re using added together. So if you have for Transmitter running 250 microvolts running 25 and they are separated at 600 feet each that would be 250 times 4. Even though they are separated. It was a good idea but part 15 is so murky in the rules and  are not clear. So there are many gray areas.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

I agree. What the FCC has to do is realize there are many non engineer educated people who have ventured into part 15 and those people need an easy to understand set of rules, written in baby talk if you will, so there is no misunderstanding those rules.

Look at the King James Bible for instance, the way it is written leads to MUCH confusion and misunderstanding. It is written so bad they had to write a children’s version of it.

Well the same needs to be done for the average consumer who can easily buy and operate a part 15 AM or FM transmitter.

The need for and purchase of an Potomac FIM41 or spectrum analyzer is not in every home owners budget

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

There have been many twists in part 15.  There even is Fudge Factor.  I read in FCC rules that if it says on the container of the tx its certified part 15 its legal as long as you use stock antenna and the TX itself has FCC ID# on it.  Now if someone running that tx gets a NOUO they have a case so long as you keep the box and all manuals.  But it is why I want 500mW or 1 Watt written on paper as legal to the final but it may be a bTtle.  But the FCC has CERTIFIED a 500mW tx for 88.1- 107.9Mhz.  I know 250uV/m @ 3 meters.  Why certify something than give a NOUO?  Well most consumers you may as well speak.Sanskrit Hindu language.   I say its done so they can change their mind on a dime.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

Aye!

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

And if the Kits were not certified it would not be legal to own operate them.  Reading more into this it also says so long as you follow the manufacturers instructions to the T your certified to operate the kit.  So if Ramsey had a kit, you put it together and its 500mW into a stock antenna and you put a watt meter to it after you finish and fire it up Hey its Legal you didn’t adjust the power level.  You didn’t alter its construction from the manual that told you How to Put It Together.  So again you have a certified kit, container says FCC Certified part 15 and you’re getting 1/4 mile to X Radio.  You’re legal technically because the certification nulls anything else.  The FCC themselves certified it so if they didn’t want you to have, Operate the TX they would not have Certified it to begin with.  It didn’t say in the manual you have to turn down to X power from what it was rated at.  So again the FCC has a double standard.  Maybe somewhere they mean already for non stationary TX’s to only go a few inches like those Belkin transmitters do.  Yes I know I’ve been quoted 15:239 and 15:219 several times.  But when the link was put up which had the part 15 rules I read them about FCC ID#’s and certification of these transmitters.  And to what an FCC certified ID# should look like.  So I’d go with what the certification says.  I don’t care about anything else said on any other part 15 forum.  If your TX has not been hacked, and you are certified and the TX has a rating of say 500mW your legal it was certified.  Its just like a car that passes inspection.  Your legal to drive that car.

 

That is as baby talk as I can see it.  So if 500mW is legal I say be happy with that.  Its enough range to a rubber duck stock antenna to get listeners and have fun you don’t need anymore than that now would you want more because of the following:

 

1 Watt or more to a Rubber Duck or telescoping antenna causes SWR issues and the TX gets HOT.

 

2.  1 Watt TX’s often require fans to keep them cool and if you don’t have a good fan I pitty you when the TX fries (I know the smell and the feeling of that and its not at all nice).

 

3.  500mW will cause some bleed to a boom box @ 10 feet so 1 Watt or more even if you could use an inside antenna would really cause issues to your next door neighbors.

 

Yes I’m saying if the FCC is allowing 500mW (and certification tells me they are) I don’t care about anything else the certification makes anything else Null and Void!!! a good lawyer will tell you this.  Than if this is true you need only a certified 500mW FM TX and be sure to not abuse it and your good as gold.

 

After reading all this FCC stuff and talking to some in law I feel better about this whole thing.  I’m fighting a battle I already have legal certification to use and if I make too much noise they could again take away the legality of 500mW.  So either the 250uV/M is outdated and they never wrote the new rules or the FCC F&cked up when they certified the 500mW TX.  Either way its all over but the crying.  They could stop certification of any NEW TX’s but if you already own one your grandfathered anyway for the life of the TX.  So just be sure you guard it like Gold as its already certified and you have athorization to use it.

 

Now if some hate me now I’m sadly sorry but that is the law and possession is 3/4 of the law.  Just look at the drug charges.  I posses certification in black and white for my TX as I have all the manuals and the Box as well as on the Box it clearly says how far the TX can go.  So all that does prove a good case.  I don’t need or want any more than 500mW and neither sould most of you.  It probably would get out further if you put it on the secound floor of a house.  Happy hobby broadcasting.

[macdev Total posts : 0]

I was reading this artile on DIY about how the FCC hates pirates and they want to give incentives for taking them down.

O’Rielly Encourages War on Pirates

How about proposing a compromise?

Give us a slightly more powerful part 15 (or another class), licensed, limited range, annual fee, and we’ll try to keep the airwaves clear. We won’t knock on people’s doors, but we’ll watch the airwaves and report back.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

… After reading all this FCC stuff and talking to some in law I feel better about this whole thing.  I’m fighting a battle I already have legal certification to use and if I make too much noise they could again take away the legality of 500mW.  So either the 250uV/M is outdated and they never wrote the new rules or the FCC F&cked up when they certified the 500mW TX. …

Three observations:

– Some manufacturers/distributors/users, for whatever reason(s), may only claim that a transmitter is certified to be legal for unlicensed use in the AM/FM broadcast bands, per FCC Part 15.

– Regardless of the Part 15 certification status of a transmitter, it is the responsibility of the operator of an unlicensed transmit system to comply with Part 15, if they want to avoid all risk of an FCC citation at a geographic location subject to FCC jurisdiction.

– The FCC has issued NOUOs to unlicensed operators of transmitters having documented Part 15 certification, when the measured, real-world performance of those systems as installed and operated were non-compliant with Part 15.

 

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

I say let it be known that 500mW certified (that means you have permission by the latter of the law and that any previous written rule prior to that certification is null and void) are legal to own, operate so long as you did not alter the transmitter. And if the FCC comes back with “That was a mistake” that is wen you come back with “It was certified for part 15 1 yr or less prior to 2015 which means that as of the date of that certification would mean any 500mW certified transmitter that exists in the USAfter that certification date is legal so song as its not been changed from its original manufactured state. Remember they have had ample time to lift the certification and so letting would be pirates know who are using transmitters more than that should go to a certified 500mW FM Transmitter instead. Remember sometimes our answers are right in front of us. Some folks Pirate because they think there is no way to get a signal past their house (which clearly is fiction). Maybe some of these high power pirates may need to look at streaming and using smaller 500mW transmitters. Some of these Pirates are doing other things to raise cain as well. Playing offensive material, Hate speeches, Swearing, drug talking, and other issues. If the FCC wants to play two face turn coat then we will have to combat that.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

Thelegacy, even if a radio is certified, that doesn’t mean that you’re operating legally.

It is up to the broadcaster to ensure that they are meeting the Part 15 regulations.  And ultimately, it’s up to an FCC field inspector to determine that.

I’ve also read somewhere that that Sainsonic you have may not really be certified, even though the company advertises it as such on their website.  Particularly if it hasn’t been purchased in the U.S. I believe that they did get something certified, but they’re, in a blanket fashion, applying that certification to other transmitters.  And from what I can gather, Sainsonic has even applied to the FCC to revoke that certification, as they state that they’ve never sold a certified transmitter in the U.S.  So I’d be careful using it, unless you can somehow verify that it is meeting the field strength limits of Part 15 FM.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

One of the things I did with my Ramsey FM100 (the older model not the FM100B) was to add a cooling fan to the chassis just above the power transformer. I drilled a series of holes for air flow in the metal cabinet and added a cooling fan commonly used as computer heat sink cooling fan.

My FM100 was NOT the export kit so it did not come with the 1 watt module. I used the telescopic antenna that came with the kit.

I just wanted to add to the conversation here that I added that cooling fan, because I witnessed an increase of heat on the cabinet top and felt that heat could cause premature failure of the filtering electrolytic capacitors or a possible chip failure.

I noticed the mention of the FM100B with the 1 watt mod causing heat issues, but I wanted to stress that I noticed heat issues with the kit being USA ‘stock’ legal.

