Same Old Same Old About FCC Regs.

[Neil E.]

Hi All,

Rather than pulling another thread off topic, I thought it better to start a new one. To frame this properly, I will quote a post by Radioilot from another thread:

I hope when I retire after all the day sailing, car driving trips, golfing, fishing, tennis, travels to exotic places, gardening, working around the house, being with my grandchildren, etc. that there may be time to post annecdotes about milliwatt/microwatt transmitter powers/antenna heights, FCC NUOS, etc. regarding flea powered part 15 stations.

R.Fry not to belittle you or anything but there must be other activities that could be put to use by a learned colleage such as yourself besides continually posting about field strengths/antenna heights/grounding issues, etc. It really gets old after a while and everyone seeking this info is more than welcome to look for it either in this forum or the countless others across the internet.

Hope to see you out on the bay or golf course one day. Wink

Radiopilot

Everybody, especially Radiopilot, please understand that this is not to bash him. I only use this quote as an example of what I have observed on this board and others for the few years that I have participated.

When one does not agree with a poster it is more constructive to stick to the issue and the facts presented in a post than to make false and unwarranted assumptions about the poster. I would really want to read objective replies to what Mr. Fry posted and there have been many. So far, I agree with what he has posted, but convince me otherwise with facts. OK?

The posts stating how tired folks are of the same old sermon about the legalities of part 15 are just as tiring as the target of these posts but both need to be aired. I am a newbie on two other boards totally unrelated to part 15 or radio technology and after being registered and posting for over a year, I have never witnessed any silliness such as suggesting retirement activities. The hobby will be much better served to stick to the facts.

I also know that these boards have new users lurking every day. They are not privileged with the benefit of many of us who have been reading and contributing for a few years and they do not know the details and intricacies of the law or technology which we have all discussed. What some of us think is boring and repetitious is new to them. They don't know what questions to ask because they don't know enough yet!!! Telling someone to use the search function is a real put off when with the same effort we can give them a quick answer or a link.

I am retired. I have a life. I do things beyond posting here, but some of us retirees do have the time and the interest to share a lifetime of accumulated knowledge with those too busy to spend more than a few minutes here or to those who do not have technical experience. Are we all knowing and all powerful...of course not, but just maybe our efforts can help you and new people understand and improve things.

Neil

 

[radioman148]

You're right that people do not need to get personal, but Mr Fry does tend to post the same stuff over & over which seems to try to discourage people from participating in part 15 radio.
I think that's what may be irratating to some people.

 

[rfry]

...Mr Fry does tend to post the same stuff over & over which seems to try to discourage people from participating in part 15 radio.
I think that's what may be irratating to some people.

Please note that what I post could not discourage anyone wanting to observe the limits allowed by Part 15. In fact it might give them some confidence that they understand those limits, and can operate under them if they wish to.

The posts giving details and conclusions over and over about systems that do not observe the limits of Part 15 outnumber mine by thousands of times -- and, apparently, without much irritation to those who are unhappy about mine.
//

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

First, I would steer people to the news this week that the FCC nailed an LPFM down near Austin, TX with a $20,000 fine for ignoring the rules on permissible advertising vs. "enhanced underwriting".

I noticed that the originator of the thread about Part 15 being a potential Cash Cow seemed to display an attitude of "screw the FCC" and do what you want. Try explaining that to the people at the station in Texas.

In defense of Mr. Fry, he has helped my understand very clearly some of the facts-of-life about radio propagation and went out of his way to do some calculations to help me understand the alternatives I could select from in an antenna situation.

The day people stop coming here and making it sound like you can get legal coverage for a mile or two from a Part 15 rig is the day you can expect Mr. Fry to not post repeated versions of warnings that what you plan to do may bet you in trouble with the FCC.

$20,000 fine! How would you like to open your mail and find your own personal copy of a letter like that?

 

[Neil E.]

Goat Radio Cowboy gets it. He understands what I was conveying. Thanks for posting.

Neil

 

[XRQKFM]

I noticed that the originator of the thread about Part 15 being a potential Cash Cow seemed to display an attitude of "screw the FCC" and do what you want.

What part of it is legal to advertise on part 15 am don't you understand?
You are comparing LPFM with part 15 broadcasting;They are not the same, nor are the rules. You also must have skipped over the part where I said the FCC paid a visit to Fox Sports 1650AM in Flagstaff, Arizona. If it was against the law to operate the station as a for profit operation; don't you think the FCC would have issued a NOL sometime over the past four years? The complaints were from the other station and were without merit, and resulted in no NOL issued.

It's not my problem if you are afraid to milk the cow! But you should know how to separate the bull from the cow before you get in the pin.

The fact is unlike Part 15 AM, the LPFM in Austin, was not allowed to advertise, and with LPFM, it is all in the wording that separates enhanced underwriting from an advertisement. It was the wording that cost them $20,000.

The day people stop coming here and making it sound like you can get legal coverage for a mile or two from a Part 15 rig is the day you can expect Mr. Fry to not post repeated versions of warnings that what you plan to do may bet you in trouble with the FCC.

Fox Sports 1650AM in Flagstaff covers the two miles claimed, and again the FCC did not take issue with the stations ability to cover two miles using a good car radio. Many other stations are on the air getting similar results legally, it all depends on the grounding and the ground conductivity as to how far you will cover and the radio the end user is listening on. Surfside 1640, also gets great results from their Hamilton Rangemaster network of transmitters. And the fact it is legal won't stop R.Fry from posting here.

Rather than a "Screw The FCC" attitude as you put it; it's our goal to get the FCC to relax the rules or develop a new class of micro broadcasting, that is much needed to serve the thousands of rural communities that often lack any radio service; while the nae sayers will say you can't get the rules changes;that's what was said before LPFM came about; People like R.Fry said it would never happen! You can't get the rules changed. We always encourage responsible broadcasting; both in programming and technically, the goal is to counter the endless argument by the N.A.B. that micro broadcasters will cause planes to crash and emergency communications to be jammed. Fact is, the last time that happened, it was a legal broadcaster who's transmitter was on the fritz spitting out spurs across the spectrum.

The facts remain that there are thousands of micro powered transmitters on the air causing no harm to anyone; not even the bottom line of full powered stations; which is the ultimate justification for the N.A.B. concerns, not RF inference. Other countries have managed to see the light, and carved out a space for micro broadcasters without causing any harm. The thousands of micro powered transmitters on the air already are helping to prove our case; the micro broadcasters already on the air are responsible, providing a much needed service.

Radio Pilot's point and I share it; It does not matter what board R.Fry post on, it is the same broken record over and over again; What is the point of going on the Ramsey board and repeating the same thing for nearly four years. Not even the agents are clear on the rules; that's why you get so many opinions from them. It almost depends on which region you are in as to the answer you will get; Kind of like the IRS; never the same answer twice!

You're right that people do not need to get personal, but Mr Fry does tend to post the same stuff over & over which seems to try to discourage people from participating in part 15 radio.
I think that's what may be irratating to some people.

You nailed it!

Part 15 AM broadcasting for profit is legal for now, allot of broadcasters are out of work. The point of milking the cow, was to show them they can and how! If you are one of those that got a bonus from AIG, then you don't need to worry about how to put food on the table. As a native American, I don't have to worry about any handouts coming my way from the Socialist Party now running the White House and Congress.




Steve
www.xrqkfm.com
World Wide Broadcasting

 

[radioman148]

...Mr Fry does tend to post the same stuff over & over which seems to try to discourage people from participating in part 15 radio.
I think that's what may be irratating to some people.

Please note that what I post could not discourage anyone wanting to observe the limits allowed by Part 15. In fact it might give them some confidence that they understand those limits, and can operate under them if they wish to.

The posts giving details and conclusions over and over about systems that do not observe the limits of Part 15 outnumber mine by thousands of times -- and, apparently, without much irritation to those who are unhappy about mine.
//

I never insinuated that operating a part 15 should be anything but legal. It just seems to me that certain people on this board seem to want to discourage most people from even trying it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Part 15 AM broadcasting for profit is legal for now, allot of broadcasters are out of work. The point of milking the cow, was to show them they can and how! If you are one of those that got a bonus from AIG, then you don't need to worry about how to put food on the table. As a native American, I don't have to worry about any handouts coming my way from the Socialist Party now running the White House and Congress.

I guess I wrote carelessly. My reference to the LPFM in Texas was intended to show that if you violate FCC rules, they can get tough, they can throw the book at you.

I frankly think LPFM should have been allowed to accept advertising. In a small community, running what my former mentor used to call "price and item" advertising.... these days some people call it "transactional" advertising... is a form of local news. No where did I say it was illegal to sell advertising on a Part 15 station. I can see where a casual reading of my posting could be taken than way.

I'm a reasonably technical sort of guy. Got my First Phone Operators Certificate "back in the day". I did some pretty interesting Marketing Department calculations and charts for a cell phone antenna manufacturer in recent years. (The base station antennas... those things up on top of the towers that everyone loves to welcome to their back yard. :

I've read the Part 15 technical rules a number of times. I participate in another discussion group made up of almost exclusively broadcast engineers and watch as they, too, discuss this issue. If you follow the rules there is no way in hell you can get two miles of coverage legally. If it would, I would have one out here on the peninsula in the lake where I live.

I don't guess I understand why it is so necessary, so important to be "so in your face" with people with whom you have a disagreement. Best I can tell we are all grown adults here.... and we should be interested in learning from one another. I guess I will go back and read the Part 15 Rules again and see what I have been reading incorrectly.

Now, here is the issue I wanted to raise with you. Cash Cow? In your post that created this thread, you listed some creative ideas that one might use to generate income from a Part 15. In reading down through the list I got the idea that maybe your idea of a Cash Cow might be $1,800 to $2,500 per year. My personal finances have always been rather modest... too modest in fact, and I am at a point in life where cash is no longer a driving issue. I could use a bit more, but if I am going to tie up that part of my life that can be described as "part time" I am looking at $12,000 to $15,000 per year maybe. But even that does not qualify as a Cash Cow enterprise in my value system.

Even as a lowly GOAT RODEO Cowboy, I can tell the difference between "a lot of bull" and a "cash cow". ;D

 

[rfry]

Fox Sports 1650AM in Flagstaff covers the two miles claimed, and again the FCC did not take issue with the stations ability to cover two miles using a good car radio. Many other stations are on the air getting similar results legally, it all depends on the grounding and the ground conductivity as to how far you will cover and the radio the end user is listening on. ... And the fact it is legal won't stop R.Fry from posting here.

You write that it is legal, but can you tell us what their antenna configuration is? If their transmitter and 3-meter whip are mounted above the earth on a steel pole, mast, flagpole, water tower etc with a long conductor leading away from it to a functional r-f ground (which r-f ground is not provided by the supporting structure), then it is functionally non-compliant with 15.239. This is a fact of physics.

Yes, we've been told on these boards that some such elevated installations have been inspected and passed by the FCC. But then others of these have not passed inspection, and resulted in an NOUO.

The useful coverage radius (the 150 microvolt/meter contour) to a typical indoor radio in an urban area from a single, good, technically compliant Part 15 AM system is somewhat less than 800 meters, or about 1/2 mile. This is shown in the chart linked in the post shown below, for a functionally compliant Part 15 AM (the green curve) and for two other systems. That signal strength produces a rather poor signal-noise ratio from the receiver.

Note that the ground conductivity in the chart was set for zero loss for the groundwave signal and the r-f ground loss was set to a value lower than most licensed broadcast stations have, so the fields in the chart are about the maximum possible for these conditions.

The signal at a radius of 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) from the compliant system already is down to around 6 microvolts/meter, which would not provide a very useful signal to a car radio, let alone one indoors. OR, are you writing about a coverage area with a diameter of 2 miles, rather than one with a radius of 2 miles?

http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,117278.0.html

//

 

[XRQKFM]

I got the idea that maybe your idea of a Cash Cow might be $1,800 to $2,500 per year

The Cow, would be steak if that were the case!

Here is an example from:
5. Mall Parking Radio; We provide an opportunity for businesses outside the mall to advertise to a large group of folks out to spend money. over 50,000 cars pass by our transmitter everyday. Our marketing is simply: For the price of an inch in the paper! "All Day Advertising" Paper is $35 a column inch.

The Mall Parking radio operation charges a client $35 for a :30 spot that is part of the loop. Let me break it down this way: We normally charge $35 a day to each client and normally get at least 12 sponsors for the day; that is $420 a day (8 hour day), and to make it effective we only do weekends so that's $420 twice a weekend which comes to $840 times, 52 weeks comes out to $43680 a year before taxes and other expensive. Keep in mind that is just for one mall; we are within an hour of three large malls, plus five huge Wal-Mart & Target centers so it's easy to double that rate. The set up is very simple; We park our van near a mall light standard somewhere in the middle and clamp a ground clamp on to its JBox. The ground wire running under the parking lot makes for a good ground radial for our needs, our Procaster has a tilt up in the middle of the van that allows it to go vertical and lock in place. The Procaster is at its best on the road with its easy tune set up; think of it as a talking house transmitter with attitude. Coverage is strong from one end of the parking lot to the other, which is all we need. The spill over coverage is a bonus to us and the client.

The audio comes from an MP3 player which is loaded from a notebook which in turn gets the files from our central server back at the Arizona radio campus. Once activated, the person who sets up the mall transmitter is free to leave for eight hours setting up other transmitters.

That is just one operation, we are free to set up other promotional transmitters at local auto malls so on a given weekend we can have five or ten operations set up, each generating their own revenue.

Our Equestrian Radio Network www.equestrianradionetwork.com covers horse shows and rodeos around the west. While the economy has hit the equestrian community hard, horses still need care and the shows must go on and our clients still need to sell their products and services to survive.

You don't need to cover two miles with a part 15 AM broadcasting to make a good living with it. And like any business, you grow it by expanding it; in our case, all it takes is another van set up. Technically each set up cost about $2000, not including the van. Basically to grow the business we just add more cows (transmitters)

For the record: Our transmitters are normally about 8-12 feet off the ground; We have great ground conductivity here in the desert, so we don't need to be 30 feet in the air to get the range we need.

If you live in the right area, you can central cast your transmitters with Wi-fi links and update the files from your home studio. Today that can be dockside by the river, or in the campground while on vacation. Being retired I don't like to be tied down, but I still like the greenbacks.

You write that it is legal, but can you tell us what their antenna configuration is? If their transmitter and 3-meter whip are mounted above the earth on a steel pole, mast, flagpole, water tower etc with a long conductor leading away from it to a functional r-f ground (which r-f ground is not provided by the supporting structure), then it is functionally non-compliant with 15.239. This is a fact of physics.

As explained we only need a 1/2 mile coverage, the variable in your fact of physics is the ground conductivity in a given area; in the case of Flagstaff, it is very high; as it is in the high desert of Southern California. Our set ups are low compared to others at 12 feet to the tip of the antenna above ground.


Steve
www.outlawradio.us
Thinking Outside The Box

 

[WCWalker]

This topic has been beaten to death on this forum. This is the bottom line. The FCC is not shutting down stations that use Part 15 AM Type Accepted transmitters and the Field Offices along with Enforcement seem to have a difference of opinion with Mr. Fry about what is or is not a legal ground lead, or mounting of the transmitter. And more importantly, understanding HOW American law is written and interpreted and applies to these rules can lead one to believe that the Agents from these Field Offices seem to accurately interpret the regulations as they apply to our stations. Yes, someone running a straight ground wire from the lead to the ground exceeding 18 inches is technically, a violation of the rules. But most stations seem to use a choke or Surge Arrestor or some other means to tie off the ground lead and the FCC seems satisfied with that.

After looking at the Enforcement Action link that Mr. Fry posted it is obvious the FCC is not taking action against very many Part 15 AM stations. They seem to have their hands full with the abuses made by the licensed stations and Pirate FM activity and then a few rogue Ham Radio Operators and miscellaneous violators of other two way communications. Off the record, I honestly believe the FCC is never going to come down hard on Part 15 AM stations using Type Accepted transmitters because they know that this is a safety valve of sorts that keeps the FM dial free of any additional pirates. Eliminate that safety valve and the pirate problem will increase further creating even more chaos on the FM dial.

 

[radioman148]

This topic has been beaten to death on this forum. This is the bottom line. The FCC is not shutting down stations that use Part 15 AM Type Accepted transmitters and the Field Offices along with Enforcement seem to have a difference of opinion with Mr. Fry about what is or is not a legal ground lead, or mounting of the transmitter. And more importantly, understanding HOW American law is written and interpreted and applies to these rules can lead one to believe that the Agents from these Field Offices seem to accurately interpret the regulations as they apply to our stations. Yes, someone running a straight ground wire from the lead to the ground exceeding 18 inches is technically, a violation of the rules. But most stations seem to use a choke or Surge Arrestor or some other means to tie off the ground lead and the FCC seems satisfied with that.

After looking at the Enforcement Action link that Mr. Fry posted it is obvious the FCC is not taking action against very many Part 15 AM stations. They seem to have their hands full with the abuses made by the licensed stations and Pirate FM activity and then a few rogue Ham Radio Operators and miscellaneous violators of other two way communications. Off the record, I honestly believe the FCC is never going to come down hard on Part 15 AM stations using Type Accepted transmitters because they know that this is a safety valve of sorts that keeps the FM dial free of any additional pirates. Eliminate that safety valve and the pirate problem will increase further creating even more chaos on the FM dial.

This post makes sense to me.

 

[rfry]

Fox Sports 1650AM in Flagstaff covers the two miles claimed, and again the FCC did not take issue with the stations ability to cover two miles using a good car radio.

But this setup was issued an NOUO in July, 2005 (see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html ).

This was discussed in a thread on R-I Engineering about 2-1/2 years ago. The NOUO did not reference the length of their ground conductor, only that their field strength exceeded what is allowed by 15.209.

Part 15.209 has no limitation on transmitter power, antenna length, or the length of the ground lead. But the very low field strength allowed by 15.209 makes operation under 15.219 much more useful, even in its strictest form with the antenna base at earth level.

Evidently if the FCC sees a Part 15 AM antenna system installation not meeting 15.219, it can base the NOUO on 15.209.

The FCC is not shutting down stations that use Part 15 AM Type Accepted transmitters and the Field Offices along with Enforcement seem to have a difference of opinion with Mr. Fry about what is or is not a legal ground lead, or mounting of the transmitter.

Mr Walker: Considering that the Rangemaster transmitter is Part 15 AM certified, your statement quoted above is a bit different than you posted in the clip below, in the R-I Engineering board thread on the subject...

William C. Walker
rimember

Posts: 784

Occupation: Sweaty Slob Hobbies: None to speak

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2005, 01:31:22 pm »

***I can tell you because I am acquainted with someone that is or was a part of the station.

They were using a single Rangemaster but the NAL was cancelled almost immediately after the alleged problem was corrected. It had something to do with the way the transmitter was grounded. They fixed the ground and have not have a problem since.

//

 

[WCWalker]

Fox Sports 1650AM in Flagstaff covers the two miles claimed, and again the FCC did not take issue with the stations ability to cover two miles using a good car radio.

But this setup was issued an NOUO in July, 2005 (see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html ).

This was discussed in a thread on R-I Engineering about 2-1/2 years ago. The NOUO did not reference the length of their ground conductor, only that their field strength exceeded what is allowed by 15.209.

Part 15.209 has no limitation on transmitter power, antenna length, or the length of the ground lead. But the very low field strength allowed by 15.209 makes operation under 15.219 much more useful, even in its strictest form with the antenna base at earth level.

Evidently if the FCC sees a Part 15 AM antenna system installation not meeting 15.219, it can base the NOUO on 15.209.

The FCC is not shutting down stations that use Part 15 AM Type Accepted transmitters and the Field Offices along with Enforcement seem to have a difference of opinion with Mr. Fry about what is or is not a legal ground lead, or mounting of the transmitter.

Mr Walker: Considering that the Rangemaster transmitter is Part 15 AM certified, your statement quoted above is a bit different than you posted in the clip below, in the R-I Engineering board thread on the subject...

William C. Walker
rimember

Posts: 784

Occupation: Sweaty Slob Hobbies: None to speak

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2005, 01:31:22 pm »

***I can tell you because I am acquainted with someone that is or was a part of the station.

They were using a single Rangemaster but the NAL was cancelled almost immediately after the alleged problem was corrected. It had something to do with the way the transmitter was grounded. They fixed the ground and have not have a problem since.

//

No contradiction at all. You need to reread what I posted. The FCC asked the station owner to correct the problem, he did, and he resumed broadcasting.

 

[radiopilot]

To all,

Here is a typical case of where Mr. Fry imposes what he reads onto the boards where clearly he believes a Part15 device was used for this violation, nowhere does it state the device used was a part 15 100mw transmitter or how it was grounded, etc. Could the violator have used a TIS 10 watt transmitter, a 1 watt transmitter, etc. He also posts earlier about the Church transmitter that had a 90' ground which most of the regular users of these transmitters would never do, so he uses these instances to 'scare' the users of these transmitters.

The FCC has never to my knowledge in reading all the NOUS have never cited a part15 AM user for any violation except those that violated 'broadcasting language rules' or the case of the Rangemaster on a billboard or the AM with the 90' ground. All other violations are those of FM transmitter use which exceeds the 250uV/3 meter rule... if you don't believe me go look it up yourself in the FCC Enforcement section.

Those users of these 100 mw transmitters whether a certified unit or not are the sole carriers of whether they get a NOUO for anything they broadcast on the air... don't believe me but take a Rangemaster put it at legal ground height and broadcast nonsense and see how quick you'll be busted by the FCC, or take the SSTRAN put it up 10-20' or whatever height and broadcast clean material and see how long if ever you'll get a visit... been there so I know... no need to fear the FCC they are there to help you succeed, not to take your station down if they percieve you as being in compliance. The real danger to part15 users are the NAB, local broadcasters, and the envious individual whether in your local business community or your local part15 competitor on the same frequency.

So when I said Mr. Fry has more time on his hands he should use that expertise to help maybe a high school or elementary school start a radio station, or help the community he lives in to set up their own broadcast station or assist others locally to get on the air... instead he chooses to sit in front of a computer on countless radio/hobby boards to inject his personal bias what the FCC does, if he chooses so why not join the FCC as a consultant and decide FCC policy... then there would be a reason to take Mr. Fry seriously... for now he has the right to his opinion (and they are his opinions- charts and all) and we have our rights to OUR opinions as these boards are set up for all of us to write our ideas, opinions, etc.

Radiopilot




FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
Western Region

San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, CA 92111


July 13, 2005


Overdrive Broadcasting
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001


NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION

Case Number: EB-04-
SD-198
Document Number:
W200532940002

The San Diego Office received information that an unlicensed
broadcast radio station on 1650 kHz was allegedly operating in
Flagstaff, Arizona. On May 17, 2005, agents from this office
confirmed by direction finding techniques that a radio
transmitter operating on the frequency 1650 kHz was located on
West University Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. The Commission's
records show that no license was issued for operation of a
broadcast station at this location on 1650 kHz in Flagstaff,
Arizona.

Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
§ 301. The only exception to this licensing requirement is for
certain transmitters using or operating at a power level that
complies with the standards established in Part 15 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.1 et seq. Your operation on
frequency 1650 kHz was measured at 7,400 microvolts per meter
(µV/m) at 122 meters. This exceeds the allowable unlicensed
limit of 14.5 µV/m at 30 meters established in 47 C.F.R. §
15.209(a). Thus, this station is operating in violation of 47
U.S.C. § 301.

You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting
equipment without a valid radio station authorization constitutes
a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could subject the
operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to,
substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the
offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including
imprisonment. (See 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503 and 510).

UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED
IMMEDIATELY.

You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to respond
with any evidence that you have authority to operate granted by
the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in the
letterhead and reference the listed case and document number.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we are
informing you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant
material information before it to determine what, if any,
enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with FCC
Rules. This will include any information that you disclose in
your reply.

You may contact this office if you have any questions.



William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office

 

[rfry]

.. for now he has the right to his opinion (and they are his opinions- charts and all)...

Correction: my calculations, charts and conclusions about them are drawn from, and can be proven by the physical sciences. They are not "opinions."

//

 

[rfry]

Here is a typical case of where Mr. Fry imposes what he reads onto the boards where clearly he believes a Part15 device was used for this violation, nowhere does it state the device used was a part 15 100mw transmitter or how it was grounded, etc. Could the violator have used a TIS 10 watt transmitter, a 1 watt transmitter, etc.

True - neither the FCC nor I specified the transmitter in the Flagstaff NOUO.

But William C. Walker identified it on these boards as a Part 15 certified Rangemaster.

//

 

[radiopilot]

My point indeed about Mr. Fry... It wasn't until I posted my reply above and if you look at the times posted Mr. Fry had but minutes for his rebuttal which indicates how a troll he is on these and other boards... it's a Sunday afternoon Mr. Fry... may I suggest a walk in the park, or stroll on the downtown arena, perhaps your grandchildren are pulling your arm off the keyboard to play checkers with them, what ever it is Mr. Fry SURELY there is something of greater use of your 40+ years or wisdom and expertise than to be on these and other boards constantly harrasing everyone with a slightly different opinion than yours!

Radiopilot

 

[WCWalker]

I think Fry may have his messages a bit mixed up. To the worst of my knowledge I am not acquainted with the owner or owners of Fox Sports 1650 in Flagsaff. And it is my understanding from someone that is acquainted with this station that they did not start using a Rangemaster until a couple of years ago. I don't know what transmitter Fox Sports was using in 2005 but if the information I have been given is correct, it was something else and their Rangemaster Cluster did not go on the air until late 2007.

About that time in 2005 I seem to recall we were having a discussion about Bill Blew's station in New Jersey which did have an issue with grounding and the four or five transmitter cluster. The Philly Field Office instructed him to make some changes and that he could return to the air once those changes were made. To date, that is the only case of a Rangemaster owner that I am aware as having an issue with the FCC over the ground lead. Also around that time I had received a message from another guy in the Philly area using a different transmitter that was also having the same issue over the ground lead but I don't know if he ever returned to the air.

 

[rfry]

I think Fry may have his messages a bit mixed up. To the worst of my knowledge I am not acquainted with the owner or owners of Fox Sports 1650 in Flagsaff. And it is my understanding from someone that is acquainted with this station that they did not start using a Rangemaster until a couple of years ago. I don't know what transmitter Fox Sports was using in 2005 but if the information I have been given is correct, it was something else and their Rangemaster Cluster did not go on the air until late 2007.

To refresh your memory, please refer to Reply 2 in this thread http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,18490.0.html , from which I took your statement about the Rangemaster being involved in this NOUO.

You posted it a few months after the NOUO was issued.

//