Has this particular link been posted?
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/
It lists very recent NOV (Notice of Violation) and NOUO (Notice of Unauthorized Operation).
Has this particular link been posted?
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/
It lists very recent NOV (Notice of Violation) and NOUO (Notice of Unauthorized Operation).
The heart took a jump when I saw that “Centerpoint Radio” had an NOV…..
I thought, “Oh, no, RFB is in trouble!” But then I remembered that RFB has ZeroPoint Radio, which is a different name.
Meanwhile in San Francisco…
The same list shows NOUO notices for two California–*ahem*–“gentlemen’s clubs”; I’d love to see the FCC agent’s expense reports for that day of…uh…measurements!
Holy Crap!
Holy Crap Did you see the one about 92.3 MC In Durant Oklahoma, that is really close to Sherman whooooooooo! that spooked the s*%^ out of me when i saw that
From 11/01/2010 to present, I
From 11/01/2010 to present, I found 7 NOUOs for operating on the AM band. (I haven’t looked back any farther than that).
In the date span, most of the others were for the FM band (seems like a majority of which were in California), over-powered CB’s, or intentional phone jamming devices (of the phone jams I noticed one was from a school bus, another from a school, and one at a liquor store)
Below is the list and brief details of those on the AM band, in the year 2011.
I was curious why two of them didn’t even mention 15.219 or the total length observed.
Also curious the significance of the 2003 folder (..FieldNotices/2003/..)
Notice the expression of the ground leads
OH yeah!.. Make special note of the 2 NOUO’s in St. Paul, Minnesota involving three locations, 3 radio frequencies, and 5 antennas on the roofs!
2011 NOUO’s for operating in the AM Band:
August 23, 2011 – 1620 kHz – South Richmond Hill, NY
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-309312A1.html
was measured at 900 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 1132 meters
August 19, 2011 – 1610 kHz – Santa Clarita, CA
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-309212A1.html
measured at 2,730 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 145 meters,
the investigation by this office determined that the ground
lead was connected to a cable that ran down the length of the antenna
tower, thereby, increasing the total length of the antenna, transmission
line, and ground lead well beyond 3 meters.
August 19, 2011 – 1620 kHz – South Richmond Hill NY
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-309211A1.html
was measured at 900 microvolt per meter (uV/m) at 1132 meters.
July 5, 2011 – 1650 kHz – St. Paul, Minnesota. — 1088 Payne Avenue
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-308327A1.html
was measured at 550 microvolts per meter (uV/m ) at 353 meters,
the agent observed the station had five antennas mounted on the roof,
each with a vertical whip approximately 3 meters long, and the
ground leads totaled over 15 meters in length.
July 5, 2011 – 1620 kHz and 1630 kHz – St. Paul, Minnesota.
( 1 radio signal from 1146 Rice Street and (2) radio signals from 399 East Maryland Avenue)
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-308328A1.html
measured at 550 microvolts per meter (uV/m ) at 353 meters,
the agent observed the station had five antennas mounted on the roof,
each with a vertical whip approximately 3 meters long,
and the ground leads totaled over 15 meters in length.
*May 5, 2011 – 1610 KHz – Arizona City, Arizona.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-306481A1.html
measured at 1,900 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 130 meters,
approximate length of the antenna, transmission line
and the ground lead was 8 meters.
May 5, 2011 – 1610 KHz – Casa Grande, Arizona.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-306483A1.html
measured at 1,200 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 430 meters,
approximate length of the antenna, transmission
line and the ground lead was 10 meters.
Just Wishing
The NOUO Reports deal bluntly with the facts of violation and nothing else.
We wish they would tell us such other factors as (a) Type of transmitter used; (b) Reason for investigation, i.e., complaint, found by other methods; (c) station philosophy, i.e., a free speech station trying to deliver vital public information ignored by licensed place-holders, et al.
Regarding my Factor (c), I would argue that it is significant to understand what the station’s mission was.
Oh, and add a sub-section to Factor (b), IF a complaint, name and address of complainer with facial photo.
Fact Vs Fiction
“We wish they would tell us such other factors as (a) Type of transmitter used;”
Irrelevant.
“(b) Reason for investigation, i.e., complaint, found by other methods;”
Usually the NOUO’s may have that information. But again, irrelevant to the purpose of the NOUO notice and who it is directed at.