The interesting part of the Ramsey FM100 kit is there is NO certification number on the chassis. I also did not see any mention of such in the kit building manual included with the kit. So, I have ask, are they really legal for use in the USA? I see a lot of talk by many that those FM100 and FM100B’s are operating above part 15 authorization. I used an analog Diamond SX-200 meter on mine and the meter in the zero to 5 watts range barely ever budged past zero, you really had to watch that needle for any movement and that was using the external antenna output and a 50 watt dummy load.

I no longer have my FM100, I sold it to a local ham operator about 2 1/2 weeks ago, but I figured I’d share with the rest of you what mod’s I did to mine.

Oh, ONE LAST thought. One thing I noticed about my kit. It was built properly, but the BA1404 chip was wired wrong in my kit for the L-R audio inputs. The left audio amplifier was wired to the BA1404 right input and the right amplifier was wired to the BA1404 left input. So basically, the channels were REVERSED at the transmitter output and was the case on an FM stereo receiver. 

I even contacted Ramsey about it and they said the makers of that kit were no longer with Ramsey.

I had to cut the traces to the BA1404 chip Left Channel and Right channel inputs and jumper over using jumper wires to correct the problem and restore the channels to their prospective zones.

I have not seen anything on the web about that, so I must be the ONLY one who caught that circuit board error.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

There is no way of going smaller than using an FCC Certified FM transmitter in compliance with 15.239, but it is a true radio signal.

This week will see the return of KDX-FM running the same programming heard on KDX AM 1670 and the three web streams. For this I will have a “room radio,” used for hearing KDX-FM in one room of the house.

Also, I will purchase another Ramsey FM 25B kit, I liked the other ones, but the people who have them aren’t returning them, so I’ll be magnanimous and purchase another.

Using the spectrum analyzer I’ll be able to set the 25B to match a certified C.Crane Model FT-007, to avoid having any excess field-strength.

Life can be a very interesting experience, at times, but that’s not the subject being discussed.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

The Ramsay FM100B is not certified, either in the U.S. or Canada.  The reason it is a kit is that you cannot sell uncertified transmitters in either country; the assembled version was only available for export (at least theoretically).

I did have a 100, and experimented with it.  I ended up getting rid of it because it was too powerful for even Canadian regulations, although I could mismatch the telescopic antenna enough to get it reasonably close.  However, it was still more powerful than a correctly tuned Decade MS-100, and it wasn’t worth the risk to use it.  I did hook it up (very) briefly to a Comet quarter wave antenna and was able to get over 2 miles range to a good car radio on a heavily forested island while broadcasting in mono.  Needless to say, that signal was far in excess of the legal limits in Canada or the U.S.

As I posted earlier, the 100 is spec’ed at around 10mw, and it goes to show that you don’t need much power to get significant range on FM with a good antenna.  That’s why I believe it’s necessary to talk about field strength rather than power, as field strength translates directly to range (whereas with power, range totally depends on the type of antenna being used).

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

ArtisanRadio when you said FM100 were you referring to the original FM100 or the FM100B?

There are variable resistors and coils near the FM100 output stage, they either increase the RF power output or lower it, it depends on how you adjust things while using a RF power meter designed for 88.1 to 200.MHz and a dummy load.

Granted my Diamond SX-200 meter is analog and not accurate as lets say a digital readout type would be, but based on what I could see via a analog meter, I believe the FM100 can be toned down to a legal field strength, but I must be fair here and say my analysis is not 100% fool proof either.

Again, having a Potomac FIM41 or equivalent is always more accurate at determining accurate field strength intensity. 

My radio station used those Decade MS100 transmitter instead of the Ramsey transmitters. Since we used 87.9MHz, obviously that FM100 would never have tune that low, so we never ventured into using those as part of our multi-transmitter network.

Bruce.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

… Again, having a Potomac FIM41 or equivalent is always more accurate at determining accurate field strength intensity.

A Potomac Instruments FIM-41 is not designed for, and is incapable of making accurate measurements of field intensity in the FM broadcast band.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Rich said:

A Potomac Instruments FIM-41 is not designed for, and is incapable of making accurate measurements of field intensity in the FM broadcast band.

Whoops my bad, I was told they were at another part 15 related website.

I’m no engineer, never owned one, could never afford one either.

Do I have the model number wrong by any chance? If so please correct me.

Thanks Rich!

Bruce.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

It was an FM100B.

I had a factory assembled export model.  I never did see if I could tune it for a lower field strength – I just used it as it came from the factory.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

ArtisanRadio said: It was an FM100B.

ArtisanRadio the FM100 and FM100B have totally different circuit boards, I do not nor ever owned the newer FM100B model, but I was able to download the owner’s manual while Ramsey still allowed that on their website.

I know the power output circuits are also different. The FM100 required an add-in circuit board and the FM100B required the addition of an RF power transistor.

Since you got the export kit already assembled, my belief is that they sent your kit designed for maximum power output. Removing that transistor and going stock may have brought the RF power down to a legal field strength. And I’m not familiar with the tuning of the FM100B, but I’m sure you could have toned down a bit if you wanted to.

Now onto The Legacy and post number 55.

I agree with you that FM is a constant victim of being called blatant pirate radio. But there is nothing we can do to stop that misinformation, except to try and convince everyone that that statement is not true.

There are several sites out there that cater to part 15 radio hobbyists. There are also several opinions out there that contradict each other.

I do not have the answers as to how we can stop the miscommunication that is plaguing this hobby. I wish I did. But what has to happen for things to be really real is for the FCC to clean up those misconceptions and put an end to all this bias and anti-FM this and that.

I hold the FCC responsible for the confusion. They know these devices exist and are sold nationwide. They also know that not everyone who owns these devices has an education that taught them right from wrong.

I personally know people who went to Walmart and bought a mini transmitter that hooks up to their Ipod and sends a signal to their car FM radio. Years ago people bought cassettes that you’d pop into your cassette deck and plug the included wire into your Ipod, those required NO RF. But, now that those mini FM transmitters are available, people are also using those devices.

Now as I ask these people if they have any idea how those things work or ask anything about FCC rules, they look at me and stare dumb-founded and say “What???”

My point is the FCC can not expect everyone to know, like every school teaches us things in life, that operating these things requires an FCC authorization, can be used incorrectly and put them at risk of violation a federal law.

Now true, every device comes with some type of notice on its outer shell about part 15, but there are no warnings that say this device can subject you to a FCC fine for interference.

I do realize, to some extent, there are notices that that device complies with FCC part 15, but that is commonly about all there is.

I have read and read the rules at the FCC.gov website, but even I have to admit I do have some confusion when the rules start referring to subpart a or subpart b or refer to subpart a-c

This is where I referenced the King James Bible earlier, too much referencing can often lose one in the traffic jam of references.

It wears you down to the point you say screw this, I’m getting a headache reading this mumbo-jumbo crap and you just go on hoping you’re doing things right, or you get to the point you just don’t care anymore.

But I put the blame on the FCC more than I do any other part 15 website, their word is what counts not that of a part 15 website or a member of it.

Bruce.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Oh and I’d like to address the membership here.

Do you know anyone personally that is in Congress that you can speak to about part 15 radio and it’s advantages?

Someone who might take an interest in your ideas and present those to the house floor?

Let’s get those brains active out there and think. Who in your local area can have your voice on the floor of the house of representatives?

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Well a “gem” is a kind of rare stone or jewell, something of value, and something MrBruce said within the past two posts is very quotable:

“too much referencing can often lose one in the traffic jam of references.”

Ya! Yea! Yup! That’s what happens to me all the time. There are so many deep naps that began with tracking references. It’s an inhuman thing to do, nobody can do it. It explains why attorneys have the reputation of being heavy drinkers.

An almost daily example are the “Terms and Services” where we click “I Agree,” but no one ever reads all that gobble-dee-gook and if you try to read it you will never reach the end.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

Mr. Bruce Said: I personally know people who went to Walmart and bought a mini transmitter that hooks up to their Ipod and sends a signal to their car FM radio. Years ago people bought cassettes that you’d pop into your cassette deck and plug the included wire into your Ipod, those required NO RF. But, now that those mini FM transmitters are available, people are also using those devices.

