• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Does the FCC bother enforcing rules for AM Stations?

R. Fry said:
It doesn't matter whether or not an AM broadcast band transmitter is certified under Part 15 -- it can still be installed and/or in some cases adjusted so that it is non-compliant with Part 15.
Click to expand...

Too bad the circumstance I'm referring to was with an unmodified, commercially manufactured and certified Part 15 transmitter where the operator was visited by an apparently "heavy handed" field agent. The transmitter was installed in a compliant manner associated with Part 15.219 and could not be operator adjusted for excessive field strength. The transmitter, being a Talking House without its associated external ATU, only operated with its included wire antenna.

Field strength under Part 15.219 should be a moot point since there's no field strength limit associated with that regulation. I have acquired FCC documentation under FOIA where they even admit in print the fact that 15.219 does not have any associated field strength limit.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I worked for a small "mom 'n' pop" AM daytimer and I really wonder just how much the FCC helped them in comparison with the corporately-owned competition. They struggled for a decade before throwing in the towel.
 
Back to the original topic here. A station has submitted in their BSTA that they are running 250 watts into a wire that is 50 feet up with a fence around the area. There is no fence, but will the FCC ever bother to check it out?
 
If it's 50 feet up, does it need a fence other than around the feed point? Who's going to touch it? The 50 foot woman?
 
Mike Sheridan said:
Not the point. the point is it's a false statement to the FCC.
Click to expand...

If the FCC started going after everyone who made false statements to them, they'd have no time for the other activities they do.
 
I'd rather the FCC go after the pirates than the guy without the fence and the longwire 50' up in the air who HAS a license.
 
Okay but I think of any application to the FCC as a legal document. If you're okay with an incorrect statement to the FCC.....

The end of the wire is tied to a tree. I've seen the picture and wouldn't bet that it was 50 feet up. Since their is no fence I sure would question of the end of the wire was 50 feet above ground.... Not saying it isn't but it does make me wonder.
 
One every FCC application is this:

WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT (U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001), AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 312(a)(1)), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 503).
 
I get that, I'm well aware. I'm not condoning what the guy did, but I think everyone can see that in the grand scheme of things, there are many other bigger fish that the FCC needs to attend to. Come to NYC or Boston and listen to the pirate problem.

Both should be punished, but with the limited staffing at the FCC field offices these days, I'd rather see a few pirates busted.
 
WNTIRadio said:
If it's 50 feet up, does it need a fence other than around the feed point? Who's going to touch it? The 50 foot woman?
Click to expand...

The pertinent rule states:

§73.49 AM transmission system fencing requirements.
Antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base (series fed, folded unipole, and insulated base antennas) must be enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Ready access must be provided to each antenna tower base for meter reading and maintenance purposes at all times. However, individual tower fences need not be installed if the towers are contained within a protective property fence.
[51 FR 2707, Jan. 21, 1986]
 
Right. I take care of a few AM's that all comply. This is an STA for a longwire antenna suspended 50' above the ground.

This is the original comment about it:

How about a ND AM station in their submitted BSTA claims they have been kicked off their tower and have moved to a temporary site going down in power from 1kw to 250 watts using a 160 foot horizontal wire that is supposed to be 50 feet above ground with a fence and lock below. There is no fence. To me that's misleading the FCC but is it a violation?
Click to expand...

It's not my station, don't even know where it is, but if the longwire is really 50' up in the air, and let's say it's fed by a balun and coax, how is that any different than 1,000's of amateur dipoles out there running much more than 250 watts? Again, my original question is who is going to be able to touch it without a bucket truck or giant stilts?

This is not the usual base insulated or shunt fed tower. The feed point may not even be on the ground but 50' up.

Can the OP chime in on this with some more details?? I'm not for lying to the FCC, but this seems a bit of a special case here. This isn't "mysterious football power boost" or "what fence around my tower" or "I need EAS?" like I've seen from some AM operators who shall remain nameless.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom