FCC vs micro radio

[phatboy48]

Do you think the FCC will ever get serious regarding the basically useless FM field strength requirement of 250 uV / meter for Part 15 FM? That level is so low that you can't even "yardcast" if you have anything larger than a big city postage stamp sized property.

I have heard there is a move afoot for the FCC to revisit the micro radio issue. If this is true, do you think it will result in something useful like 30 or maybe 100 mW into a limited antenna of specified height above ground, etc.

How about the possibility of actually licensing micro broadcasters...sort of like the old CB license which specified maximum power, antenna height, frequencies, etc.

Just interested in seeing what you folks think about these issues.

 

[KMRichards]

> Do you think the FCC will ever get serious regarding the
> basically useless FM field strength requirement of 250 uV /
> meter for Part 15 FM?

You might want to ask that on the Community Radio board, as those folks are much more knowledgeable on the subject of Part 15.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> I have heard there is a move afoot for the FCC to revisit
> the micro radio issue. If this is true, do you think it will
> result in something useful like 30 or maybe 100 mW into a
> limited antenna of specified height above ground, etc.

No, because the broadcast interests would scream like stuck pigs about the risk of interference from higher powered Part 15 stations -- and no one else stands to make enough money from allowing higher power to fund a lobbying effort to counteract the NAB. Thus, the power limit for unlicensed broadcasting will almost certainly remain at a level suitable for broadcasting between rooms or allowing an iPod to be heard on a car radio.

> How about the possibility of actually licensing micro
> broadcasters...sort of like the old CB license which
> specified maximum power, antenna height, frequencies, etc.

Again, unlikely. It would be a significant administrative burden for the FCC to implement, and with no real "return" to the government (money from spectrum auctions and regulatory fees) any such proposal would be an absolute bottom-level priority for the FCC.

Aside from that, in some of the larger markets there are almost no frequencies left where such services wouldn't create interference with licensed stations. Here in Dallas-Fort Worth, I could count the open frequencies on the fingers of one hand if I assume 400 kHz spacing. I suspect that some other large markets (such as LA) are as bad...

 

[thebroker]

Micro-radio would go even further in muddying the waters. The Commission can't effectively enforce the rules now. Just imagine what a nightmare enforecement would be with tens of thousands of micro-broadcasters on the air.

These flea-powered signals do little to further the public good, and allowing them en-masse would open up the spectrum to more abuse than could probably ever be effectively handled.

So many folks make noise about 'better radio', and I think the concept of micro-broadcasting defeats this. Why on earth would any responsible entrepreneur go to the expense of creating quality programming when only a dozen or so people will hear?

Interference, even in small doses, is a very valid threat to the spectrum. If we were to open up the door to higher-powered Part 15 stations, that little bit of interference would further erode spectrum quality. Eventually, if that trend were to continue, we'd have tens of thousands of baby stations muddying the spectrum, and absolutely no commercially viable frequencies.

That, folks, sounds like the death of radio.