I said: A couple of years ago I bought one from the local Wal-Mart that operated on 87.9 and was certifed.  I wish I had written the certification number on it.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

There are two versions of the SainSonic AX-05B.  The old one has the BNC connector and is the same as the non compliant CZH-05B which has issues.  The new revised AX-05B is 100% legally certified for part 15.  It has a TNC connector and filters.  I even looked up the info and the ONLY difference between the revised SainSonic AX-05B and the Decade CM-10 is the type of antenna and the PRICE!!!.  The SainSonic AX-05B has a reversed TNC and rubber duck and the Decade CM-10 has the telescoping antenna.  I looked at BOTH transmitters and the circuit boards are identical.  If your talking about that other website the transmitter they refer to is the 7 watt one which Amazon is selling inside hey sainsonic AX-05B box.  The 7 watt and 5 watt are the AX-5c and AX-7c which according to James of SainSonic is NOT certified legal in the USA.  Neither is the AX- 05B with the BNC connector.  This Transmitter the SainSonic AX-05B with TNC connector does show up on the FCC website when you enter the numbers on the back of the transmitter.  Plus talking to James the Tech Support of sainSonic asured me 100s of times this transmitter is legally certified part 15.  Now saying certification for part 15 means nothing?  Then how can you say your part 15 certified transmitter doesn’t go over and is illegal?  Can you say every person with a Whole House FM transmitter has or is expected to have a field strength meter? Think not.  So this brings up two possibilities. 1. The FCC has changed its stance and allows 500 mW Transmitter to be to be certified.  Or 2.  After the NAB’s crybaby lobbying many manufacturers are only using 10 to 25% of the legal allowance. I sorta believe both. But we will never know. What we do know is that certification should be trusted or we throw all our transmitters in the trash and give up on part 15.  I choose to go with certification.  The NAB trolls will purposely start start misinformation such as the Whole House fm Transmitter goes only 200 feet. This we know is a blatant lie I’ll take Frankenmuth Michigan and the Christmas Town as an example. I can hear that Transmitter quite clearly one quarter mile. So too they run this Transmitter 24 7. The range of the transmitter matches the 500mW revised sainsonic AX-05B.  That in itself tells me I’m using the same exact strength. So I just want to clear up some blatant misinformation from an anti fm website that is clearly stated anyone running an FM transmitter is a pirate. Well if that’s true I guess we have plenty of pirates in America. Now you see it’s all  the nonsense. Just like the car that passes inspection and as soon as you go outside the inspection tickets for non-compliance you have something to stand because you had intent on following the rules. That is what matters.  I’d say keep your keep your manualsand keep your box.  If the FCC had a problem they would have had ample time to pull the certification. But they did not so what does that tell you? Common sense tells me its legal.

 

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

FIM = “Field Intensity Meter.”

At this moment we’ve lost track of the model, make and number of the professional FIM for FM field measurement, and we’re waiting for someone to remind us.

But my memory does think it remembers some things, and one of those is that I believe Rich has mentioned the frustrating fact that the legal field strength for FM is so small that it can’t actually be measured by the proper meter.

Do I recall that correctly?

[Rich Total posts : 0]

I believe Rich has mentioned the frustrating fact that the legal field strength for FM is so small that it can’t actually be measured by the proper meter.

The Potomac Industries FIM-71 was designed to measure VHF fields, and has a measuring range of 1 µV/m to 10 V/m.  So it had no problem measuring a field compliant with §15.239, and less.  But its manufacture has been discontinued.

I think the FCC uses other instrumentation, anyway.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

In post number 64 Rich said:

The Potomac Industries FIM-71 was designed to measure VHF fields

Okay, not mentioning any names, but I purely seen someone who was referring to an FM pirate he located “I didn’t think of bringing the Potomac FIM41 field intensity meter along…..”

I seen another quote being made towards me over at The Virtual Engineer forum where I was told to get a true idea what my Ramsey FM100 was putting out I needed a piece of equipment called the FIM41. In fact a picture of the FIM41 was added to that topic for clarity of what the device looked like.

Now unless someone goofed and thought the Ramsey FM100 was an AM transmitter, I can understand that mistake, however, that other person who also participated in that topic knows what the FM100 is and mentioned the use of the FIM41 first and it went on from there.

What can I tell you? My field was electronics repair, not engineer. I used frequency counters, oscilloscopes, meters and signal generators. Repaired CB radios etc. but never needed a field intensity meter of that type. So I only know what those smarter then me teach me unfortunately and at 56 years old, I’m not about to go back and take a new course in electronics. Besides guys, I see no point in learning about an expensive piece of equipment like those units.  And what? You need one for FM and a different one for AM? At those prices, it sounds like a down payment on a new home. Just kidding!

Bruce. 

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

http://www.amradioantennas.com/images/FIM-41_front%20(Large).JPG

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Druid Hills wrote: “A couple of years ago I bought one from the local Wal-Mart that operated on 87.9 and was certifed.  I wish I had written the certification number on it.”

Mr. Hills did not say whether the Walmart transmitter was a Scosche, but mine were, and I’ll print some specifications for you.

Scosche FMT4R Transmitters were hanging in their plastic pack on a pegboard on the wall at Walmart, marked $10 each. I bought one.

When I realized how useful it could be I went back and got a few more.

Certification: FCC RLQAT100

There was an FCC on-line data page for that Certification # which I linked on my website, but now it is a dead link.

The 14 frequencies selectable by DIP switches are: 87.7, 87.9, 88.1, 88.3, 88.5, 88.7, 88.9, 106.7, 106.9, 107.1, 107.3, 107.5, 107.7, 107.9 MHz.

The RF output is coupled to the shield of the 6″ audio cable. I modified one of the transmitters by disconnecting the RF output from the audio shield and attached an exclusive antenna wire. Using my spectrum analyzer and comparing the field-strength of the Scosche to that of a certified C.Crane, I am able to adjust the Scosche antenna length to comply with 15.239.

Presently I use a Scosche at 89.9 MHz to transmit vinyll records into another room for digital capture.

Presently it uses 2x AAA batteries, but I will be adding a variable power supply, which may also play a roll in setting the output strength.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

15:239 and 15:219 are the two verses of the almighty part 15 that is recited quite a few times. But again the simple thing is Certification. If you don’t have a field intensity meter or a spectrum analyzer the only thing you have as a reference is your transmitter’s certification is the FCC ID# and the container. I’d take that as the FCC’s word. And if the certification is no good than your saying the FCC’s word is no good. Its more important than that of any web site or a third party interpenetration of the part 15 rules. If you have a FIM then by all means try and check and double check. As far as matching your home made transmitter to a certified part 15 FM transmitter I’d go with the one that has the most range and was certified. So far we know the Ramsey and the SainSonic AX-05B have the same range. And the latter is a certified FM Transmitter. Next is the Whole House FM Transmitter 3.0 and even the Gold units but the gold units can only transmit on a few frequencies. I’ve heard that the 3.0 has more range than the 2.0 so OK you go with the 3.0. And who wants to pay $200 for the same certification as one that costs $54.95 on the SainSonic web site. Well common sense says you want to save money and go for the SainSonic not the Decade CM-10.

 

This is why I’d have a difficult time being convinced that the SainSonic’s certification means nothing. If it was a fake then it was one hell of an inside job and the government was involved. Now I believe in conspiracy theories to a certain extent but some of the ideas are really out there in left field. That said I’m not an FM pirate and feel I’m doing what is right by buying a certified transmitter as apposed to anything else.

 

As far as getting anyone local here I doubt it. Most folks here have no idea what part 15 is. Some have heard my station when they were close enough and they find it interesting to a certain extent. But they did say they just turn the Radio on and tune to something they like. Yes I know the FCC makes things unclear. But like I said the most logical answer is usually the correct one. The most obvious one after all the gibberish which makes no sense. If that is not what they want, then there should have been an RF output into X antenna rule which too almost already has been written for you. Certified means you don’t change the RF stage of that transmitter nor its antenna once certification has been issued. Now that seems simple for me to understand. And if there is a different antenna just like the Whole House FM Transmitter or the Talking House AM Transmitter witch has the transmitter and outside antenna as a unit which was certified for the package. Again some things are not easily found in the part 15 bible but the obvious should be weighed in here. I’m sure congress would agree with that in your local area. AM however has a slightly more clear stance but again certified package means your good in most courts I can be sure of. Otherwise throw in the part 15 towel now because there is no one even the FCC you can trust. One says the sky is blue, the other says its black which is correct?

 

I wish you luck in finding local congress or officials who might care enough about FM Radio to want to help the hobby. Let me know what happens.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Very good TheLegacy, I heard you and do understand your point about only purchasing an FCC certified transmitter and operate it under it’s certification and you’re in the clear. I can appreciate and understand that point.

I suppose I should not have shut down my FM station, but then again, perhaps it is time for me to explore the possibilities with AM. Of course the challenge will be that most AM stereo transmitters available are not part 15 certified. The one sold on ebay which is sold already put together and the Chris Cuff one is also not certified, so using those devices requires a little bit of knowledge and testing to avoid that fine line of operating in violation.

This is where I am at with my current transmitter the C-Quam AM stereo transmitter. In a previous topic I asked about the RF transistor that was included in this one I have. I want to make sure someone did not put a high powered transistor in it and get me into trouble. The transistor had generic markings on it, but I believe someone here may have helped me properly identify it. I bought that transmitter already assembled on ebay, it was built by Chris Cuff, not me.

I realize my best advice given would to be to steer clear of a kit for sake of steering clear of a violation and settle with a certified AM mono unit until a stereo unit become available with FCC certification. I just have this thought and it may be a far fetched one, that maybe I can draw the same crowd I had with FM if we tried AM stereo and played old time rock n’ roll.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

There’s a certain school of thought in advertising and promotion that says, “Know your audience.”

Well, a neighbor is, in a sense, “an audience,” and neighbors are not going to know about “part 15.”

But neighbors have heard of “radio hobbyists”, so if you want to talkk to them about your broadcast activities, the smart answer is, “Yes, I’m a radio hobbyist.”

That should be enough, but if they ask more, like, “Oh, are you a HAM?”

The honest but evasive answer is, “Sort of.”

Point is, we build on what neighbors (the audience) know, and not what they don’t know.

Having worked in advertising agencies and religious organizations one learns how to spin without sin.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Since you don’t have an empty frequency other than 87.9 (which clearly is not legal) I’d welcome you to try Album Rock on AM.  Then you can tell me what people do.  Will they simply say No way will I listen?  Of will they listen anyway because they liked what you played as compared with what plays in your area on the Radio on FM.  You can argue that AM gives more range with less hassle and the fact that 87.9 was not legal and you didn’t know this.  Maybe some folks will listen and give you support.  You could try using talking house AM transmitters and stringing the wire outside or the iAM which is the same.  The reason I don’t do it is that I have a blank frequency (just have to check during temperature inversions).  So that said I’d like to see you go back on air.  You may only need one Talking House AM Transmitter or iAM transmitter. And if the AM petition goes through for a longer antenna you can add more wire.  If they ever go unlimited I’d add 100-20 feet of wire to it and call it a day.  I’d probably would go 2-3 miles that way.  Maybe iAM will come up with a Stereo AM transmitter that is certified.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

So is the FCC thinking two categories of FM transmitters for certification? And since they believe these car Transmitter are such low power that it does not matter the fact that you can transmit on 87. 9? Remember certification is three fourths of the law. I can’t imagine someone buying this Transmitter from Walmart and getting a NOUO for transmitting on 87.9 megahertz. See this is the problem. If the FCC’s certification is not written in stone then what the heck do we need an FCC for?  There are too many double standards in their rules for part 15. That was what I’m trying to say not everything is written in the part 15 rule Bible.  1 minute someone gets a citation for transmitting on 87.9 megahertz and it is and  that it is not legal under any power that  and next you have a certified Transmitter in which blatantly transmits on 87.9 megahertz. So it sounds like to me that the same rules do not fit for all. If that is the case then they are not doing their job as spectrum management. I can see why some law makers are stripping funding to the FCC. Plus those  part 15 rules to the best of my understanding are somewhat outdated. Reason for so is that certification. Technology changes as the years go on. Their problem is that they are not keeping up with the new technology. If channel 6 wasn’t used during let’s say 2012 now they’re planning on using it again it would explain why now they are no longer certified. But that would give them no license to be a turncoat on the subject. Because they should have thought well before acting. That is their screw up.  The problem here is that lawmakers are not held accountable enough for their actions. So then to why should they expect a operator of a certified Transmitter to act differently then the certification and what it was designed for?  This is something of interest and an accident waiting to happen.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

What does it mean? —  “Remember certification is three fourths of the law.”

Maybe it means that for every certified transmitter one-fourth of the transmitter isn’t certified?

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Thelegacy said:

See this is the problem. If the FCC’s certification is not written in stone then what the heck do we need an FCC for?  There are too many double standards in their rules for part 15. That was what I’m trying to say not everything is written in the part 15 rule Bible.  1 minute someone gets a citation for transmitting on 87.9 megahertz and it is and  that it is not legal under any power that  and next you have a certified Transmitter in which blatantly transmits on 87.9 megahertz.

 

Bravo…bravo!!! I can’t not agree with you more!!

And we used 87.9MHz on the Decade MS100 certified transmitter for WXTZ. You now see my point. I guess this is a case of you can own a car, but you can’t drive your car past the posted speed limit without getting an NOUO.

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Now your really going to get me on a wild tangent here. My Dad was stopped when the speed limit sign was not posted and it dropped from 70 miles per hour to 55. The cop pulled him over. The cop asked my did if he knew how fast he was going? Dad said 70 miles per hour sir. The cop wrote him a ticket for going 25 miles over the speed limit. Well he fought and won the case as the sign that was supposed to tell you of te change was not there. So too the FCC is playing the same damn game when they certify a transmitter and then hand over to you a citation because you operated on what the transmitter was designed for on your choice of frequencies in which 87.9 was the blank frequency of your choice. Now lets bring up the SainSonic AX-05B again. The manual says on High Power you can reach a quarter mile. The transmitter is certified to oporate from 88.1-107.9 Mhz or 76-108 but too the manual DOES STATE your CERTIFIED for 88.1-107.9. It talks about if you only want to go a few feet use low power. But again the box and manual says in Bold print Barrier-Free Broadcast Distance of 1,300 Feet. OK the speed limit has been set here in STONE 1,300 feet as again I’m looking right at the very box of this transmitter. The FCC expects YOU to obey the distance limit if you will but gives you no way to measure that strength. So again double standard as hell. It can be fought in a court of law. If Judge Judy were to try the FCC in court she would ask “were YOU the ones who certified the SainSonic AX-05B Transmitter?” FCC answers “Yes we did your honor!” Judge: And does the box clearly say barrier-free broadcasting up to 1,300 feet?” FCC: “Well yes it sure does!” Judge: “Again you certified this transmitter in your labs and this is the correct FCC ID#?” FCC: “Yes but the rules of part 15:239 says 250 uV/m @ 3 meters!” Judge: “Ah Ah Ah YOU CERTIFIED THIS TRANSMITTER AGAIN SIR I ASKED YOU TWICE” FCC: “Yes your honor I did but…” Judge: “By certification anything else is null and oid because you not SainSonic and Not the operator gave the ok so I rule in favor of the defendant case dismissed!” then you hear ALL RISE…

 

Double standard will most certainly never be tolerated in a court of law in fact the judge would crush anyone who would even attempt that mess. So again the rules change for the operators of that certified transmitter. Now I’m sure that will shed some light on any anti-FM troll waiting to bust folks for owning and operating a SainSonic AX-05B. You can fool some of the people all the time, but not all the people. I don’t need a PHD to figure out what is totoal injustice and what is justice.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

In past threads I’ve tried to explain what FCC “certification” actually amounts to; that is, what it means and what it doesn’t mean.

Now I think the old chronic misunderstanding has returned and we’re talking about definitions of “certification” that are projected from active fantasy imaginations and have little resemblance to what “certification” actually is.

Maybe some quiet evening I’ll give the explanation another try.

Or, even better, maybe someone else would like to do the honors.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

All I know Carl is that on applications you “Certify” that your telling the truth. I “Certify” to the best of my knowledge. Its pretty much black and white. Doesn’t matter to me this or that page on a rule book. Once the device is “Certified: after the rules were written it nullifies what was written before and gives validity to the new “Certification”. Do you think Walmart shoppers or someone buying a Whole House FM Transmitter 3.0 is going to question its legality after its available with the certification clearly and blatantly marked on the package? Is it our job be keep second guessing officials? I mean God knows they don’t always do their job, but hey there is a need which is an FM Transmitter. The consumer sees it and sees hey its certified its legal it looks made well hey I’m gonna try it. There is no intention of breaking any laws here indeed. If that were the intent why not just buy an export or a 50 watt transmitter. It just something that makes no sense to anyone’s imagination except for maybe a few engineers or maybe an extra class Ham operator and the way things are written and if you have the time to decipher the critic if than that no its not what this means way of thinking than hey give up the hobby already it will never jump out and say “Carl this is what we mean!” Again by definition certification gives you the athorization to possess, operate, own, use. If that is not what the FCC intended well then they should not throw words around blindly. I also believe its the intent and the end result. The NAB is gonna complain about any transmitter they hear on FM they are gonna want this and that. But sorry the certification blocks their attempts. Its why we have these laws to protect the twisting of what certification is. Even the FCC rules say if your going to sell a transmitter you need to get certification. If its a nonsense throw around word why certify it to begin with? Common sense is the rule of the wise.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

The super rain the other night washed my driveway rocks out to sea, so I’ve been down with a hoe pulling the rocks into piles and using a coal shovel to put them back in the trenches so the tires don’t fall into a deep crevice.

Within sight of being finished, this is a break at the computer.

In FCC Lingo the “Certification Process for Part 15 Transmitters” works this way…

The rules prohibit selling fully-made transmitters if they haven’t been “certified” in FCC terms.

This is done when a transmitter maker hires an independent but FCC recognized engineering firm to laboratory test and measure the transmitter to verify that it indeed meets the limitations of 15.239. The engineering firm submits to the FCC a model of the transmitter and the official paperwork showing the measurements and “proofs” that the transmitter meets 15.239.

The FCC reviews the “Submission for Certification” and if it concurs with the results, the FCC issues a valid FCC Certification for the specified transmitter.

The transmitter maker now has the legal right to sell the transmitter.

That’s where the certification ends.

To repeat, the FCC Certification legally allows the transmitter maker to sell copies of the particular transmitter that was lab tested.

The FCC Certification for selling transmitters does not confer any special rights to the consumer who buys the transmitter.

The end-user, the customer with his FM transmitter is separately and independently inspected without regard to whether his transmitter is certified or not.

A part 15 hobbyist IS ALLOWED by Part 15 rules to design and build his own transmitter, which cannot legally be sold because it’s not certified, but it can be used.

A part 15 hobbyist is ALLOWED by Part 15 rules to build a kit, but he cannot build kits to sell to others.

In my book a kit is exactly the same as a self-built transmitter, but some have other opinions.

Despite the strong difference between what “FCC Certified” really means, and what so many people falsely believe it means, my message now will be forgotten, ignored, not understood or disbelieved.

Someday I’ll have enough good sense not to keep explaining it.

This other thing is key to the discussion…

There are known and suspected instances where transmitter manufacturers may have “cheated” on their certifications and sold transmitters that were not the same as the ones that were lab tested.

Perhaps some members have knowledge or opinions about certified cheats.

Apart from FCC rules, the words “certify”, “verify”, “assert”, “swear”, “testify” and “promise” are interchangable.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

Let me try, Carl.

Certification means that the transmitter has been tested in a lab environment and found that it adheres to the Part 15 rules.

But how you install and use your transmitter can and does affect whether or not you’re still Part 15 compliant.

The simplest case that you’re not compliant is when you generate interference to a licensed station.

But there are certainly many other ways as well.  For example, I once installed my Decade MS-100 within a few inches of a metal roof, and the signal strength increased dramatically!  I knew at that point that I was over the Canadian field strength limits and moved it further away from the roof.  If you increase the length of the antenna on a certified transmitter, you’re going to increase your field strength and not be compliant.

In the case of AM, a long ground wire can make you non compliant with Part 15.219.

In other words, no matter whether your transmitter is certified or not, you are still ultimately responsible for ensuring that you meet the Part 15 guidelines.

If Sainsonic is advertising that their transmitter has a range of 1/4 mile AND certified, then either their advertising is false, or the transmitter is not really certified (as I’ve posted earlier, there’s some question there).  Because it is highly unlikely that any FM transmitter that meets Part 15 FM field strengths of 250/m at 3 meters will have that kind of range.  1/4 mile is 1300+ feet, and that’s far above the 600-800 feet range that we’ve calculated you can get with the most sensitive car or home receivers.  Maybe with a multi-element yagi beam, but even then, I’d have to see it to believe it.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

This comes down to what I said, you can own a car, but you can not drive that car above the posted speed limit without getting an NOUO.

You can own many things in life that are otherwise legal to own, but it depends on how you use those devices that determines whether they are illegal or not.

You the owner, are responsible for the safe and legal operation of what you own.

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Attention AMers thinking your safe from persecution. I have googled this article and found it in the Oregon press where the Commissioner was interviewed and clearly said the legal range for AM was and get this 98 feet. Oh boy that’s a double standard problem here isn’t there. KENC was cited after the broadcast schedule for their wedding was published in the newspaper. Well the Commissioner read the paper and inspected the station. He said there was free Transmitter all that can be heard from 10 to 12 blocks each. But the legal range for AM was 98 feet. So for the anti Sm trolls that means you too hang in the balance. What to do now? Now remember this was before the certification of the sainsonic AXO 5 B FM transmitter.  Plus I’m sure this happen long before the iAM transmitter.  Now if you want to believe and older and outdated events you would have to stop your radio stations. After all it was written in black and white right?  See again the double standard and how it’s interpreted. I hope you can see the problem. For there are several. Sometimes it’s not clear cut in the all mighty book of part 15.  Here is what we did learn. Number one don’t publish your station in a newspaper. Number 2 do not erect in a metro area.  3.  The FCC can change on a dime no rhyme or reasons.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

TheLegacy in regards to post #78

You’re mentioning that about the anti-FM trolls brings me to this conclusion.

I find it interesting that a Norwich based part 15 AM radio station called “Heritage Information Radio” has the support of the HB website and they have been in operation now for over 2 years without one inspection and their equipment is not really 100% part 15 legal.

The owner advertises his little part 15 AM station like crazy, so some of the things you mentioned above he has done.

And NOT ONE inspection. Ever wonder why?

Here’s the official website for the station:

http://www.am1700.org/

You figure it out because I can’t. Or should I say I do know, but don’t need to share it for you to know the reason why. Just scroll down that page and look at the reference made to another site.

Bruce.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

Mr. Bruce: Not being familar with the area what would you estimate his coverage area to be?

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

IM Really not surprized about your area and anti FM.  But im a little surprised about the AM side.  The FCC really must like his type of station and see a need for it.  I also seen the agents remarks as to hobby Radio.  Not too friendly.  We really have our work cut for us.  Time to unite.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

I visited the 1700 Heritage station’s website and the main thing I noticed is no people’s names associated with it. But the big question is…

“Their equipment is not really 100% part 15 legal,” said MrBruce.

How can you tell? How do you know?

If you acuse someone of breaking the rules you need to present the story behind the charge, otherwise your claim is unsubstantiated.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Carl Said:

I visited the 1700 Heritage station’s website and the main thing I noticed is no people’s names associated with it. But the big question is…

“Their equipment is not really 100% part 15 legal,” said MrBruce.

How can you tell? How do you know?

If you acuse someone of breaking the rules you need to present the story behind the charge, otherwise your claim is unsubstantiated.

Carl:

I posted a link in another topic about this station where it mentioned how his transmitter is installed, I am trying to locate that link as we speak.

A response to that link was that his AM broadcast antenna is installed in violation of part 15 rules. That link was linked to a newspaper article that was published in a local newspaper and in that article the operator of the station described his antenna installation. I have to trace back into my past posts to find the link I provided as I can’t remember it right now and have to run to attend an important event. So I will look for that link when I have time later tonight.

WDCX I’ll also answer your question when I get back, but right now I have to run to attend an important event.

Bruce.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Okay guys here is the article I have previously posted here:

http://www.theday.com/article/20140421/NWS01/304219974

Here is a quote from that article:

Harkins purchased a 100-milowatt transmitter for $600, and he and a friend installed a 40-foot antenna at his home. He now broadcasts 24 hours a day on an AM radio frequency not licensed to any stations in the area.

PLEASE NOTE THE 40 FOOT ANTENNA

 

Here is an updated link: http://www.theday.com/article/20150126/NWS01/150129812 

WDCX:

I can not get this station via the AM broadcast band at my house, this is because there is too much electrical noise and other interference here at my house. Plus a major factor is there is THREE power down step transformers located on three different utility poles surrounding my house.

His exact location is NOT publicly known, but puts him in the area of our local high school the “Norwich Free Academy” There is no way for me to add a Google Earth image here where I can mark on it my location and his location and post it here as a photo. I am roughly 1 1/2 miles from his antenna if I have the right location correct.

His name is Kevin Harkins as you can see in those articles.

Now please focus on his antenna LENGTH as it is quoted in article number 1

His support comes from the part 15 website listed at the bottom of this page http://am1700.org/

Because he is AM broadcasting and NOT FM like I was, he has positive support, but not the accusations and trouble I received, because he is being supported by a very biased individual who favors AM over FM.

He is operating an AM broadcast station with a 40 FOOT AM broadcast antenna, now where is the trolls shutting him down?

Bruce.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

Mr Bruce said: He is operating an AM broadcast station with a 40 FOOT AM broadcast antenna, now where is the trolls shutting him down?

I said: I hake little stock in newspaper stories.  The reason for this is based on personal experience. Every interview I have given always had errors, ommisions etc. These were from real papers like the St Petersburg Times, Tampa Tribune, etc. Anyway let’s assume he is running a Rangemaster.  The Rangemaster will not match a 40 foot antenna.  That does not leave many transmitters out there.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

The Rangemaster will not match a 40 foot antenna. 

Didn’t the KENC transmit setup at their studio use a Rangemaster on a tower of about 40-ft height?

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

That is true.  But he did not attach a 40 foot antenna to the threaded connector at the top of the transmitter enclosure.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

That is true.  But he did not attach a 40 foot antenna to the threaded connector at the top of the transmitter enclosure.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

… he did not attach a 40 foot antenna to the threaded connector at the top of the transmitter enclosure.

Still, the radiating length of that antenna system included the tower that the Rangemaster was “grounded” to.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

This is not relevant to the Norwich station Rich.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

What is the exact physical/electrical configuration of that system (if you know)?

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

That’s the issue.  We don’t know.  Some phrase in a newspaper article mentioned a 40 foot antenna.  Could be a tower or it could be a wire or pipe. I just said that the matching network in a Rangemaster will not work with a 40 foot conductor is attached to the antenna connector.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

… the matching network in a Rangemaster will not work with a 40 foot conductor is attached to the antenna connector.

NEC4.2 shows that the impedance on 1650 kHz from the base of a 40-ft vertical conductor connected to the antenna output terminal of an earth-mounted Rangemaster to a ground rod having 50 ohms of r-f ground loss is 52 -j 1030 ohms.

Are you thinking that a Rangemaster could not be adjusted to work into that load impedance?

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

Are you thinking that a Rangemaster could not be adjusted to work into that load impedance?

 

That is correct.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

I know it probably makes no difference regarding impedance, but his operating frequency is 1700KHz

Someone who knows more than I can call the guy, but try not to give your reason for asking away, perhaps you’ll get an honest answer.

Bruce.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

I wrote:  Are you thinking that a Rangemaster could not be adjusted to work into that load impedance?

WDCX answered:  That is correct.

_____________

What is correct:

That you think the Rangemaster can’t drive a 52 -j 1030 ohm load?

That you know it can’t?

What is the inductance range over which you know that the AM1000 loading coil can be adjusted?

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

I can’t phone Heritage Information Radio because I am not suspicious about his operation nor do I track down and find violators of FCC rules.

As I see it we are all free to dabble with Part 15 rules. Why just yesterday I knowingly and deliberately transmitted all day with 101 mW to the final RF stage of an AM transmitter.

Now back to the Impede Dance with the Impedance and Inductance Dance Orchestra.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Carl..Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not trying to look like a fly swatter here, but hey fair is fair right? I would have had a totally different attitude if the site supporting HIR radio did not play a major role in my station’s demise.

I don’t think I have to say anymore about that situation, but it also sends me the wrong message, had I’d been on AM, none of this would have happened…right?

My station could not have interfered with anyone unless they were just as illegal as me and transmitting on 87.9MHz, otherwise we were not on a local radio station’s frequency.

If 87.9MHz is illegal for FM, so is a radiating 40 FOOT broadcast antenna for the AM broadcast band on 1700KHz.

Bruce.

[wdcx Total posts : 0]

The designer of the mathching curcuit designed it to match 3 meter antennas and nothing more. I have that on personal knowledge. Why not buy one and and DIY rather than use free softeware and share your real time experiences?

 

[Rich Total posts : 0]

RE:  Reply #107

The designer of the mathching curcuit designed it to match 3 meter antennas and nothing more. I have that on personal knowledge.

How is it, then, that the KENC transmitter reportedly was able to be matched into a ~ 3-meter antenna when “grounded” to the top of a 40-ft tower at KENC, when that feedpoint impedance would be much different than that of a ~ 3-meter whip, alone?

Why not buy one and and DIY rather than use free softeware and share your real time experiences?

I paid $400 for the NEC4 software I use.

Just to note that I have real-time, hands-on experience with AM/FM transmit/receive systems going back to the mid-1950s.

Modern software analysis of antenna systems confirms the information given in antenna engineering textbooks, and is accepted by the FCC to license AM broadcast stations.

Why not acquire, and learn how to use such software before judging its accuracy and/or usefulness?

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Hi wdcx

I would check out the antenna if I knew exactly where it is located, but unlike my station, there is no address mentioned for this station.

When I read that article for KENC and observed that that agent slammed this station over a news paper article which clearly did not mention any antenna length and yet we have this guy not getting one blink from the FCC with this article.

Why didn’t that radio station that was looking to issue a complaint against me go after this station as well?

Perhaps that is a misprint, but those knowing better would have asked for a correction as that statement printed as it is can be viewed as an FCC violation. A 40 FOOT ANTENNA That is 30 feet over the limit, or to be fair, perhaps 25 feet.

I am a bit confused here though, how do I view this? That if I go AM and put out 50 watts I won’t be harassed? Or it is all about who you know?

This guy is located about 3/4 of a mile from the studios of WCTY, WICH, WKNL and WNLC which is located on Cuprack Road in Norwich, CT. and my studios are located 2 1/2 miles from them, yet if it WAS them who had us investigated, they didn’t give squat about this guy?

My station never posted anything about illegal power output or antenna height or length so nothing should have been seen as a red flag.

Not trying to sound like a cry baby here, but I really do not understand why we were harassed but not this guy who by virtue of his mention of HB means he SHOULD know better about what is legal and what isn’t.

He obviously had the SAME teacher as me and that teacher went after me and not him? This is where I say bias plays a big part here. If you’re AM you can do what you want, if you try FM you’re a thief and a blatant PIRATE.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

The telephone number for Heritage Information Radio is 1-860-319-0671

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Its why I said all along Anti FM trolls.  The Rules don’t include all.  I really don’t care one way or the other is just too I made a point when the commissioner said 98 feet Legal AM Range which when he was interviewed was in plain sight.  I think too many folks are too comfortable hiding behind AM.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

MrBruce, if I started reciting the laundry list of complaints about hobby flobby that I have posted in the past couple of years you would understand why I believe that your xperience really happened exactly the way you have said, but the Admin here would not be happy if I did a re-run on all that dirt.

To be on the right side we cannot “be like them” by exposing suspected pirates, even if the suspected pirates are THEM.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Carl I could not agree with you more! If you support part 15, you should be the last one assisting in a pirate sting, even though we all know that as a part 15 supporter, we should stand by the laws given to us to do so, even if we do not think they are fair.

We should not however, in my humble opinion, support the greedy broadcasters out there that want to cry that we spend next to nothing to operate a radio station on their turf and can take action to shut us down even if we did not cause interference to their programming.

I know we did not cause interference because we used scanners to scan the air craft band and the third image of the frequency we were on.

We were bullied over jealousy and I do not think that should be allowed, that was a violation of my rights to own and operate a part 15 compliant FM transmitter.

The trolls who played a major part of shutting my worthwhile station down will see themselves in a different light. I to, can write letters to magazines and voice my opinion about the corruption we have to put up with in this country from wannabe FCC field agents and trap websites that only exist to twist the words of law abiding people and use those words to get special favors from agents.

True, my words are speculation and I can’t prove that, but lessons in life have taught us that if you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours. We know that that is how humans were raised. But as they think they had their day and made an ass out of me, my day is coming and trust me when I say those children mascarading as adults,  will be at my mercy real soon and they will think twice about being a two faced organization. We know and they know who they are.

So Carl, you are correct, by mentioning HIR I am being just as two faced as those childish morons are being and although I am a victim, I should NOT be as two faced as they are and turn another part 15 station in.

May HB, it’s owner and all that it stands for rot in hell!

Bruce. 

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Please read this and I’ll not say anymore because, I AM SERIOUS! NOW!!

https://radioinsight.com/community/topic/fm-pirate-in-norwich-on-87-9/page/2/#post-138021

Bruce.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

That personal information above was not supposed to be included in post #104 I have requested for it to be removed.

That topic I linked to was closed because the author of that topic complained to the Admin of that site that he was being attacked. I’ll keep my opinions to my self.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

If this was a trial court hearing evidence we’d be doing a good job.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

If this was a trial court hearing evidence we’d be doing a good job.

Should this situation ever have proceeded to a “trial?”

Isn’t it the burden of the plaintiff to provide evidence to support their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, before such is ever brought to trial (either formally, or informally via the Internet)?

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Yes, Rich. especially on the 4th in the midst of our Independence. 

Unfounded acusations are not free speech.

Let’s talk about wires and sparks like we used to.

 

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Who here has the ability to edit post #104 and remove everything below the link with the exception of my first name at the bottom?

That text was put in there by accident.

Bruce. 

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

Done.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

@ ArtisanRadio

Thank you!

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Back in Post # 64 Rich said:

“The Potomac Industries FIM-71 was designed to measure VHF fields, and has a measuring range of 1 µV/m to 10 V/m.  So it had no problem measuring a field compliant with §15.239, and less.  But its manufacture has been discontinued.

“I think the FCC uses other instrumentation, anyway.”

What, then, is the “other instrumentation” used by the FCC to measure field strengths per 15.239?

[Rich Total posts : 0]

What, then, is the “other instrumentation” used by the FCC to measure field strengths per 15.239?

My earlier experience and present understanding is that the FCC has vehicles outfitted with calibrated receivers and receive antennas able to make and record field intensity measurements over a large part of the r-f spectrum to a known level of accuracy, and now including the GPS coordinates where those fields are measured.

So far I have not found a list of such instrumentation, which probably the FCC wouldn’t make public, anyway.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

If we want to accurately measure our FM Transmitter’s field strength to be sure we’re following the rules you’d think the FCC would make that sort of public otherwise its really like shooting in the dark and hope you hit the bulls eye.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

At one time it was the “wrong-doer” who used secret methods to sneak by with hidden activity.

Now it’s the other way around.

[Rich Total posts : 0]

RE:  Compliance with FCC §15.239, if such is desired…

Those not willing to research, purchase, and learn how to use the very expensive test equipment needed to make accurate field intensity measurements in the FM broadcast band might consider buying transmitters that are already (and provably) certified to meet FCC §15.239.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

We talked about that too and if the inspector sees your over the field strength limit he will give you A citation. Best case scenario is purchase your favorite FM transmitter that says its certified. If you get an NOUO and you show them you are trying to obey the rules by purchasing a certified part 15 Transmitter they might not fine you. You can also offer them that you will turn down the power level if your Transmitter has that capability. That or let them know you will either purchase a different Transmitter and ask them what they recommend or have them test again after you calm down the output of the translator. There are attenuator pads if if necessary. I really think if you show in good faith that you are willing to cooperate you will get a better result then if you bad mouth the inspector and act like you know everything.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

It took awhile to decide which thread to add this message to, so I picked this one because the subject is the still ongoing movement to seek an improved VLPFM signal strength for Part 15.

The main talks toward this effort are happening at the ALPB Meetings, but further commentary continues here on this site.

At the recent Meeting I went on record taking the position that upgrading 15.239 to match Canadiean BETS standard (1000uV/M @ 3M) would be a reasonable improvement which would probably have the support of certified transmitter makers.

In FM signal testing here on the campus of Worldround Radio we have demonstrated the marked improvement in local area coverage using the BETS setting on a Wholehouse 2.0.

But today I have decided to go on record with another position which comes to me after listening and thinking. I believe it would appear foolish if we made our pleading to the FCC based on the need to extend such formats as “album oriented rock” or “Spanish music” or nearly any other format. After all, the Part 15 rules contain no language about content. It’s a purely technical document. Therefore any case made by petitioners to upgrade the FM allowance should be made on purely technical argument without reference to “serving a particular audience in any form.” The FM BETS standard works for Canada and could just as well work for the Homeland.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Yes and if we stay on topic with interference, Harmonics, Spurs I think we’d be better off when we pleed our case.  Don’t forget to add that Canada has had the BETS standard and too many canadian transmitters find their way to the USA either through garage sales, Ebay, Amazon, or just going to the store and buying a transmitter and put it in your car and take it home and open the box and run it on an empty frequency.  That said I think if we show that alone the FCC may give the go ahead to flip the switches on your transmitters to the BETS setting.  We could have a USA BETS.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Here is what you need to stay focused on for station content.

Forget music.

Focus on COMMUNITY news and events. You are trying to be a PUBLIC SERVANT to your COMMUNITY.

So any wording should commit your interest to your public listening audience’s most important interest and that is community events, sports, news and weather warnings.

List music on your station as a time filler, when news and community events needs to be updated in between.

If you petition the FCC for rule change based on the need for MUSIC entertainment, your petition is going to get stuffed and forgotten.

In the eyes of the FCC and Congress, Music is NOT in the public’s interest, News and community events and weather warnings are.

Yes, you can play all the music you want, but don’t use that as your reason for rule change or the reason you want to operate a 1 watt FM station.

Bruce. 

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

MrLegacy, do iAM and Talking House make FM transmitters? I thought those were AM transmitters…

MrBruce, your talk about a 1 Watt FM service doesn’t match my memory of what is presently being talked about at the ALPB. Unless my memory needs a jog, the only position put forward is to seek an upgrade to Part 15 BETS level, which is not 1_Watt. Unless someone introduces a 1 Watt element into the ALPB talks, you might have to come to a meeting and get it done.

MORE —

I just paid a neighborly visit to the smarter website and had the giggle of reading our buddy Mister 5 attribute us as “magical thinkers” AND “insane”!

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

HI Carl, There was mention of 1 watt in other topics on this site. I covered two bases with my post, rule change for Canada’s limit and 1 watt.

Here is the post I was and am now responding to made by you:

But today I have decided to go on record with another position which comes to me after listening and thinking. I believe it would appear foolish if we made our pleading to the FCC based on the need to extend such formats as “album oriented rock” or “Spanish music” or nearly any other format. After all, the Part 15 rules contain no language about content. It’s a purely technical document. Therefore any case made by petitioners to upgrade the FM allowance should be made on purely technical argument without reference to “serving a particular audience in any form.” The FM BETS standard works for Canada and could just as well work for the Homeland.

I am sorry I was not present at the meeting, I was given a sever address and used the proper software to log in and got a response that the server did not exist. But I did try to join in.

So therefore, I do not know what was talked about on July 4th.

The point I tried to make was in support of what you said above about music. 

That is regardless of what you’re asking for, music should not even be mentioned as a reason for consideration of rule change in the FM broadcast band or AM for that matter. If I stood before Congress, I would stress the importance of VLPFM for providing local news, community events of public interest, local sports and local weather alerts.

If I was asked about the broadcasting of music, I’d say, yes, we’d broadcast music, but our primary reason for being on air is to serve our community with local events of interest that best serves our community as a public servant and any music we’d broadcast would simply be a space filler in our daily broadcast schedule.

Bruce

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

I got an idea that sounds dumb at first, but hear me out…

 

The makers of the iAM and Talking House could jump on board wth this as well.  Reason for so is that Realtors need their FM transmitter to reach the street so someone can listen on FM to announcements about homes.  You may even get churches in on this too for they can use part 15 FM to transmit the service to the audience say parents who have kids.  There could be headphone Radio’s that pick up the FM signal.  Fairs, public camp grounds, Even Bush Gardens could use an FM Transmitter to transmit their shows to an audience of potentially hard of hearing.  Tour guides could use FM transmitters as well.  All of these transmitters could use a better range at a huge arena or amusement park type thing.  Even large electronic stores could use them for piping music and ads to the stereo’s they sell.  Its not just about your station yes I know we really may not want to hear a bunch of houses for sale on FM, but it would only be for a few days and after the house is sold you can go on and use the blank freuency you were using before.  Carl you may have lit an idea in my head that could take off now.  Good going.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

You are correct Carl I should have made myself more clear. We should get the makers of the Talking House and iAM transmitters in on the possibility of extending range for FM for unlicensed users. One reason that the Talking House Transmitter is AM is because your legally allowed more range. A Realtor is not going to waste $500 for a transmitter that would barely get to the end of the driveway of the very house their trying to sell in a parade of homes. You’d have to invest in several FM transmitters to do this. Don’t you think that if you could legally transmit for a mile to a digital boombox or average Radio that there would be a Talking House FM transmitter? Maybe Talking Sign FM Transmitter? A iFM transmitter? Again this is why they make the AM transmitter that goes the mile of distance. Music or what we are planning to do with our transmitters has nothing to do with it since there is nothing saying on AM you can’t plug your talking house transmitter into your computer and have at it with a neighborhood micro broadcasting station. When it comes to part 15 all they care about is rather or not you cause interference. Does anyone know if a FM transmitter like the talking house exists in Canada? How about New Zealand. We need to think outside of what regalar does with their transmitters and think about why we’d need one so we can get the rules change. Selling a house for example is not a community event. The only thing a Realtor supports with a Talking House AM transmitter is their pocket. Community has little to do with it.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

MrBruce that was good that you tried to get to the July4th Meeting, and there’s no harm done by missing it because you can catch up with everything at the next meeting. You will be welcome.

TheLegacy I like your idea of involving the real estate industry in promoting higher power Part 15 FM… they have a strong lobby because the government wants to see a good housing market. That may be the biggest idea we’ve had.

[ArtisanRadio Total posts : 0]

There are very few RSS210 Industry Canada certified FM transmitters suitable for broadcasting, and RSS210 has the same field strength restrictions as the U.S.  There are NO BETS (the regulation that allows 1000uv/m at 3 meters) certified transmitters – that certification just doesn’t exist.  It probably should, but right now it doesn’t.

I also agree that serving the community is the only way to frame any sort of request for more range on FM or AM.

I only go over elsewhere when I want a laugh (or giggle).  Trying to reason with the guys who frequent there (well, most of them anyway) is like talking to cement.  There’s no listening, and no change.  Just let them go on their merry way and do what they’re gonna do in their own little world.

If we do decide to move forward and petition the FCC, we may not succeed.  In fact, it’s likely we won’t.  But we’ll at least have tried.  And I think that we’re going learn a lot in the process.  I know I will.

Like I said before, it’s the journey that really matters.

[macdev Total posts : 0]

My original CLPFM proposal was for radio (audio), but it could be expanded as well. I think focusing on community (which was the original point), would be a good start instead of saying “hey, I just want a way to spew AC/DC over the airwaves”.

I also wrote a piece about my proposal to a radio-based web site (not going to name it until it’s published).

I think this is something that could get some serious traction.

 

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

At AR

Let the children play.

The reality is there are some of us who prefer to play with toys as an adult and act like children. Because they, in reality, are children.

Then there are those of us who are adults who try to take the word ‘toy’ out of the hobby and still act like adults.

I would rather be the adult and let the children sit in their own stink when they poo-poo themselves.

Macdev: 

I think we can still keep the thought of COMMUNITY in the title of “Very Low Powered Frequency Modulation” Radio Service or VLPFM for short. I don’t care either way, if it’s called CLPFM or VLPFM, but it appears that the word ‘very’ has been used in radio and television for years now, like VHF, VLF etc. So most people will likely understand what VLPFM stands for.

Damned typos!

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

It would have to be something like a transmitter located at a high school or elementary school from my understanding of community radio.  Maybe announce for free the action at a singles hang out?  I was thinking of a niche regular radio does not serve.  Hence talking House am but as fm version.  Do we really want to turn small time Radio into the strangled music format as commercial Radio?  There is a fine line here.  We just need to concentrate on Canada and the classification of Transmitter called announcement Transmitter. After all that is what that is wha no matter the content.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Plus if we’re not too careful we might be required to have the emergency broadcast system monitors which would cost a fortune.  I like the idea of announcing the weather I don’t see a problem with that but if we don’t watch what we’re doing they could require so much strict ruling on our stations that it would take the fun out of it to begin with.  We’re only talking about a quarter mile to a mile here.  Even trying to use educational could have bad consequences. One would have to be very careful with that too.  Would you have to consider your house as an educational institution? And if so how many students and for how many hours per student? Could you yourself be considered Could you yourself be considered as the student?  Caution would need to be used if we think we’re going to inject used as a reason for changing the rules.  I still think we should keep the idea of having  the  idea  of  hobby broadcaster.  Otherwise we’re killing the whole purpose of why we started wanting more power.  Anyway you throw it we could get shot down. But the most logical way is using the term announcement Transmitter along with  hobby broadcaster.  Now if we have to allow others to announce once in awhile just to have the higher power that we want it might not be so bad.  after all KEN FM does that. And from what I can understand his programming is not choked.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

Thelegacy

I agree with you on what you stated in your last post.

We do have to be careful, because I made a mention of this before, that what would we do if we were required to have an active EAS system in the audio feed to the transmitters? Those systems are out of the price range that the average small time part 15 or VLPFM station owner could ever afford.

Secondly, LPFM is required to be a local municipal agency or educational institution, I do hope that would not be a requirement of VLPFM stations, after all, that would simply place VLPFM in the same category as LPFM stations, just at a greatly reduced power output.

Also, I wanted to add, LPFM is now trying for 250 to 500 Watts and the right to do over the air advertising like commercial stations do.

Bruce.

[Carl Blare Total posts : 0]

Operating a community service radio station becomes a large round-the-clock job, no days off. For it to exist you’d need a staff to make community contacts and gather community news. It would stop being a hobby.

My opinion says that proposing community service radio is as bad an idea as proposing music radio.

Part 15 can only be an all purpose hobby if it remains an all purpose hobby without making big promises to the FCC about a level of service.

Having an FM hobby station with a little more power than allowed by 15.239 is the only reasonable objective.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

I was trying to say the same thing but it just came out the wrong way.  VLPFM sould be Extended Part 15.  Just like EDTV is to SDTV but not HDTV.  Part 15 is like SDTV and VLPFM is like EDTV.  OK not te same thing, but you get my drift.  It should not have the stiff requirements as LPFM.  If Bose wanted to run a transmitter that went a mile from the strip mall and play music and announce the latest Bose specials they should be allowed to do so.  Or better yet if you yourself wanted to drive and park at a strip mall and run part 15 and announce your favorite Cell phones for Sale and play music and maybe meet people you could do that as long as you have permission. My image of VLPFM is slightly different.  Its the part 15 FM that does not allow kids or under aged folks to own a transmitter without the parents supervision.  Its for Hobby, Announcing (Selling Homes, Relay For Life, High school football games, Announcing at the races, Football games, Broadcasting Rock concerts to the audience, Hobby, Special Events).  Hope you get the idea of the picture.  What In other words a neighborhood station would not be illegal.

 

If your gonna make it a stripped down LPFM there is little need to do this for most folks can’t afford a multi thousand dollar transmitter.

[MrBruce Total posts : 0]

All the comments and suggestions here are what we need.

We are being open minded and every opinion stated here, deserves a read and a serious consideration.

Although I said I would be participating a lot less here, your ideas and opinions are keeping me alive here.

No idea or suggestion is a stupid idea or suggestion in my book.

Keep ’em coming guys! This is how ideas and dreams become realities!

Also keep in mind, there is no “I” in Teamwork!

I appreciate all the feed back this topic is generating and I am reading it with the utmost interest. I like the ideas it has brought into the spotlight.

Bruce.

[Thelegacy Total posts : 0]

Carl I think I doubled with you as I was posting the same time you were and I didn’t see your post till I made mine. Yes the idea of Community Radio Service is a bad thing to promise. There is nothing wrong with making community announcements as a hobby broadcaster, but to make it a requirement will kill the fun and affordability of these FM Transmitters. All purpose would be the way we need to keep it as we don’t need anyone telling us we can’t play music on these transmitters. We also forgot Christmas. Many folks were disappointed only to find out that the people down the street could not hear their audio on their car Radio’s because again their driveway was too long and their house was large and the person at the end of the line of cars could not pick up the station playing the audio for the light show. I think we could get the Christmas folks into the petition for more field strength. I think we sort of went off on the wrong direction when we only thought Radio Station and community Radio station. We should however have some sort of deal where if a neighbor wants to use your frequency for a special event that we allow them to do so. I know say if someone wanted to do a Christmas light show I’d be more than glad to not transmit during that time or maybe if I could trust them let them use My transmitter or pipe in their stream to my transmitter via the Internet. Any other ideas for a sort of all purpose type enhancement that would still allow us to run a station, but has the benefit of other uses as well. I still want the forced frequency scan for all new certified FM transmitters.

[Author]

Posts