There’s nothing to apologize for, AMRadioLegend. We all appreciate updates on this highly anticipated device.
Rich, the issue of the legality of the Talking House & Range Extender has been dealt with extensively here in the past.
From the website of the manufacturer:
“When I connect my Talking House Transmitter to a Range Extender (Antenna…[Read more]
Rich, the Talking House plus coax and ATU as an entire configuration was certified under Part 15.219 by the FCC. That means that it complies with those rules, as long as it is installed as supplied with no modifications made (including attaching a long ground lead). I’m struggling as to why you posted those calculations (someone might infer t…[Read more]
Amateur radio communication at the mw level is almost always narrow band type modes, such as CW. Beacons are essentially a narrow, CW pulse. It’s very difficult to communicate with SSB at those power levels, never mind AM, which requires a much greater bandwidth.
Mind you, it might be worthwhile attempting to use SSB on 13.56, just to see the k…[Read more]
Small towns are disappearing as well, so it’s not surprising that their radio stations are going.
I don’t like it, and don’t agree with it, but it just may be the natural order of things as we get more and more connected in other ways.
It doesn’t mean that we (Part 15 broadcasters) have to give up and/or stop.
Those corporate radio stations…[Read more]
There have been a few people in the past who have used the ISM frequency at 13.56 and have posted about it. If I recall correctly, range was similar to Part 15 AM stations that they had run, but that’s all I can remember (1/2 to 1 mile).
It’s important to note that on the ISM frequency you’re not limited by output power, but by field strength -…[Read more]
Part 15.219 doesn’t limit field strength.
The Talking House transmitter, combined with the ATU (and coax) has been FCC certified, and so if you use it as supplied, without adding a long ground lead to the ATU, the field strength (or the fact that the coax may radiate) doesn’t matter.
The ability to broadcast over the air is a privilege, not a right.
In return for that privilege, the FCC already does set forward a list of rules that stations must follow, licensed and unlicensed. Whether they follow them, and what happens if they don’t, is a matter for FCC enforcement. As Part 15 broadcasters, we know all about t…[Read more]
In the U.S., freedom of speech doesn’t extend to using profane and indecent language over the airwaves; that is already in FCC rules. So the FCC already DOES regulate content to some extent. It wouldn’t be that much of a stretch to have a rule such as Canada has that prohibits knowingly lying over the airwaves. Proving it and enforcing it wo…[Read more]
Every transmitter generates harmonics, and can also generate spurs as well. Part 15 certification means, among other things, that the spurs and harmonics generated are relatively small compared to your fundamental frequency (so many db down).
If the Whole House 3 transmitter is indeed certified, and it is both for Canada and the U.S. (you can…[Read more]
I’m not saying that foobar is the solution for everyone, but it’s worth a look. You really have to play around with it, as I found there’s a huge difference between descriptions that I read about it, and the actual functionality. It definitely is a work in progress.
RadioDJ was rated higher than NextKast in the reviews that I read, and it i…[Read more]
My comments were directed towards those who claim to know the precise meaning of the FCC rules (most especially 15.219), when the FCC themselves have enforced those rules inconsistently over the years. That would imply that the terms contained within those rules, such as ground lead, are subject to interpretation (and NOT based absolutely on…[Read more]
Rich stated: “Accurate technical information posted on websites about the operation of unlicensed transmit systems actually meeting Part 15 Rules tends to be challenged and/or dismissed.”
That statement is overly general and simply not true. Information posted and postulated as technical is not always accurate, no matter what the website, or…[Read more]
There’s very little information associated with the NOUO, so it’s difficult to determine why 15.239 was used, rather than 236. 87.9 IS available for 236.
I believe that devices used under 236 have to be certified for that use (or at least Part 74) – perhaps the transmitter being used was not.
It could be that this particular inspector…[Read more]
I guess it all depends on what you mean by “works better”.
If you’re looking for the best range, then you have to look at field strength, and there’s evidence that in identical conditions, of all the current crop of transmitters, the Rangemaster is tops. There was some question about the AMT5000, but since it’s no longer in production, the…[Read more]
As Tim states in his test report, this device is certified under Part 74 of the FCC rules, not 15.236. Part 74 requires licensing, or at the very least eligibility for licensing and short term use, and is not applicable for continuous broadcasting.
One of the requirements of 15.236 is the ability to continuously check the Whitespace Database f…[Read more]
- Load More