“(c) station philosophy, i.e., a free speech station trying to deliver vital public information ignored by licensed place-holders, et al.”
Once again, irrelevant. The FCC does not care what the station’s mission was or is or will be, they care that the rules were violated and acted upon those violations, all of which point to excessive antenna ground lengths.
Denying what is really there only invites ignorance when it’s time for you to demonstrate your system is within the 3 meter limit. You wont win the argument with the inspecting agent on site the day of the inspection. You will have to fight it in court. And your case will NOT be the deciding factor that defines once and for all the true interpretation of the “ground lead” issue.
Us out here can throw 5 angles or more of definition and interpretation to the ground lead issue, but the FCC only throws ONE definition and interpretation to ground lead and it appears that they win every single time.
So until the FCC has clearly defined the “ground lead” issue with plain simple pre school English, it is up to each of you to decide if you want to accept the mission or not…a mission of blatantly and knowingly violating their 3 meter limit rule…regardless of what you “think” it means. What matters is what the FCC inspecting agent thinks as well as what the court thinks when you attempt fate and try to take on the sleeping giant who these days are anxious to round you up and try out their new FEMA camps to see if your comfy or need a harder cot.
RFB
basically if you live in an
basically if you live in an apartment with no dirt ground access you stuck with two options.
1) a THII / I.A.M. Radio using internal tuning and 3m whip or goin under part 15.209 rules because any other way will require a ground lead/antenna combo longer than 3 meters.
well we now have officially taken a 20ft rod up where the sun don’t shine. there goes the type certified transmitter business right down the drink. no one will by a 600.00 plus transmitter if they can’t get any range with it.
that explains why a certain type certified tx has been appearing on an auction site in droves this past year.
I give up i’m just buying an iam (300.00) unit and just using the internal whip and not the external atu/antenna. whatever range i get is what i get.
and btw: it has been proven with IP records that the FCC DOES READ these and other lp broadcasting forums and i believe a sudden surge in ground lead enforcement is a direct result of a certain individuals rants on these high profile forums that the fcc read and agreed with. and of course the individual emails for FCC field agents are no longer published on fcc site or anywhere else so email an agent and asking him how he would rule on a particular installation is out of the question. so much for an open transparent and more citizen friendly government!!!!! unfortunately as in the case of an apartment install where tx is indoors with no access to dirt ground there has to be an exception under 219 to the ground lead rule and not have it rigidly enforced in such a situation and not have 209 applied. why should we be neutered because of no access to dirt ground.
i’m starting to lean more and more toward the ranks of the why bother movement!!!!
it’s been fun. putting
it’s been fun. putting everything in storage till i can either 1) afford an i.A.M. transmitter or 2) move somewhere i have dirt ground access to mount transmitter!!!!
no sense having it here disturbing the xyl if i can’t use it for anything useful.
To bad we couldn’t put that
To bad we couldn’t put that fried guy into storage a long time ago; clearly he has allot to do with enforcement changes. The NAB of which he is apart; is the one who stoked the fire with their buckets of money finding it into D.C. pockets.
Robert, they have to be able to see your antenna to do anything about a station. Apartment grounds can end up being the best ground for an AM station.
FM is the best way to go if you are stuck in an apartment complex; big audience with little power.
Steve
http://www.radiobrandy.net
Monitor
Yes..the FCC does monitor websites and forums like this one, on a regular basis too.
Legally the agents cannot advise how they would rule on anything over an email or phone conversation. They won’t assume something and tell someone that something and end up having it turned around on them.
This is why I keep saying do your best to stay in that 3 meter limit for an outdoor antenna system. For the apartment situations, you can use the power grid’s “Earth” ground which will be tied directly to the neutral line at the service entry point where the primary breaker is located.
Your concern at this point would be how long is your ground lead wire from your TX to the ground point in the breaker box. So putting the transmitter near the breaker box will be a good idea, that is to minimize the return path for the TX and not a concern that there is a romex wire 50 feet long in the walls connecting my TX ground to an Earth ground in my apartment.
You cannot rip out the grounding lines in your apartment. Those already existed and serve an existing purpose. And it is the closest point to an Earth ground you have.
What ever happened to your CC experiments with the cable ground and wrapping a wire around an extension cord for coupling into the power lines? Give up on that? You shouldn’t because it will be your best choice in getting that AM signal out there without it having to try to feed its way through those walls filled with wiring and wire mesh where the signal might get attenuated so much it would be very noisy in adjacent apartments from the signal having to pass through the electrical wiring and other stuff.
Why have it pass through all that when it can emit off those wires and right into individual apartments?
RFB
i believe a sudden surge in
i believe a sudden surge in ground lead enforcement is a direct result of a certain individuals rants on these high profile forums that the fcc read and agreed with…
I think there probably is truth to that.. but don’t agree you should just throw up your hands and abandon your pleasures because of it.
It does really appear obvious that the ground lead issue did not become a real issue of concern until a few years ago, when somebody intentionally pressed the matter to the FCC out of self righteousness and sheer meanness, after becoming frustrated with the response he was getting from numerous forum members about his views on the subject; He had to prove he was right, and could care less what effect it might have on anyone else.
After that, all hell broke lose, and everybody was feeling like you are right now.
But time has passed, and we’re past that defeat now.
When I posted the above NOUO list, I didn’t mean to cause discouragement or frustration for anybody. I intended to shine the spotlight on an evident threat.. it’s a reality, it is what it is. It’s real, and we should be aware of it so we that we can better position and secure ourselves.
It’s a negative situation, but we don’t have to become negative because of it. The objective is to work with it somehow and make the best of a difficult challenge, not give up in defeat.
The FCC is not at war with us, they are only enforcing already existing rules which they were previously letting us slide by on (until somebody made a big fuss about).
Nothing has changed. It’s only a matter of when the cat is away, the mice will play.. Well, the cat is back.
So we just got to be a little more consciences about our setups.
It may not be easy, but I think everything is going to be alright.
I saw this coming with that
I saw this coming with that guy fried on ego living in moms basement; he kept pushing the buttons and the cop (FCC) woke up! Clearly the agents were not enforcing the ground rules before the lose cannon forced their hand.
I built our network without counting on good grounding for coverage, because every location is different and that would only slow down the building of the network. Instead more transmitters in carefully selected areas based on our targeted demographic.
For AM: We find tapping building ground on a roof AC etc. pretty effective; it really helps with building penetration. The FM’s offer the advantage of allowing us to control radiation off private property like a very large condo community.
While most broadcasters want to be able to cover the whole town with one transmitter; I prefer the redundancy of multiple transmitters and the power being provided by others.
Regarding that trouble maker on the Ramsey forum that wrecked hobby broadcasting on that site; we have been asked by Ramsey to put him on ignore and not respond to him in anyway; so I only speak to others and address them by name.
For what it is worth: I know a person that has a FM35 running 24/7 two doors down from that person house; he is to fried to notice it’s there or come out of the basement for a bit of fresh air. It’s like running a meth lab next to the cop shop!
Steve
http://www.outlawradio.us
this is my amt 5000 hooked up
this is my amt 5000 hooked up indoors at my apartment. the ground terminates at a grounding block inline with catv service
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.147320312044273.27277.100002989142408&type=1&l=2a2b1d0ea4
wonder how that would be interpreted in the field?
Interpreted System
I don’t see any big deal there. Some might squabble and say shorten that ground wire connecting to that ground buss below and move the TX down there, but why..that ground wire is still way too short to be any significant radiator compared to the wire strung across the doorway.
What I see here is a setup using the best method available to connect the unit and connect it safely. All of your connecting wires are indoors and using an existing ground buss run throughout the apartment and building. There is nothing that can be done to change that, and it is obviously intended to be a ground connecting point for the apartments and building itself. Apparently the cable company is connecting to it as well. No doubt somewhere outside or at the service drops there will be a connection to this ground buss as well as a connection to a grounding rod somewhere outside or underneath the building.
I see no reason why any inspecting agent would bother over this configuration. It certainly is not some metal pole sticking 30 feet in the air, it certainly is not a long ground wire connected directly to the TX and strung out the window and down the side of the building, and if there was a gripe about it…they are wasting their time..not to mention tax payer money in involving a field agent, the travel time and time spent on site just to nit pick over this?
Na. They got far more serious things to go after.
I say enjoy and start putting that elaborate studio to some use!! 🙂
RFB
WHY 7 = 4
Ok, I took a much closer look at the NOUO’s for 2011, and discovered some very interesting things about them, which are not only interesting, but should help ease any alarms or frustrations caused here by them.
The fact is, in essence, there are only 4, and NOT 7 in the past year.
It’s also worth mentioning that everyone of them happened because some one made it a point of reporting them to the FCC..
Although the edits below contain more of the pertinent details then my original post did, if you don’t feel like reading all that, then at least be sure to read my NOTES WHICH ARE IN ALL BOLD CAPS.
I have numbered them as (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) to make it easier to outline my points…
============================================================================
(a) August 19, 2011 – Robert Mohamed – South Richmond Hill NY
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-309211A1.html
The New York Office received information… an agent from this office confirmed.. 1620 kHz were emanating from your residence… The field strength.. was measured at 900 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 1132 meters, which exceeded the maximum permitted level of… 15.209(a)).
Another exception for some transmitters… Specifically, Section 15.219(b)…The investigation by this office determined that the ground lead was connected to a cable that ran down the length of the antenna tower, thereby, increasing the total length of the antenna, transmission line, and ground lead well beyond 3 meters. This installation violated Section 15.219(b) of the Rules.
(b) August 23, 2011 – Robert Mohamed – Corrected copy (what?..) – South Richmond Hill, NY
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-309312A1.html
The New York Office received information… an agent from this office confirmed.. 1620 kHz were emanating from your residence… The field strength.. was measured at 900 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 1132 meters, which exceeded the maximum permitted level of… 15.209(a)). [[[ THE MENTION OF 15.219 HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED BY THE FCC IN THE CORRECTED COPY ]]]
NOTES:
THE SECOND IS ONLY A CORRECTION OF SAME EXACT REPORT – TO REFLECT THAT NO VIOLATION OF 15.219 ACTUALLY OCCURRED AFTER ALL…. WHY??
THESE TWO REPORTS (a) & (b) ARE REALLY A SINGLE NOUA, – NOT TWO AS IT APPEARED.
ALSO NOTICE THAT SOMEONE INFORMED THE FCC ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION
==============================================================================
(c) August 19, 2011 – Willie Walton – Santa Clarita, CA
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-309212A1.html
The Los Angeles Office received information… On August 11, 2011, agents.. confirmed.. 1610 kHz were emanating from your residence….measured at 2,730 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 145 meters, which exceeded.. 15.209(a)).. Another exception for some transmitters.. is.. 15.219… The investigation by this office determined that the ground lead was connected to a cable that ran down the length of the antenna tower, thereby, increasing the total length… well beyond 3 meters. This installation violated Section 15.219(b) of the Rules.
NOTES:
THIS 15.219 VIOLATION IS IDENTICAL TO (a), EXCEPT THAT (c) WAS ENFORCED, AND (a) WAS NOT ENFORCED – WHY? – WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE?
ALSO NOTICE THAT SOMEONE INFORMED THE FCC ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION
==============================================================================
(d) July 5, 2011 – Kou D. Her – St. Paul, Minnesota.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-308327A1.html
The Chicago Office received information.. On May 16, 2011, an agent..confirmed..that (1) radio signals on
frequency 1620 kHz were emanating from 1146 Rice Street in St. Paul, and (2) radio signals on frequency 1630 kHz were emanating from 399 East Maryland Avenue in St. Paul…. The owners of the properties..reported to the agent that they granted you permission to install transmitters at those locations.
The field strength of the signal on frequency 1620 kHz (1146 Rice Street) was measured at 470 microvolts per meter (uV/m ) at 1243 meters, which exceeded..15.209(a).. Similarly, the field strength of the signal on 1630 kHz (399 East Maryland Avenue) was measured at 450 uV/m at 599 meters, which also exceeded…
During the inspection on May 16, 2011, the agent observed that the approximate length.. at 1146 Rice Street was approximately 26 meters. Similarly, the ground lead at 399 East Maryland Avenue exceeded
approximately 3 meters in length. These installations violated section 15.219(b) of the Rules.
(e) July 5, 2011 – Xeng Xiong – St. Paul, Minnesota.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-308328A1.html
The Chicago District Office received information.. On May 15, 2011, an agent from this office confirmed..radio signals on frequency 1650 kHz were emanating from your business, Xeng Insurance Service, at 1088 Payne Avenue.. In addition, the field strength of..1650 kHz was measured at 550 microvolts per meter (uV/m ) at 353 meters, which exceeded..15.209(a)
Another exception, for some transmitters operating..:Specifically, section 15.219(b)… During the inspection on May 15, 2011, the agent observed the station had five antennas mounted on the roof, each with a vertical whip approximately 3 meters long, and the ground leads totaled over 15 meters in length. This antenna installation violated section 15.219(b) of the Rules.
NOTES:
THESE VIOLATIONS INVOLVED 10 CLUSTERS OF TRANSMITTERS ON 2 ROOFS.
BOTH (d) & (e) WHICH CONSIST OF 3 VIOLATIONS OCCURING WITHIN 24 HOURS, IN THE SAME TOWN AND IN CLOSE PHYSICAL PROXIMENTY TO EACH OTHER, IS MOST LIKELY A SINGLE GROUP ENTITY. – SO FOR THIS REASON WE WILL CONSIDER THIS ONE NOUO – NOT TWO
ALSO, IT’S HUMOROUS THAT THE OWNERS TOLD THE AGENT THAT THEY GOT PERMISSION TO PUT THE CLUSTERS OF TRANSMITTERS ON THE ROOF!
ALSO NOTICE THAT SOMEONE INFORMED THE FCC ABOUT THESE TRANSMISSIONS
==============================================================================
(f) May 5, 2011 – Gregory C. Schuller, Sr. Sadie M. Schuller – Arizona City, Arizona.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-306481A1.html
The San Diego Office received information…. On April 21, 2011, agents..confirmed..radio signals on frequency 1610 kHz were emanating from your residence.. The Pinal County Assessor’s records list you as the owners of the residence… The field strength..measured at 1,900 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 130 meters, which exceeded..15.209…. Another exception, for some transmitters.. Specifically, Section 15.219(b)… agents observed that the approximate length..was 10 meters. This installation violated Section 15.219(b) of the Rules.
(g)May 5, 2011 – Audie Ray Morrow, Sandra Jean Morrow – Casa Grande, Arizona.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-306483A1.html
The San Diego Office received information…. On April 21, 2011, agents..confirmed..radio signals on frequency 1610 kHz were emanating from your residence.. The Pinal County Assessor’s records list you as the owners of the residence… The field strength..measured at 1,200 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 430 meters, which exceeded..15.209…. Another exception, for some transmitters.. Specifically, Section 15.219(b)… agents observed that the approximate length..was 10 meters. This installation violated Section 15.219(b) of the Rules.
NOTES:
WHILE THE STREET ADDRESS OF (f) & (g) IN ARIZONO ARE NOT PROVIDED IN THE REPORT, ‘CASA GRANDE’, AND ‘ARIZONA CITY’ ARE ONLY ABOUT 10 MILES APART.. ADD THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BOTH VISITED ON THE SAME DAY, AND THEY ARE BOTH BROADCASTING OVER POWER ON THE SAME FREQUENCY OF 1610.. THEN ONE EASILY CAN CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS ALSO JUST ONE GROUP WORKING TOGETHER TO COVER A LARGE AREA – SO AGAIN, FOR OUR PURPOSES WE CAN CONSIDER THIS IN ESSENCE A SINGLE VIOLATION.
===============================================================================
So in conclusion, as I hope I have clearly shown.. there are only 4 individual events here, and not seven as it originally appeared to be.
And also ask yourself: “Is my installation as extreme as any of these?”
If it isn’t then you have nothing to worry about.
And if it is.. chances are you still probably don’t have anything to worry about!
(that is unless your have 5 transmitters on your roof!)
Excellent
Your review and analysis of the NOUO’s are excellent, Rich Powers, and it does give a better perspective to the actual size of the recent actions.
We only have a general idea of how many part 15 stations are operating, through membership numbers on this and the other part 15 website, and by means of The Crow’s Part 15 Map, and from that information maybe we could generate some numbers, for example….
Of the 10,000 Part 15 radio stations .0001% have received NOUO’s. That’s not a real number, only an example, but I think Rich Powers has shown that the number of violations is very small by comparison with all the part 15 activity.
i have the unfortunate luck
i have the unfortunate luck of living 20 miles from the denver field office 8 when i was still at moms.
Once More Unto The Issue
“ask yourself Is my installation as extreme as any of these? If it isn’t then you have nothing to worry about.”
Remember too that the ground choke Hamilton came out with did NOT prevent KENC’s demise even though the RF choke did its job in preventing the ground path (water tower) from resonating.
So put away any wild idea that having an RF choke on your “ground lead” is going to convince the FCC agent that your metal pole holding up your TX has nothing to do with making your ground path for that TX up there, which by the way is an entire system comprising a transmitter, antenna, loading system and radiator…in their eyes, that box up there IS your antenna system, thus that ground lead had better be fitting INSIDE that 3 meter limit. As to the metal pole being or not being a part of that ground lead..this is the wrong place to resolve that.
So end result…even with no radiated energy off the mast, or pole or water tower or billboard…antenna system exceeding 3 meters.
Go check your systems!
RFB
We only have a general idea
We only have a general idea of how many part 15 stations are operating, through membership numbers on this and the other part 15 website, and by means of The Crow’s Part 15 Map…
Wow Carl, that’s something I forgot to check! – But now I have..
Only one of the NOUO’s shown involves someone shown on the Part15 map.. and that is (c), where it states that Bill Walton was broadcasting on 1610 in August, however his current website – (at http://www.xjoam.com) says he is broadcasting on 1700AM with the following described install:
Hamilton Electronics – Rangemaster AM1000
Antenna: Francis 96″ Fiberglass Vertical Whip
Counterpoise: Single 22″ Ground Radial.
Mount:Mast Mounted on a 51′ Commercial Tower.
Elevation: 1470 Feet.
Hmmmm.. interesting. I refrain from commenting about his 51′ commercial tower.
I just sent him an email moments ago, and hope to hear back from him.
i have the unfortunate luck of living 20 miles from the denver field office 8 when i was still at moms.
Rev?… Robert! Hello?? what are you saying??? — I think you mean the fortunate luck of broadcasting only 20 miles from a field office, yet having no FCC agent felt it necessary to visit you.
That actually suggest a very positive situation!
Remember too that the ground choke Hamilton came out with did NOT prevent KENC’s demise even though the RF choke did its job in preventing the ground path (water tower) from resonating.
RFB, Your right, the choke did not prevent his 40 foot long ground wire from radiating off that water tower.. But KENC’s demise was not forced by anything or anyone. He did come into compliance and resume broadcasting after making appropriate changes which the agent then approved.. however, KENC then choose to discontinue his part15 broadcasting because as he says in his own words …. damnit, I can’t find the quote right now!.. but basically what he said was that with his new configurations he felt that he barely was able to cover his town anymore — So previously he covered -what- 8 miles? – and after coming into compliance he could get maybe 2 or 3.. whatever – But the fact is KENC quit part15 out of frustration.
Oh Man, I’m So Confused…
So, I just have to ask myself “how was the Talking House/I AM Radio system tested for certification?
InfoSpot uses the Talking House transmitter and ATU as part of their product. They ADVERTISE (as does Talking House) using up to 300 feet of coax to connect the ATU to the transmitter and clearly state that installing the ATU up on a pole is to extend the coverage.
That being the intent of their certified Part 15 compliant system, and they clearly state it is legal to do so, how can they advertise as such when the coax shield is most likely part of the ground system?
Would the FCC turn a blind eye to that type of installation? I sure hope so as that’s why I use one.
TH And Why
The TH and ATU were certified as a complete operating unit at the same time, thus they know about the length of the coax and the ground of that coax also at the same continuity as the ground of the case of the TX, the ground lug on the power supply unit, and the ground outside at the ATU extender.
It carries a certification number, and is authorized to operate within the Part 15 rules.
As to the validity of mounting that ATU up high, well that is not the FCC saying that is it. However since the unit does in fact carry a certification, and the fact there is no rule stating maximum antenna mounting height above local terrain, there is absolutely no need to be concerned as to why that particular system can pass and why others, which were NOT certified to operate with an antenna extender, coax etc, won’t.
RFB
InfoSpot uses the Talking
InfoSpot uses the Talking House transmitter and ATU as part of their product. They ADVERTISE (as does Talking House) using up to 300 feet of coax to connect the ATU to the transmitter and clearly state that installing the ATU up on a pole is to extend the coverage.
Mram, a while back I also expressed my confusion on that same subject and its relation to part15 regulations.. There were responses but I don’t really recall what they were. What I do know is that it didn’t feel like satisfactory answers.
I’ve come to realize that what’s ADVERTISED don’t mean squat.
If it’s true the Talking House is indeed certified in the use of that kind of setup, I agree it’s must be the option. –But is that truly the case?
Is the certification maintained with the combined use of the Talking House and ATU?
Obviously. If operating within the rules was that frustrating [to KENC], I don’t blame him for quitting, though if it were me I would have solved the problem by adding extension TX sites to fill in the lost coverage area.
RFB, I couldn’t agree more.
Bailiff, Bring In The Jury
We’ll probably never know…
But yes, the InfoSpot advertisement specifically states:
Antenna System
InfOspot is the only system of its kind to allow for separation of the transmitter and antenna/tuner by way of standard coaxial cable. This permits the antenna to be mounted in an optimum location for transmission, while the control cabinet containing the transmitter and digital message player remains conveniently located for control and maintenance. The gravity-mount roof stand with mats and mast is the most popular antenna mounting option.
And they go on to say:
Antenna & Tuner
Adjustable tuner matches transmitter to antenna for maximum range.
Tuner housed in lockable weatherproof cabinet with threaded antenna mount.
3-meter whip antenna.
Tuner connection to transmitter – RG6 coaxial cable.
Coax maximum length – up to 300 feet.; 25 feet provided.
And they can say that because the Talking House system is Part 15 certified, I think, at least that’s what they said…
How The
In a real estate house sale situation with the transmitter indoors and the antenna outdoors, how do they get the cable through the wall?
Would you by a house with a hole punched in the wall?
Party Pooper
“In a real estate house sale situation with the transmitter indoors and the antenna outdoors, how do they get the cable through the wall? Would you by a house with a hole punched in the wall?”
The house already has holes punched through the walls if it ever had cable or telephone or has outdoor wall mounted electrical outlets, outdoor wall mounted lights, etc etc.
Ever run an RG-6 coax under a closed door before?? :p
RFB
How Long
“If it’s true the Talking House is indeed certified in the use of that kind of setup, I agree it’s must be the option. –But is that truly the case?
Is the certification maintained with the combined use of the Talking House and ATU?”
How long have these things been marketed in the US, TX and ATU’s and how many sold directly from the vendor???
Obviously the TX and ATU’s are authorized through the certification to operate when set up with the transmitter connected to the ATU via a coax of up to 300 feet.
If these things were not authorized by the FCC, the company marketing them would have been ordered to no longer sell the ATU units.
From what I can tell, both are still available and still certified.
RFB
they are certified as a
they are certified as a “system” obviously you want as short a coax as possible to minimize loss being the final is actually in the main unit. it would be my guess since they were certified as a “system’ you can pole mount the antenna over a large ground plane and as long as you don’t ground the main unit or antenna tuner unit (except for power and audio lines) the fcc shouldn’t be able to cite you for excessive ground lead violation and it should work every bit as good as a rangemaster on an elevated installation.
kenc should look into this idea. it may get him his 8 miles back and put him back on the air.
wish i was friendly with the owner of this huge tower behind the apartment. i would get a i.am and atu and install the atu as high up that tower i can on the leg facing the complex here and part 15 microwave link the audio over there from the apartment. even w/o the atu being grounded that thing will get out from there i bet.
Result Of Obeying The Rules
“basically what he said was that with his new configurations he felt that he barely was able to cover his town anymore — So previously he covered -what- 8 miles? – and after coming into compliance he could get maybe 2 or 3.. whatever – But the fact is KENC quit part15 out of frustration.”
Obviously. If operating within the rules was that frustrating, I don’t blame him for quitting, though if it were me I would have solved the problem by adding extension TX sites to fill in the lost coverage area.
Sure it would have been at an expense, but what isn’t.
The bottom line in all of this is that you run a 50/50 chance of being tagged for a TX, a certified one at that mounted up on a metal structure where that structure is serving as your ground path, does not matter how short that wire is from the TX box to the metal structure. That debate over what is what on the ground lead issue is the very reason why there is the 50/50 risk factor.
RFB
Correction to 7=4
I know we’re past it now, but this really should be mentioned for the sake of any future examination;
In my previous post titled “Why 7=4”, concerning points {a}&(b)..
Neither the FCC’s original (a), nor the their corrected copy (b) has any mention of 15.219 in them.
Not sure how I screwed it up. BUT FOR THE RECORD; The only differences between (a)&(b) documents is the differences of their following paragraph:
—-
ORIGINAL (a):
…Your operation on frequency 1620 kHz was measured at 900 microvolt per meter (uV/m) at 1132 meters. This exceeds the allowable unlicensed limit of 100 uV/m at 30 meters established in Section 15.223(a) for operation on 1620 kHz, 47 C.F.R. S: 15.223(a), as well as the general unlicensed limit of 30 uV/m at 30 meters established in Section 15.209(a) for operation on 1620 kHz. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209(a).
CORRECTED COPY (b):
..The field strength of the signal on frequency 1620 kHz was measured at 900 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 1132 meters, which exceeded the maximum permitted level of 14.8 uV/m (24,000/1610) at 30 meters established in Section 15.209(a) of the Rules (see 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209(a)).
—-
Also, the links to(d)&(g) are backwards – That is; (d) goes to (e) and visa-verse, however the edited content is all correct.
—–
Closing Note: The 7 still = 4.
Regardless of my previous errors in transfer of info, The 7 NOUO’s = (in essence) only 4 occurrences.
what do you think about my
what do you think about my assumption around the i.AM / Talking house being it’s certified with a long coaxial (up to 300ft) cable to a unit located at ground level. seems since it was certified with a long coax and the atu is intended to be installed on an elevated location in relation to the main unit that the ground issue would not be enforceable with these units since it would seem they were certified with a long conducting (coax shield) path to ground which it has been already proven that it’s not possible to stop from radiating. so at 1700 khz if you cut a coax for say 140 or so ft it will be a 1/4 wave put that on a high tower over a ground plane and the system will radiate well even if the atu is not physically grounded to tower.
KENC
KENC’s owner had an opportunity to get involved in a LPFM; and decided to refocus his energy there.
Regarding XJO in Santa Clarita; it was operating on 1610AM when I past through town last summer. KHTS Canyon Country; apparently felt threaten by the 1/10th watt station.
Steve
http://www.outlawradio.us
Wake me when
Oklahoma shows up on that list of NOUO’s. A few miles from a municipal airport running a Chinese splatter box on FM. That’s all i am gonna say about that.
Sad we have to live in fear of our federal agencies when there are bigger more serious matters to attend to. We are in the miniwatt ranges while 100’s of chinese splatter boxes are being sold on Ebay every month to people who know nothing about harmonics, filters or power limit’s.
I won’t worry about it too much, i broadcast when ever i am not using my one and only computer for other things. My power is in the miniwatts range and i am happy with that.
Since i can’t afford to take a risk getting a $10,000 fine i keep the power low and let the antenna do the work.
Time To Check Out the FM
My FM transmitters are indoors. One of them is an STL which sends the radio program from one room back to a different room, for broadcast on AM. The last time I checked it was almost un-findable outdoors.
The 2nd FM frequency is used for audio editing, and it also is weak and indoors.
The 3rd FM is only turned on long enough to transfer vinyl records to digital, then it’s off again.
The FM band seems like a dangerous place to be heard, even though the licensed stations in our area are total junk with never anything worth hearing.
Mini-watts?
Rock95seven – Could you be more specific about the power you’re running to be “safe”?
There are Milliwatts, (1/1,000 of a watt), and there are microwatts, (1/1,000,000 of a watt) but a “mini-watt” is anybody’s guess. It just means “small”, which is a matter of oppinion.
Also, what kind of antenna are you using? Thanks!
Enforcement in 2011 Plummets
The 1/5/12 blog by John Anderson, PhD, at DIY Media, might relieve some of the part 15ers worried about FCC action
http://www.diymedia.net/