• 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

Same Old Same Old About FCC Regs.

Neil E. said:
Also, it wouldn't matter whether the system complied with 15.219 if the field strength was below the 15.209 limits.

Neil, I believe this statement would be incorrect, if the FCC gave you a visit and you had a 10 watt AM transmitter but it absolutely was running under the requirements for 15.209 radiation emission (whether by dummy load, grounding, or whatever) you would be cited for violation of Part15 rules... the input power would never under any circumstance be other than what is set fourth by Part 15.219.

Now for FM that is a whole different requirement because the rules do not state power input to the antenna only a field distance requirement so in this case you could run a 1 watt transmitter so long as the radiation met the 250uV/3m rule...

So NO fellow hobbyist do not buy that 1 watt AM transmitter expecting you'll be OK with the FCC under the requirement rule per 15.209, you'll get an NOUO for running over the power requirement for 15.219.

So in essence you'll be fine if you run a 100mw certified or uncertified transmitter whether you build it or buy it as long as it meets the Part 15.219 and the antenna/transmission meets the rule.

This scare tactic being used by Mr. Fry is another example of overzealous speculation when in fact it's not needed or required. As indicated earlier thousands of Part15 100mw transmitters are being used and the only indication of problems with the FCC stems from the NAB, local licensed broadcasters, the occasional Part 15 user competition on the same frequency, or the use of programming/language not in the interest of the community of service.

Radiopilot
 
radiopilot said:
Neil E. said:
Also, it wouldn't matter whether the system complied with 15.219 if the field strength was below the 15.209 limits.

Neil, I believe this statement would be incorrect, if the FCC gave you a visit and you had a 10 watt AM transmitter but it absolutely was running under the requirements for 15.209 radiation emission (whether by dummy load, grounding, or whatever) you would be cited for violation of Part15 rules... the input power would never under any circumstance be other than what is set fourth by Part 15.219.

Now for FM that is a whole different requirement because the rules do not state power input to the antenna only a field distance requirement so in this case you could run a 1 watt transmitter so long as the radiation met the 250uV/3m rule...

So NO fellow hobbyist do not buy that 1 watt AM transmitter expecting you'll be OK with the FCC under the requirement rule per 15.209, you'll get an NOUO for running over the power requirement for 15.219.

So in essence you'll be fine if you run a 100mw certified or uncertified transmitter whether you build it or buy it as long as it meets the Part 15.219 and the antenna/transmission meets the rule.

This scare tactic being used by Mr. Fry is another example of overzealous speculation when in fact it's not needed or required. As indicated earlier thousands of Part15 100mw transmitters are being used and the only indication of problems with the FCC stems from the NAB, local licensed broadcasters, the occasional Part 15 user competition on the same frequency, or the use of programming/language not in the interest of the community of service.

Radiopilot

Exactamundo!!!
 
I wrote:
...You can operate under either field strength limits OR 100 mW, 3 m, etc., but you are not required to meet the limits of both sections...just one or the other....

Mr. Walker replied regarding my post:
This is absolutely correct Neil.

And radiopilot responded to my post:
Neil, I believe this statement would be incorrect, if the FCC gave you a visit and you had a 10 watt AM transmitter but it absolutely was running under the requirements for 15.209 radiation emission (whether by dummy load, grounding, or whatever) you would be cited for violation of Part15 rules... the input power would never under any circumstance be other than what is set fourth by Part 15.219.

Which produced the following response from Mr. Walker:
Exactamundo!!!

Now I am confused. I do not agree with radiopilot yet it appears Mr. Walker agrees with both of us.

Neil
 
Neil. Here is what I agree with in these past couple of posts.

Transmitters like the Rangemaster, Trans AM 100 etc. that were Certified under rule 15.219 only have to meet that rule's requirements. Fry can crow until the cows come home on this issue but he's dead WRONG. 15.209 does not apply. I've already beaten this issue to death because of his inability to understand how to interpret the rules or the limitations of the FIM, thus I won't go there again.

Radio Pilot is correct when he states that you cannot operate a transmitter that exceeds one hundred milliwatts as an intentional radiator even if the field strength is allegedly at or below the limit set in rule 15.209. You CAN operate a one hundred milliwatt transmitter that exceeds the field strength limits quoted in rule 15.209.

15.219 was added for a very specific reason and if field strength did apply then it would be considered and extraneous rule and pointless to even have it in the books. What's the point in having both rules if you have to meet field strength only. If that was the case then you would be able to run a transmitter in excess of one hundred milliwatts and still be legal IF IT MET the field strength requirement. Again, that is not the case.

15.209 primarily applies to carrier current stations because they use higher power transmitters that offer a stronger signal that can be accurately read by the FIM's used by the FCC and broadcast engineers.

While yes, it may be possible for the 15.209 rule to apply to a transmitter that is not Certified under 15.219, I've yet to see anyone get shut down over the issue and as noted, only a tiny few of these NOUO's have been issued. Even then, the legality of these comes into question depending upon the transmitter used and the fact that these readings are not accurate at these power levels.
 
William Walker is correct... here's the assumption as stated by Mr. Fry... in the Procaster link it indicates that the field strength in the table is 75dbuV/m @ 10 meters and 63.4dbuV/m @10 meters which to Mr. Fry is a clear violation of the Part 15.209 rule and yet the FCC with the FCC test lab data clearly shows this unit being certified by the FCC as FCC ID: VJC-AMTX100 ... now I believe Mr. Fry this flys in your face at odds with the technical engineers and legal dept of the FCC... are you indicating they don't know what they're doing (in the case of IBOC- that answer is YES)????

Radiopilot
 
William C. Walker said:
Transmitters like the Rangemaster, Trans AM 100 etc. that were Certified under rule 15.219 only have to meet that rule's requirements. ... 15.209 does not apply.

This thread http://part15.us/node/1746 has a lot of information quoted directly from the FCC showing how they stand on the issues of Parts 15.209 and 15.219.

In it you'll find that the FCC intended systems using 15.209 and/or 15.219 as they exist now to provide similar signal strengths at similar distances. Quoting from the first post in that thread, "However, this rule" (Part 15.113 "was never intended to provide a greater operating range than the original field strength limit. The operating ranges were expected to be about equal, but improvements in efficiency were starting to result in increased range, and increased potential interference, for systems operating under Section 15.113."

Section 15.113 became Part 15.219.

FCC field inspectors probably are not obligated to check the installed transmitter to see if was Part 15 certified before they take field strength measurements 100 meters or so away from the transmit antenna. If they conclude from their measurement(s) that 15.209 limit is exceeded they may take that as all they need to issue an NOUO based on 15.209.

Then it will be up to the Part 15 operator to argue the 15.219 vs. 15.209 issues with the FCC.

//
 
R. Fry said:
William C. Walker said:
Transmitters like the Rangemaster, Trans AM 100 etc. that were Certified under rule 15.219 only have to meet that rule's requirements. ... 15.209 does not apply.

This thread http://part15.us/node/1746 has a lot of information quoted directly from the FCC showing how they stand on the issues of Parts 15.209 and 15.219.

In it you'll find that the FCC intended systems using 15.209 and/or 15.219 as they exist now to provide similar signal strengths at similar distances. Quoting from the first post in that thread, "However, this rule" (Part 15.113 "was never intended to provide a greater operating range than the original field strength limit. The operating ranges were expected to be about equal, but improvements in efficiency were starting to result in increased range, and increased potential interference, for systems operating under Section 15.113."

Section 15.113 became Part 15.219.

FCC field inspectors probably are not obligated to check the installed transmitter to see if was Part 15 certified before they take field strength measurements 100 meters or so away from the transmit antenna. If they conclude from their measurement(s) that 15.209 limit is exceeded they may take that as all they need to issue an NOUO based on 15.209.

Then it will be up to the Part 15 operator to argue the 15.219 vs. 15.209 issues with the FCC.

//

Wrong again. If this was the case it is very likely that we'd see dozens and perhaps even hundreds of NOUO's that pertain to Part 15 AM transmitters. And more specifically since it appears that these NOUO's based upon field strength are limited to only a couple of offices like the one in Philly, and they are not uniformly found in other districts, it is obvious they do not understand the rules.
 
radiopilot said:
... here's the assumption as stated by Mr. Fry... in the Procaster link it indicates that the field strength in the table is 75dbuV/m @ 10 meters and 63.4dbuV/m @10 meters which to Mr. Fry is a clear violation of the Part 15.209 rule and yet the FCC with the FCC test lab data clearly shows this unit being certified by the FCC as FCC ID: VJC-AMTX100 ..

It is unclear to me why the certifying test lab even measured field strength from the unit. Certification under 15.219 has no requirement to meet any particular field limit at the operating frequency, in the first place.

But the measurements were taken and submitted in the test report, and the analysis I posted is a logical conclusion to make from them -- except that they were made in the near-field of the Procaster antenna, which I am ignoring for now.

The FCC certification for the Procaster does not refer to the exact rules under which it can/may operate. It just states that it was issued under FCC Rule Part C, which is for intentional radiators. Part 15 C includes both 15.209 and 15.219. The FCC document is linked here http://www.chezradio.com/fcc_ican.htm .

The labeling on the outside of the Procaster transmitter shows its FCC ID number, but doesn't specify or exclude any Part 15 Rules applying to that ID number. Determining that would take further research and documentation.

//
 
R. Fry said:
The FCC certification for the Procaster does not refer to the exact rules under which it can/may operate. It just states that it was issued under FCC Rule Part C, which is for intentional radiators. Part 15 C includes both 15.209 and 15.219. The FCC document is linked here http://www.chezradio.com/fcc_ican.htm .

The labeling on the outside of the Procaster transmitter shows its FCC ID number, but doesn't specify or exclude any Part 15 Rules applying to that ID number. Determining that would take further research and documentation.

//

Mr. Fry, Part 15 Subpart C is as follows:



[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 47, Volume 1]
[Revised as of October 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 47CFR15.219]

[Page 809]

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.219 Operation in the band 510-1705 kHz.

(a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage
(exclusive of filament or heater power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts.
(b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground
lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 meters.
(c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be
attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.
Determination of compliance with the 20 dB attenuation specification may
be based on measurements at the intentional radiator's antenna output
terminal unless the intentional radiator uses a permanently attached
antenna, in which case compliance shall be deomonstrated by measuring
the radiated emissions.


Where in this instance does the reference to Part 15.209 come into play???
I believe you have a mental block going on somewhere which prevents you from understanding what you are reading!

Wait a minute Mr. Fry you are correct 'compliance shall be deomonstrated by measuring the radiated emissions' but if you read carefully it's the 'All emissions below 510 Khz and above 1705 Khz' that has got you into a whirl!

Radiopilot
 
radiopilot said:
Where in this instance does the reference to Part 15.209 come into play??? I believe you have a mental block going on somewhere which prevents you from understanding what you are reading!

My reading and comprehension skills are not the problem.

You quoted only 15.219, but Part C includes Parts 15.201 through 15.255 -- including 15.209.

See for yourself using the link below.

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr15.pdf

//
 
R. Fry said:
radiopilot said:
Where in this instance does the reference to Part 15.209 come into play??? I believe you have a mental block going on somewhere which prevents you from understanding what you are reading!

My reading and comprehension skills are not the problem.

You quoted only 15.219, but Part C includes Parts 15.201 through 15.255 -- including 15.209.

See for yourself using the link below.

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr15.pdf

//

Yes it is Mr. Fry... let's read this together if you will, you cited:



TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.201 Equipment authorization requirement.


(a) Intentional radiators operated as carrier current systems,
devices operated under the provisions of Sec. Sec. 15.211, 15.213, and 15.221, and devices operating below 490 kHz in which all emissions are at least 40 dB below the limits in Sec. 15.209 shall be verified pursuant to the procedures in Subpart J of part 2 of this chapter prior to marketing.
(b) Except as otherwise exempted in paragraph (c) of this section
and in Sec. 15.23 of this part, all intentional radiators operating
under the provisions of this part shall be certificated by the
Commission pursuant to the procedures in subpart J of part 2 of this
chapter prior to marketing.

I omitted the sections in the above not pertaining to this but anyone can look it up.

Sec 15.211 : Tunnel radio systems. (not your typical 100mw transmitter)

Sec 15.213: Cable locating equipment. (Hobbyist on 100mw transmitter have no need for this)

Sec. 15.221 Operation in the band 525-1705 kHz.
(a) Carrier current systems and transmitters employing a leaky
coaxial cable as the radiating antenna
may operate in the band 525-1705
kHz provided the field strength levels of the radiated emissions do not
exceed 15 uV/

[[Page 810]]

m, as measured at a distance of 47,715/(frequency in kHz) meters
(equivalent to Lambda/2Pi) from the electric power line or the coaxial
cable, respectively. The field strength levels of emissions outside this
band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in Sec.
15.209.
(b) As an alternative to the provisions in paragraph (a) of this
section, intentional radiators used for the operation of an AM broadcast
station on a college or university campus or on the campus of any other
education institution may comply with the following:
(1) On the campus, the field strength of emissions appearing outside
of this frequency band shall not exceed the general radiated emission
limits shown in Sec. 15.209 as measured from the radiating source.
There is no limit on the field strength of emissions appearing within
this frequency band, except that the provisions of Sec. 15.5 continue
to comply.
(2) At the perimeter of the campus, the field strength of any
emissions, including those within the frequency band 525-1705 kHz, shall
not exceed the general radiated emission in Sec. 15.209.

This is the one throwing Mr. Fry in a loop...

Then we have:

Sec 15.23: Home-built devices (We all know this infamous little rule)

Then if you read on you get:

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.215 Additional provisions to the general radiated emission limitations.

(a) The regulations in Sec. Sec. 15.217 through 15.257 provide
alternatives to the general radiated emission limits for intentional
radiators operating in specified frequency bands. Unless otherwise
stated, there are no restrictions as to the types of operation permitted
under these sections
.


This quote above is the GEM that allows Part 15.219 to stand alone without Part 15.209 requiremnts to supercede the Part 15.219 rule.



There you have it Mr. Fry... you, me, and the rest of the board can clearly read the rules as you state, now it could be I missed something but having read the rules a million times and UNDERSTANDING what I'm reading it's clear you don't have the rational to understand the rules you read.

Radiopilot
 
radiopilot said:
Subpart C_Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.221 Operation in the band 525-1705 kHz.
(a) Carrier current systems and transmitters employing a leaky
coaxial cable as the radiating antenna
may operate in the band 525-1705
kHz provided the field strength levels of the radiated emissions do not
exceed 15 uV/

[[Page 810]]

m, as measured at a distance of 47,715/(frequency in kHz) meters
(equivalent to Lambda/2Pi) from the electric power line or the coaxial
cable, respectively. The field strength levels of emissions outside this
band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in Sec.
15.209.
(b) As an alternative to the provisions in paragraph (a) of this
section, intentional radiators used for the operation of an AM broadcast
station on a college or university campus or on the campus of any other
education institution may comply with the following:
(1) On the campus, the field strength of emissions appearing outside
of this frequency band shall not exceed the general radiated emission
limits shown in Sec. 15.209 as measured from the radiating source.
There is no limit on the field strength of emissions appearing within
this frequency band, except that the provisions of Sec. 15.5 continue
to comply.
(2) At the perimeter of the campus, the field strength of any
emissions, including those within the frequency band 525-1705 kHz, shall
not exceed the general radiated emission in Sec. 15.209.

This is the one throwing Mr. Fry in a loop...

The above quote applies to carrier current and leaky cable systems, not to the use of non-campus transmitter systems operating under either Part 15.209 or 15.219.

The only connection here to Part 15.209 is for campus stations, who do not have to observe 15.209 on their campuses, but do have to observe it at the campus perimeter.

Then if you read on you get:

Sec. 15.215 Additional provisions to the general radiated emission limitations.

(a) The regulations in Sec. Sec. 15.217 through 15.257 provide
alternatives to the general radiated emission limits for intentional
radiators operating in specified frequency bands. Unless otherwise
stated, there are no restrictions as to the types of operation permitted
under these sections
.


This quote above is the GEM that allows Part 15.219 to stand alone without Part 15.209 requiremnts to supercede the Part 15.219 rule.

But an "alternative" does not necessarily mean that using the alternative will convey any operational enhancement to "the general radiation limits" permitted by 15.209.

This also is the essence of the FCC statements posted at http://part15.us/node/1746 .

//
 
R. Fry said:
The above quote applies to carrier current and leaky cable systems, not to the use of non-campus transmitter systems operating under either Part 15.209 or 15.219.

But an "alternative" does not necessarily mean that using the alternative will convey any operational enhancement to "the general radiation limits" permitted by 15.209.

This also is the essence of the FCC statements posted at http://part15.us/node/1746 .

//

Here is a classic case of where when Mr. Fry refuses to accept what he writes when you contradict him he quoted above:


My reading and comprehension skills are not the problem.

You quoted only 15.219, but Part C includes Parts 15.201 through 15.255 -- including 15.209.

See for yourself using the link below.

Yet when I start at Part 15.201 Subpart 'C' and from then on... he refuses to accept what is posted by indicating it's Carrier Current... yeah we know this, that is why I started with the section and on to the next section, etc.

Then he quotes 'The essence of The FCC statements post to Part15.us.', well guess what Mr. Fry the FCC rules posted at it's website does NOT direct the Part 15 user to the website of Part15.us now does it?

The only rules needing to be obserbed and adhered to are posted just fine at the FCC rules per Title 47 of the Regulations...

Your rant against 'alternative' per Part 15.215 isn't flying and those that read can understand the rule even if you don't.

Radiopilot
 
radiopilot said:
R. Fry said:
The above quote applies to carrier current and leaky cable systems, not to the use of non-campus transmitter systems operating under either Part 15.209 or 15.219.

But an "alternative" does not necessarily mean that using the alternative will convey any operational enhancement to "the general radiation limits" permitted by 15.209.

This also is the essence of the FCC statements posted at http://part15.us/node/1746 .

(Radiopilot} Here is a classic case of where when Mr. Fry refuses to accept what he writes when you contradict him he quoted above:

The meaning of the Radiopilot's sentence above is unclear, but readers should note that I do accept what I wrote.

OTOH, when Radiopilot was prompted by my post that FCC Part 15, Sub-part C includes more than just the reference to 15.219 that he posted, then he started writing about those other elements (see below).

Yet when I start at Part 15.201 Subpart 'C' and from then on... he refuses to accept what is posted by indicating it's Carrier Current... yeah we know this, that is why I started with the section and on to the next section, etc.

Then he quotes 'The essence of The FCC statements post to Part15.us.', well guess what Mr. Fry the FCC rules posted at it's website does NOT direct the Part 15 user to the website of Part15.us now does it?

The only rules needing to be obserbed (sic) and adhered to are posted just fine at the FCC rules per Title 47 of the Regulations...

Your rant against 'alternative' per Part 15.215 isn't flying and those that read can understand the rule even if you don't.

I'll be content at this point to let our exchanges be evaluated by readers with an open mind.

//
 
Mr. Fry, I thank you for the good debate and hope my spelling errors notwithstanding doesn't cloud the issues.

Since most Part 15 operators will do just that they will gather if and ever they get a visit, remember that if you are truly running a 100mw transmitter that meets the rules whether certified or not since the FCC does allow such (up to five I might add) and have a decent ground length (nothing ridiculus), and the 3 meter antenna, I'm almost 100% sure and would almost guarantee the FCC agent would be willing to help you STAY on the air if you correct any issues they may see be it ground lightning protection, etc.

Radiopilot
 
ok. I have had ENOUGH of this Bickering...
Fry do you or have you even OPERATED a Part 15 station? Do you have Experience with Part 15 Systems? Are you sure you know all about them? I am a Part 15 Operator. I know these rules VERY VERY well. And I will Tell you.
15.209 Has NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with 15.219!
The FCC has made this CLEAR and i mean CLEAR! If what you thought was True all Part 15 stations in AMERICA would have a bloody NOUO!!

I have ran this station for over half a year now. The FCC hasn't said a WORD!
So please admit you are WRONG. My God...
 
Half a year, huh? Wow-wee.

I think this message-writing urination contest has just been scheduled for inclusion in the Guinness Book of Records. Seems like it has been going on for at least six months. ;D
 
Ha! ;)

The R. Fry phenomenon has been going on for years. It just moves around from one forum to another. Nothing has changed. The discussion is always the same.

It ups the hit rate on the forum du jour. That's about the only good thing about it that I can think of. ???
 
Well, I've owned and operated a FCC Type Accepted Part 15 AM transmitter since 1998 and I have plenty of experience in this area.

Fry is a disruptive source who lacks any experience with this kind of transmitter or broadcasting and he has shown a rare ability to either ignore the rules as they apply to these stations or chooses to twist the actual meanings of the rules to suit his own personal agenda. He has proved that he does not even understand how the rules 15.209, 15.219 and 15.215 are interpreted and applied in this situation. This is precisely why Mr. Fry is not welcome on my Rangemaster Forum

When Fry tries to rationalize about the meaning of the word "alternative" in rule 15.215 he sounds like Bill Clinton saying "do you mean is, is? Or is, was?" Well, Fry here is the official dictionary meaning of the word "alternative" and perhaps you can now figure out the context in which it is used in this rule and how it applies to Part 15 AM.

al⋅ter⋅na⋅tive   [awl-tur-nuh-tiv, al-] Show IPA
–noun
1. a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility: You have the alternative of riding or walking.
2. one of the things, propositions, or courses of action that can be chosen: The alternative to riding is walking.
3. a possible or remaining course or choice: There was no alternative but to walk.
–adjective
4. affording a choice of two or more things, propositions, or courses of action.
5. (of two things, propositions, or courses) mutually exclusive so that if one is chosen the other must be rejected: The alternative possibilities are neutrality and war.
6. employing or following nontraditional or unconventional ideas, methods, etc.; existing outside the establishment: an alternative newspaper; alternative lifestyles.
7. Logic. (of a proposition) asserting two or more choices, at least one of which is true.
Also, alternate (for defs. 1–4, 6).

Origin:
1580–90; alternate + -ive

Related forms:
al⋅ter⋅na⋅tive⋅ly, adverb
al⋅ter⋅na⋅tive⋅ness, al⋅ter⋅na⋅tiv⋅i⋅ty, noun

Synonyms:
1. option, selection. See choice.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
Related Words for : alternative
alternate, choice, option, mutually exclusive
View more related words »

al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûr'nə-tĭv, āl-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
A situation presenting such a choice.
Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
adj.
Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things.
Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
Usage Problem Substitute or different; other.
al·ter'na·tive·ly adv.
Usage Note: Some traditionalists hold that alternative should be used only in situations where the number of choices involved is exactly two, because of the word's historical relation to Latin alter, "the other of two." Despite the word's longstanding use to mean "one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen" and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics, a substantial portion of the Usage Panel adheres to the traditional view, with only 49 percent accepting the sentence Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful. · Alternative is also sometimes used to refer to a variant or substitute in cases where there is no element of choice involved, as in We will do our best to secure alternative employment for employees displaced by the closing of the factory. This sentence is unacceptable to 60 percent of the Usage Panel. · Alternative should not be confused with alternate. Correct usage requires The class will meet on alternate (not alternative) Tuesdays.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Alternative

Al*ter"na*tive\, a. [Cf. F. alternatif.]
1. Offering a choice of two things.
2. Disjunctive; as, an alternative conjunction.
3. Alternate; reciprocal. [Obs.] --Holland.
Alternative

Al*ter"na*tive\, n. [Cf. F. alternative, LL. alternativa.]
1. An offer of two things, one of which may be chosen, but not both; a choice between two things, so that if one is taken, the other must be left.
There is something else than the mere alternative of absolute destruction or unreformed existence. --Burke.
2. Either of two things or propositions offered to one's choice. Thus when two things offer a choice of one only, the two things are called alternatives.
Having to choose between two alternatives, safety and war, you obstinately prefer the worse. --Jowett (Thucyd.).
3. The course of action or the thing offered in place of another.
If this demand is refused the alternative is war. --Lewis.
With no alternative but death. --Longfellow.
4. A choice between more than two things; one of several things offered to choose among.
My decided preference is for the fourth and last of these alternatives. --Gladstone.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source
Language Translation for : alternative
Spanish: alternativo, German: alternativ,
Japanese: 代りの
More Translations »
alternative

adjective
1. serving or used in place of another; "an alternative plan" [syn: alternate]
2. necessitating a choice between mutually exclusive possibilities; "alternative possibilities were neutrality or war"
3. pertaining to unconventional choices; "an alternative life style"

noun
1. one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen; "what option did I have?"; "there no other alternative"; "my only choice is to refuse" [syn: option]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source

Main Entry: 1al·ter·na·tive
Pronunciation: ol-'t&r-n&-tiv, al-
Function: adjective
1 : ALTERNATE 1
2 : offering or expressing a choice alternative contract> —see also alternative pleading at PLEADING 1b
3 : existing or functioning outside the established system; also : different from the usual or conventional <alternative sentencing>

Main Entry: 2alternative
Function: noun
1 : a proposition or situation offering a choice between two or more things only one of which may be chosen
2 a : one of two or more things, courses, or propositions to be chosen b : something which can be chosen instead—in the alternative 1 : for or as an alternative in the alternative, damages of $20,000> in the alternative>
2 : in such a way that offers a choice in the alternative…may be demanded —Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)> in the alternative>
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source
alternative

pop music style, built on distorted guitars and rooted in generational discontent, that dominated and changed rock between 1991 and 1996. It burst into the mainstream when "Smells Like Teen Spirit"-the first major-label single from Nirvana, a trio based in Seattle, Washington, U.S.-became a national hit. Suddenly, older, difficult, and even anarchic movements, as well as a previous decade of do-it-yourself college rock, acquired a flashy beachhead on pop radio.

Learn more about alternative with a free trial on Britannica.com.
 
William C. Walker said:
Well, Fry here is the official dictionary meaning of the word "alternative" and perhaps you can now figure out the context in which it is used in this rule and how it applies to Part 15 AM. etc

In this context the statements of the FCC as linked/quoted in reply #125 in this thread are the most appropriate source for the definition.

Edit: Also note that walking vs. riding may apply to travel to the same destination.

//
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom