• 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

Part 15 "Broadcasting"

R

rfry

Earlier:
> I have no doubt the NAB would love to see a ban on the use
> of part-15 TX's and would influence the FCC in that
> direction if they could.
_________________

With apologies to all that this offends... here is some reality.

The NAB and/or standard AM/FM broadcast stations would be a lot less concerned about Part 15 users if Part 15 was used as the personal wireless system that the Rules intended.

Someone wanting to relay their own audio source to a radio receiver they listen to on their own property is no threat to broadcast stations.

But when Part 15 Rules are misunderstood, stretched, or ignored, and "Part 15" users operate systems that cover several square miles, are programmed to serve the general public, and even try to support themselves commercially with ads and donations -- this gets noticed.

That shouldn't be hard to understand.
 
> Earlier:
> > I have no doubt the NAB would love to see a ban on the use
>
> > of part-15 TX's and would influence the FCC in that
> > direction if they could.
> _________________
>
> With apologies to all that this offends... here is some
> reality.
>
> The NAB and/or standard AM/FM broadcast stations would be a
> lot less concerned about Part 15 users if Part 15 was used
> as the personal wireless system that the Rules intended.
>
> Someone wanting to relay their own audio source to a radio
> receiver they listen to on their own property is no threat
> to broadcast stations.
>
> But when Part 15 Rules are misunderstood, stretched, or
> ignored, and "Part 15" users operate systems that cover
> several square miles, are programmed to serve the general
> public, and even try to support themselves commercially with
> ads and donations -- this gets noticed.
>
> That shouldn't be hard to understand.
>



Rich,

I've extensively read the Part15 rules in and out and if you can show me where it states that the Part15 operator stretches the rules or that the general public can't be served, or that commercial ads cannot support the Part15 station, please indicate... the nuances of the NAB and any losses for commercial ventures of the kind (CC, Infinity, etc.) because of their poor prgramming cannot hold the Part15 operator in default as long as the Part15 rules are observed!

Commercial operators should look up to the Part15 operator as emergency stations and helpful providors during hard times. A close look at New Orleans after Katrina and it's devastating effects to all the major broadcasters is a perfect example, had the FCC allowed better use of the airwaves and relaxing the Part15 rules, there would have been benefits to New Orleans after the disaster.

Radiopilot
 
Hi,

It is always possible that the rules could be changed to eliminate all broadcast band part 15 transmissions.

Neil
 
> I've extensively read the Part15 rules in and out and if you
> can show me where it states that the Part15 operator
> stretches the rules...

Examples: (1) using a 10mW or more FM tx that can produce hundreds of thousands of times more power than is needed to generate the legal 250 uV/m field, 3 meters from even a simple "whip" antenna (2) believing that FM field strength for Part 15 FM is OK as long as it isn't over 250 uV/m on the ground, or 3 meters from the base of the tower supporting the antenna, and (3) the use of elevated antennas with long "ground leads" for Part 15 AM -- which in reality implements a radiating antenna structure greater than the 3 meter length permitted by Part 15. These points of view and applications are commonly seen in many of the posts on these boards.

> ... or that the general public can't be
> served, or that commercial ads cannot support the Part15
> station, please indicate...

They don't. But documents written by the FCC to clarify Part 15 state that a coverage range of about 200 feet is expected (AM & FM), which is in line with the concept of Part 15 as a personal wireless system. If "Part 15" operators were holding to that, there wouldn't be much reason to program for the general public -- there wouldn't be enough possible listeners to justify it.

> A close look at New Orleans after Katrina and it's
> devastating effects to all the major broadcasters is a
> perfect example, had the FCC allowed better use of the
> airwaves and relaxing the Part15 rules, there would have
> been benefits to New Orleans after the disaster.

WWL remained on the air through virtually all of that, I believe. Many commercial stations have alternate tx sites and emergency AC power, and the news service facilities and staff needed to provide disaster support. How would a Part 15 operator do as well, at any power?
 
> > Earlier:
> > > I have no doubt the NAB would love to see a ban on the
> use
> >
> > > of part-15 TX's and would influence the FCC in that
> > > direction if they could.
> > _________________
> >
> > With apologies to all that this offends... here is some
> > reality.
> >
> > The NAB and/or standard AM/FM broadcast stations would be
> a
> > lot less concerned about Part 15 users if Part 15 was used
>
> > as the personal wireless system that the Rules intended.
> >
> > Someone wanting to relay their own audio source to a radio
>
> > receiver they listen to on their own property is no threat
>
> > to broadcast stations.
> >
> > But when Part 15 Rules are misunderstood, stretched, or
> > ignored, and "Part 15" users operate systems that cover
> > several square miles, are programmed to serve the general
> > public, and even try to support themselves commercially
> with
> > ads and donations -- this gets noticed.
> >
> > That shouldn't be hard to understand.
> >
>
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I've extensively read the Part15 rules in and out and if you
> can show me where it states that the Part15 operator
> stretches the rules or that the general public can't be
> served, or that commercial ads cannot support the Part15
> station, please indicate... the nuances of the NAB and any
> losses for commercial ventures of the kind (CC, Infinity,
> etc.) because of their poor prgramming cannot hold the
> Part15 operator in default as long as the Part15 rules are
> observed!
>
> Commercial operators should look up to the Part15 operator
> as emergency stations and helpful providors during hard
> times. A close look at New Orleans after Katrina and it's
> devastating effects to all the major broadcasters is a
> perfect example, had the FCC allowed better use of the
> airwaves and relaxing the Part15 rules, there would have
> been benefits to New Orleans after the disaster.
>
> Radiopilot
>
Amen to that, Radiopilot.

I am in Florida, and last year our area suffered some minor damage from Hurricane Frances. There are 5 commercial AMs in Tallahassee, and they are all located close together - and that part of town had no power for six days.
Claer Channel - off the air for part of that time; Cumulus - off for all of that time, as were two independents. The fifth station pretty much stayed on the air, playing Christian preaching shows.

My then-part 15 stayed on the air the entire time. The local Red Cross and EOC emailed me shelter openings, power outage information, and such. I stayed on the air with as much info as possible and was often the ONLY AM station on the air. The range with the ground soaking wet was about 2 miles.

I am aware of several local AMs running with violations - no legal IDs, unattended transmitters, no EAS unit, etc. Maybe they need to pay attention to their own operations. I've had no problems with any of them, and CC has purchased time with me before - none of the stations in the cluster reached
the audience for a Bill Gaither Homecoming show except for mine. We gave away every ticket, to boot.

I never had any FCC problems in three years of operation. A T-storm hit the station this spring and burned out some parts and I've been just broadcasting on the internet until I get Bill Blew's WSJL station relocated down here..which
is still in the works.

Part-15 CAN work but it's not for the faint-hearted!<P ID="signature">______________
Proudly remembering the days of the hometown "country giant" radio stations now at
http://www.live365.com/stations/alanmccall</P>
 
Rich,

I've added comments between the lines...

> > I've extensively read the Part15 rules in and out and if
> you
> > can show me where it states that the Part15 operator
> > stretches the rules...
>
> Examples: (1) using a 10mW or more FM tx that can produce
> hundreds of thousands of times more power than is needed to
> generate the legal 250 uV/m field, 3 meters from even a
> simple "whip" antenna (2) believing that FM field strength
> for Part 15 FM is OK as long as it isn't over 250 uV/m on
> the ground, or 3 meters from the base of the tower
> supporting the antenna, and (3) the use of elevated antennas
> with long "ground leads" for Part 15 AM -- which in reality
> implements a radiating antenna structure greater than the 3
> meter length permitted by Part 15. These points of view and
> applications are commonly seen in many of the posts on these
> boards.
>

If this were true why did the FCC issue FCC certifications for the Rangemaster, House Seller transmitters, Radio Systems transmitters, etc..... If they knew with the intent of how these Part15 transmitters would be used? Also they issued FCC certification for FM transmitters for house selling, fitness centers, etc. using devices that they approved and would know full well the output of such devices is far more power than 200 foot range as you state...


> > ... or that the general public can't be
> > served, or that commercial ads cannot support the Part15
> > station, please indicate...
>
> They don't. But documents written by the FCC to clarify
> Part 15 state that a coverage range of about 200 feet is
> expected (AM & FM), which is in line with the concept of
> Part 15 as a personal wireless system. If "Part 15"
> operators were holding to that, there wouldn't be much
> reason to program for the general public -- there wouldn't
> be enough possible listeners to justify it.
>

Not true, that 200 foot range is a general statement and not one to follow, as that has already been hashed out with the FCC as well... the rules only state the 100mw outpuut for AM and 250mv/3m rule for FM other than that it's free will to do whatever under the rules as long as they are adhered to!


> > A close look at New Orleans after Katrina and it's
> > devastating effects to all the major broadcasters is a
> > perfect example, had the FCC allowed better use of the
> > airwaves and relaxing the Part15 rules, there would have
> > been benefits to New Orleans after the disaster.
>
> WWL remained on the air through virtually all of that, I
> believe. Many commercial stations have alternate tx sites
> and emergency AC power, and the news service facilities and
> staff needed to provide disaster support. How would a Part
> 15 operator do as well, at any power?
>

I don't know the particulars of the situation there at New Orleans but I'm sure there are alot of Part15 broadcasters here that can prove you wrong here.

There was even a call for Ham radio operators to take the plunge on the New Orleans ordeal, so I'm sure the broadcasters as you suggest were not in full swing as you state!

Radiopilot
 
> Not true, that 200 foot range is a general statement and not
> one to follow, as that has already been hashed out with the
> FCC as well...

Can you reference any official FCC document related to this being "hashed out," saying that the ~200 foot expectation is incorrect? Probably this point of view is just wishful thinking and board lore by Part 15 operators.

The FCC document showing ~200 foot coverage also includes the 100mW AM input power and
250 uV/m @ 3 meter FM field requirements, ALONG WITH the 200 foot coverage expectation. They are intended to apply together. The ~200 foot coverage is an elaboration of the words in Part 15, probably written by the FCC after they learned that the range that users claiming to be Part 15 were getting exceeded the intent of Part 15.

> the rules only state the 100mw output for AM
> and 250mv/3m rule for FM other than that it's free will to
> do whatever under the rules as long as they are adhered to!

No, they also define the Part 15 AM antenna. And if the Rules were strictly followed, Part 15 stations would not have the large coverage areas claimed by many Part 15 users. The physics just isn't there.

> There was even a call for Ham radio operators to take the
> plunge on the New Orleans ordeal, so I'm sure the
> broadcasters as you suggest were not in full swing as you
> state!

Hams are authorized to provide point-to-point communications, and have legally done so with great results in many public disasters for decades. But that is not broadcasting -- which they are prohibited from doing by the FCC.
 
Rich,

My answers are in between your comments...


> > Not true, that 200 foot range is a general statement and
> not
> > one to follow, as that has already been hashed out with
> the
> > FCC as well...
>
> Can you reference any official FCC document related to this
> being "hashed out," saying that the ~200 foot expectation is
> incorrect? Probably this point of view is just wishful
> thinking and board lore by Part 15 operators.
>
> The FCC document showing ~200 foot coverage also includes
> the 100mW AM input power and
> 250 uV/m @ 3 meter FM field requirements, ALONG WITH the 200
> foot coverage expectation. They are intended to apply
> together. The ~200 foot coverage is an elaboration of the
> words in Part 15, probably written by the FCC after they
> learned that the range that users claiming to be Part 15
> were getting exceeded the intent of Part 15.
>
> > the rules only state the 100mw output for AM
> > and 250mv/3m rule for FM other than that it's free will to
>
> > do whatever under the rules as long as they are adhered
> to!


You must be referring to this document dated July 24, 1991
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#PART

July 24, 1991 Public Notice.

and it states the 100mw rules overides the 200 foot rule... (approxmate range is not a verified rule!) unless my reading level it not on par with everyone else.


>
> No, they also define the Part 15 AM antenna. And if the
> Rules were strictly followed, Part 15 stations would not
> have the large coverage areas claimed by many Part 15 users.
> The physics just isn't there.
>
> > There was even a call for Ham radio operators to take the
> > plunge on the New Orleans ordeal, so I'm sure the
> > broadcasters as you suggest were not in full swing as you
> > state!
>
> Hams are authorized to provide point-to-point
> communications, and have legally done so with great results
> in many public disasters for decades. But that is not
> broadcasting -- which they are prohibited from doing by the
> FCC.
>

No one concluded that broadcasting music or comedy was the issue here, simply that Part15 operators could have relayed valuable imformation during an emergency when needed.... and the FCC rules do not mention what type of content needs to be transmitted on Part15 devices if you'd read the public notice above.

Radiopilot
 
> You must be referring to this document dated July 24, 1991
> http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#PART
> and it states the 100mw rules overides the 200 foot rule...
> (approxmate range is not a verified rule!) unless my reading
> level it not on par with everyone else.
_____________

Yes, that is what I am referring to (FCC Public Notice 14089). I asked you for a reference that superseded that "200 foot rule." Now in response you are quoting the same FCC public notice.

FCC Public Notice 14089 does NOT say that 100 mW "overides" the 200 foot rule. The 200 foot rule is just another way of stating what is permitted/expected by Part 15, and is given as a clarification. They mean the same thing, and apply at the same time.

Approximate means the AM coverage radius might vary somewhat from that 200 foot value, but no rational person could believe that coverage could extend to the 3 mile or more range that "Part 15" operators apparently are getting with the equipment they have installed.
 
> > You must be referring to this document dated July 24, 1991
>
> > http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#PART
> > and it states the 100mw rules overides the 200 foot
> rule...
> > (approxmate range is not a verified rule!) unless my
> reading
> > level it not on par with everyone else.
> _____________
>
> Yes, that is what I am referring to (FCC Public Notice
> 14089). I asked you for a reference that superseded that
> "200 foot rule." Now in response you are quoting the same
> FCC public notice.
>
> FCC Public Notice 14089 does NOT say that 100 mW "overides"
> the 200 foot rule. The 200 foot rule is just another way of
> stating what is permitted/expected by Part 15, and is given
> as a clarification. They mean the same thing, and apply at
> the same time.
>
> Approximate means the AM coverage radius might vary somewhat
> from that 200 foot value, but no rational person could
> believe that coverage could extend to the 3 mile or more
> range that "Part 15" operators apparently are getting with
> the equipment they have installed.
>

AHH! Now comes the real issue! Does the Part15 rules 15.1~15.525 state the 200 foot rule? Read it again, tell me where! No it does not, as the 200 foot rule was meant for incidental radiators such as a computer mouse/computer/motor control device, etc. not going over the 200 foot rule, but for the intentional radiators this 200 foot rule does not apply, because if it did, the FCC is in violation of their own rules when they issued certification for the Rangemaster, Talking House, and other certified transmitter as these surpass the '200 foot rule'.

The Public Notice is just that, a general statement and the Part15 are the end rules to go by!

Now do you propose that the FCC is wrong in the interpretation of the rules or is the FCC certified testing labs liable for falty testing??????

Radiopilot
 
> AHH! Now comes the real issue! Does the Part15 rules
> 15.1~15.525 state the 200 foot rule? Read it again, tell me
> where! No it does not, as the 200 foot rule was meant for
> incidental radiators such as a computer mouse/computer/motor
> control device, etc.

That's just incorrect. FCC Public Notice 14089 is titled "Permitted Forms of Low Power Broadcast Operation." The table that follows on page one of same with the 100 mW AM power input, 250 uV/m @ 3m FM field limit, and the fact that ~200 foot coverage range is expected for both AM and FM applies to unlicensed, low power BROADCAST equipment, not to computers, mice or motor controls.

The text of Part 15.1~15.525, and the text of FCC Public Notice 14089 are not in conflict about low power, unlicensed, over-the-air broadcasting. They say the same thing, and neither one is more or less correct than the other.
 
> > AHH! Now comes the real issue! Does the Part15 rules
> > 15.1~15.525 state the 200 foot rule? Read it again, tell
> me
> > where! No it does not, as the 200 foot rule was meant for
> > incidental radiators such as a computer
> mouse/computer/motor
> > control device, etc.
>
> That's just incorrect. FCC Public Notice 14089 is titled
> "Permitted Forms of Low Power Broadcast Operation." The
> table that follows on page one of same with the 100 mW AM
> power input, 250 uV/m @ 3m FM field limit, and the fact that
> ~200 foot coverage range is expected for both AM and FM
> applies to unlicensed, low power BROADCAST equipment, not to
> computers, mice or motor controls.
>
> The text of Part 15.1~15.525, and the text of FCC Public
> Notice 14089 are not in conflict about low power,
> unlicensed, over-the-air broadcasting. They say the same
> thing, and neither one is more or less correct than the
> other.
>

Rfry,

I'm sorry that you can't take the blinders off and that the numbers of years you've spent in the commercial field has twisted your insight to perhaps that you may be wrong, but this conversation is not going to be won, perhaps if I'd take the certifcation in the society of broadcast engineers, I may refute your comments once I'm SBE certified and my remarks may penetrate somehow, but I believe that belonging to a society has no bearing on the rules we speak of, they speak for themselves.

The general notice above is NOT the Part15 rules and the general notice is not in the 47cfr15 rules... so there you have it. Let's end the discussion as no one, you or I are going to win this issue, The FCC rules apply and we are doing nothing wrong broadcasting whether with the kits, built units, certified units, whatever they may be, the only rule is not causing noitice to the FCC. Quite simple rules by which the so called 'licensed stations' seem to have forgotten!

Radiopilot
 
>... perhaps if I'd
> take the certifcation in the society of broadcast engineers,
> I may refute your comments once I'm SBE certified and my
> remarks may penetrate somehow, but I believe that belonging
> to a society has no bearing on the rules we speak of, they
> speak for themselves.

You're right about the SBE certification. Although I am an SBE Certified Professional Broadcast Engineer with lifetime certification, and earned an FCC First Class Radiotelephone License by a written, technical examination (1959), I agree with you that all that is necessary here is to read, comprehend, and hopefully follow Part 15 along with the other official FCC publications that apply to unlicensed, over-the-air broadcasting in the US.
 
> >... perhaps if I'd
> > take the certifcation in the society of broadcast
> engineers,
> > I may refute your comments once I'm SBE certified and my
> > remarks may penetrate somehow, but I believe that
> belonging
> > to a society has no bearing on the rules we speak of, they
>
> > speak for themselves.
>
> You're right about the SBE certification. Although I am an
> SBE Certified Professional Broadcast Engineer with lifetime
> certification, and earned an FCC First Class Radiotelephone
> License by a written, technical examination (1959), I agree
> with you that all that is necessary here is to read,
> comprehend, and hopefully follow Part 15 along with the
> other official FCC publications that apply to unlicensed,
> over-the-air broadcasting in the US.
>


Rfry,

There are plenty of people that frequent this and other boards with similar credentials... perhaps not in radio broadcasting but equivalent credentails just the same.

Having said that, Thank you for the discussion, most helpful for those entering this hobby.

Radiopilot
 
> Hi,
>
> It is always possible that the rules could be changed to
> eliminate all broadcast band part 15 transmissions.
>
> Neil
>
My first thought was 'unlikely' concidering the 100 thousands
of devices out there to play CDs/IPOD etc. through FM radios
and commercial units that designed for local area advertising
aka Talking House. But the power of the NAB should not be
underestimated. Many of the rules concerning intensional Pt 15
radiators seemed to be giving hobbist/experminters a chance
to develop new technologies hence the AM Pt 15 100MW/3meter Antenna
rule along with allowing up to 5 home brew units. Of course the
rule of no interference to the reception of liecenced stations
has always been the prime rule, and in fact is observed by most
PT 15 operators. The point is that the outlawing of kits, home brew
equipment and the like might forced on us by the NAB via FCC or
legislation sponsered by NAB allies. At this point in time most
of the broadcasters are loosing listenership to the internet,IPODs
and CD players not to mention XM/Siruis and may lash a any group
they think causing 'problems' either real or percieved. Example
is how they effectively squashed low power FM. We need to be
careful in our operations and viligant to political moves and
rule making changes /proposals by the FCC.

JohnA
 
>
> The NAB and/or standard AM/FM broadcast stations would be a
> lot less concerned about Part 15 users if Part 15 was used
> as the personal wireless system that the Rules intended.
>
> Someone wanting to relay their own audio source to a radio
> receiver they listen to on their own property is no threat
> to broadcast stations.
>
> But when Part 15 Rules are misunderstood, stretched, or
> ignored, and "Part 15" users operate systems that cover
> several square miles, are programmed to serve the general
> public, and even try to support themselves commercially with
> ads and donations -- this gets noticed.
>
> That shouldn't be hard to understand.
>

I don't seem to see the part of the law that describes what it "intends." I only see the rules themselves. Since these rules are what is printed in the Congressional Record, it shouldn't be hard to understand.

Go home to the NAB member stations you've worked for for so long and leave us poor free Americans alone.

-Love, Dick
 
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is always possible that the rules could be changed to
> > eliminate all broadcast band part 15 transmissions.
> >
> > Neil
> >

Let's keep an eye on the new NAB guy. He's a former beer industry lobbyist. Now he's the new NAB lobbyist.

Lobbyist, in case you missed it, means a guy who bribes legislators to change the laws to favor his special interest group. The mob calls them cleaners or hit men. The word Lobbyist seems so much more professional sounding.

Anything that takes audience from commercial TV and Radio is always a problem for the NAB. Now they have a professional lobbyist as their boss. He already knows how to give favors to congressmen to get laws fixed.

Keep an eye on those essential federal budget bills. One of them might just slip by that outlaws all unlicensed broadcasting. Turning everybody with a 100 mW AM or a garage door opener into a criminal.

Don't laugh. It ain't funny anymore.

-Dick
 
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It is always possible that the rules could be changed to
>
> > > eliminate all broadcast band part 15 transmissions.
> > >
> > > Neil
> > >
>
> Let's keep an eye on the new NAB guy. He's a former beer
> industry lobbyist. Now he's the new NAB lobbyist.
>
> Lobbyist, in case you missed it, means a guy who bribes
> legislators to change the laws to favor his special interest
> group. The mob calls them cleaners or hit men. The word
> Lobbyist seems so much more professional sounding.
>
> Anything that takes audience from commercial TV and Radio is
> always a problem for the NAB. Now they have a professional
> lobbyist as their boss. He already knows how to give favors
> to congressmen to get laws fixed.
>
> Keep an eye on those essential federal budget bills. One of
> them might just slip by that outlaws all unlicensed
> broadcasting. Turning everybody with a 100 mW AM or a garage
> door opener into a criminal.
>
> Don't laugh. It ain't funny anymore.
>
> -Dick
>

Dick,

Very highly unlikely, since the Part15 rules cover medical, surveillance, vehicular, UWB, ground penetrating radar, imaging systems, etc., in fact too numerous to mention here, see the Part15 rules to get an idea. This is just wishful thinking on part of the NAB and folks who think the average American doesn't have access to the airwaves.

To be honest I hope the NAB adopts IBOC very hard and makes all broadcasters change from analog to digital, as when that happens I hope no one buys the recievers, and that they all go bust! Won't be long, it's happening now, just look at the number of Ipods/digital storage device sold this year alone, what kid is listening to the airwaves now, or the percentage of adults moving over to the Ipod/mp3 devices format?

Radiopilot
 
It's very sad that your recent trail of very good technical posts has degenerated into nitpicking interpretation of FCC rules. The technical trails were informative and constructive to the part 15 community. The controversial interpretations of FCC rules have been divisive and certaily not constructive.

You have demonstrated excellent technical insight, but your posts about FCC rule interpretations rank with all the other opinions and speculations that have been posted, ad nausium, over time on the various boards. Sure you can take an extremely conservative view of the rules, but reality is reality. We are here to promote community radio. If the FCC sees fit to enforce their rules in a civil manner, then they are to be applauded.

I think this thread has reached the end of its useful life.




> > AHH! Now comes the real issue! Does the Part15 rules
> > 15.1~15.525 state the 200 foot rule? Read it again, tell
> me
> > where! No it does not, as the 200 foot rule was meant for
> > incidental radiators such as a computer
> mouse/computer/motor
> > control device, etc.
>
> That's just incorrect. FCC Public Notice 14089 is titled
> "Permitted Forms of Low Power Broadcast Operation." The
> table that follows on page one of same with the 100 mW AM
> power input, 250 uV/m @ 3m FM field limit, and the fact that
> ~200 foot coverage range is expected for both AM and FM
> applies to unlicensed, low power BROADCAST equipment, not to
> computers, mice or motor controls.
>
> The text of Part 15.1~15.525, and the text of FCC Public
> Notice 14089 are not in conflict about low power,
> unlicensed, over-the-air broadcasting. They say the same
> thing, and neither one is more or less correct than the
> other.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Phil B
</P>
 
> It's very sad that your recent trail of very good technical
> posts has degenerated into nitpicking interpretation of FCC
> rules. The technical trails were informative and
> constructive to the part 15 community. The controversial
> interpretations of FCC rules have been divisive and certaily
> not constructive. (Phil Bolyn)
________

Interesting when the same attention to logic, research and detail that produced "very good technical posts" is labeled nitpicky and divisive when applied to understanding the definitions and limits of Part 15.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom