Same Old Same Old About FCC Regs.

[WCWalker]

Unless we can hear directly from the owner of Fox Sports Radio in Flagstaff, the best we can do is surmise what occurred and little else.

You won't! He does not want to get involved in the petty stuff that small fries lives for; I can you verify it's up and running tonight, as it was heard in the Home Depot parking lot tonight at 21:00 PDT. The minor ground problem was corrected immediately; to the satisfaction of the agent, end of story!


Steve
www.avnewstalk.com

As I suspected, the original issue was not one of field strength but likely a ground lead that was installed incorrectly. Contrary to what Fry says, Field Strength does not apply in these situations.

I think it is extremely important to disseminate information such as this because it can help other Part 15 AM station owners to avoid an NOUO. I don't have any interest in digging up dirt on anyone and don't report such material on my website. BTW. I am anything but a Small Fry.

 

[radioman148]

>>I am anything but a Small Fry>>

Do I dectect a pun?

 

[WCWalker]

>>I am anything but a Small Fry>>

Do I dectect a pun?

Nahhh... ;D

 

[rfry]

As I suspected, the original issue was not one of field strength but likely a ground lead that was installed incorrectly. Contrary to what Fry says, Field Strength does not apply in these situations.

What made you suspect that the Flagstaff issue was not one of field strength?

And if excessive field strength does not apply in cases where an unacceptable length of ground conductor is used, could you please explain why you attribute Flagstaff's NOUO to their ground lead, while the FCC used excessive field strength as a basis for their NOUO?

See http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html

The FCC may look at a Part 15 AM setup on an elevated mount using a long conducting path to r-f ground (something buried in the earth, typically), and conclude that this system needs to be evaluated under 15.209, where any antenna length can be used.

I think it is extremely important to disseminate information such as this because it can help other Part 15 AM station owners to avoid an NOUO.

And so do I.

//

 

[WCWalker]

As I suspected, the original issue was not one of field strength but likely a ground lead that was installed incorrectly. Contrary to what Fry says, Field Strength does not apply in these situations.

What made you suspect that the Flagstaff issue was not one of field strength?

And if excessive field strength does not apply in cases where an unacceptable length of ground conductor is used, could you please explain why you attribute Flagstaff's NOUO to their ground lead, while the FCC used excessive field strength as a basis for their NOUO?

See http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html


Sure will. See. In my case they initially claimed the Field Strength was over limit when in reality they could not get an accurate reading on it. And when the Field Office spoke to their higher ups they were instructed to ignore the Field Strength rule because it did not apply in the case of a transmitter like the USI Trans AM 100 or Rangemaster. They were told that 15.219 was the rule that governed my transmitter.

That is obviously the case with the station in Flagstaff. Steve seems quite familiar with the situation there and as a matter of fact, I know that one of the members of my own forum lives in Flagstaff and is well acquainted with the station.

So Fry, you can continue to make claims about this and that or start rumors about why an NAL or NOUO was issued but ultimately it comes down to the fact that you don't know anyone either directly or indirectly involved with these stations and you've NEVER even dealt with the FCC on this issue, like I have. Therefore anyone with an ounce of common sense is going to take what you have to say with a grain of salt, at least on the Part 15 AM issue.
The FCC may look at a Part 15 AM setup on an elevated mount using a long conducting path to r-f ground (something buried in the earth, typically), and conclude that this system needs to be evaluated under 15.209, where any antenna length can be used.

I think it is extremely important to disseminate information such as this because it can help other Part 15 AM station owners to avoid an NOUO.

And so do I.

//

 

[XRQKFM]

BTW. I am anything but a Small Fry.

Yah one Fry, is more than enough for part 15 broadcasting! Part 15 broadcaster's should count on some small fry breathing down their neck; nit picking over every aspect of your operation. It is because of those fries; as William and others can attest to; there are plenty of them out there!); you should stick with certified transmitters, if you plan on making a living out of your operation.

What made you suspect that the Flagstaff issue was not one of field strength?

The FCC inspection, was a result of a complaint filed by another radio station owner in town. A visual inspection; determined the grounding needed to be corrected. Since 1650AM, can be heard a mile and half at night from the transmitter; I suspect the change in the grounding, had a minimal impact on the signal. Since they are still operating years after the visit; I suspect the FCC, is satisfied with 1650's technical operations; no matter how often some small fry, tries to argue to the contrary.

Our commercial part 15 AM operations, are now the sole revenue source for the broadcast workshop. If the growth continues; we may be able to restore the west coast campus. I can tell you, interest in part 15 AM broadcasting is growing rapidly; traffic to our part 15 AM sites are up over 300% in the last month. Looks like the newly unemployed nae sayers, are now taking a second look at part 15 broadcasting as a revenue source. If you are a newly displaced broadcaster; part 15 broadcasting could help keep food on the table with a minimal investment.



Steve
www.radiobrandy.com

 

[rfry]

It is interesting and revealing to note that the posts in this thread that minimize / deflect / obfuscate / reject the provable engineering analyses and documents referenced in my posts here were made by the manufacturers, importers, distributors, sellers, system integrators, installers, and users all with vested interests in the sale and/or operation of unlicensed AM/FM transmit systems (regardless of the legal status of such systems).

None of those categories applies to me.

//

 

[radiopilot]

It is interesting and revealing to note that the posts in this thread that minimize / deflect / obfuscate / reject the provable engineering analyses and documents referenced in my posts here were made by the manufacturers, importers, distributors, sellers, system integrators, installers, and users all with vested interests in the sale and/or operation of unlicensed AM/FM transmit systems (regardless of the legal status of such systems).

None of those categories applies to me.

//

Since none of thise categories applies to you WHY are you on this board and countless others dispensing the bitter pill no one wants?

As you so politely mentioned "manufacturers, importers, distributors, sellers, system integrators, installers, and users all with vested interests in the sale and/or operation of unlicensed AM/FM transmit systems", Yeah... we are although I'm not anything above except a user it's in MY interest to remain so, since I'm not breaking and FCC rules and I bet there are countless others it's utter waste to frolic around this and other boards with your charts and scientific papers rolled up under your arms like my former physics professor running from one campus building to the next because he's late for class... LOL

Mr. Fry the Noble Prize for RF breakthroughs are within your reach if not at least this page is.

Radiopilot

 

[LibertyNT]

It is interesting and revealing to note that the posts in this thread that minimize / deflect / obfuscate / reject the provable engineering analyses and documents referenced in my posts here were made by the manufacturers, importers, distributors, sellers, system integrators, installers, and users all with vested interests in the sale and/or operation of unlicensed AM/FM transmit systems (regardless of the legal status of such systems).

None of those categories applies to me.

//

Aye that you Did Mr. Fry and I applaud you for finding this information.
But there are 2 different Types of part 15 Fry.
Im not here to yell at you Im here to tell you that there is the Part 15 that is Limited by field strength [i forgot what the actual term for that service is]
And then you have the Part 15 that is Limited on Antenna Height and Power. and Not By Field Strength. Although for every FCC inspection they will always take a field strength reading. And If you are unlicensed base it off Of the Field Strength version of Part 15. But if you show them your Certified transmitter they will drop that Reading and if in complete compliance leave your house to never come back.

 

[Carmine5]

Putting R. Fry's protests and finger wagging aside, this Fox 1650 Flagstaff operation is awesome.

http://www.reachoutthewindow.com/fox/

Their website is simple but slick and seamless to the Fox brand. Does Fox own this? If they're running Rangemasters, how many? Do they sell their own advertising or are they tied into an agency?

This is what a commercial part 15 station should look like. There is absolutely no hint that this is anything less than a broadcast station (which legally it is).

C5

 

[Rattan]

...here were made by the manufacturers, importers, distributors, sellers, system integrators, installers, and users...

And if you're counting Phil as manufacturer, I'd say at the least we'd also want to consider him a circuit designer and/or engineer.

Well, that's a great list for a discussion like this. Logically who else would have any interest in part15 AM BCB? I mean, landscapers and taxicab drivers (while perfectly good professions) aren't likely to have any interest in a thread like this unless they also fell in one of the groups you mentioned. Nor would people who collect commemorative beer steins. The categories you listed are logically the people one might expect to find in any discussion on part15 AM BCB matters. It's the logical interest group.

That's also part of what has made this discussion so worth following! Different viewpoints, opinions and data have been presented by people with interests in part15 for a wide variety of reasons and from diverse experience and technical background. Last time I looked, this thread had been viewed over 2000 times. It has been a great discussion, informative on many counts and from multiple sources, and obviously of interest to many people.

In all honesty, Rich, you have at least minimized in regards to some issues raised as well. Like when someone gave a firsthand account of an FCC visit where the meter reading was still reported as excessive even when the transmitter was "turned down to zero". If we're being purely objective on the matter, things like that can't be disregarded either. It sounds like either an error is somehow possible or the transmitter type in question still radiates somewhat even then turned down to theoretically no output. One has to bear in mind that someone telling what happened to them personally during an FCC visit is as much "truth" to them as any equation or analysis is to another person.

It also may have seemed to others that you also deflected or obfuscated in some instances until a point was clarified like which FCC field action you were referring to (for one example).

With a discussion involving so many people with assorted interests in the topic at hand, it's almost unavoidable that at times it may seem that anyone is being a bit less than reasonable. Especially if individuals do not agree 100% on all points (which is a common occurrence in *any* sort of discussion). I think it's almost unavoidable in a discussion like this.

But all in all, this has been one of the best discussions I've seen on the boards on the matters covered.

Kudos all around.

Daniel

 

[rfry]

Since none of thise (sic) categories applies to you WHY are you on this board and countless others dispensing the bitter pill no one wants?

Please note that the "bitter pill" you perceive that "no one wants" does not mean that such information should be ignored by others wishing to comply with Part 15.

Mr. Fry the Noble Prize for RF breakthroughs are within your reach if not at least this page is.

Note that I do NOT deserve or seek such recognition by any means.

Nobel Prizes were named after Alfred NOBEL, were they not (regardless of your sentence construction)?

//

 

[radiopilot]

Since none of thise (sic) categories applies to you WHY are you on this board and countless others dispensing the bitter pill no one wants?

Please note that the "bitter pill" you perceive that "no one wants" does not mean that such information should be ignored by others wishing to comply with Part 15.

Mr. Fry the Noble Prize for RF breakthroughs are within your reach if not at least this page is.

Note that I do NOT deserve or seek such recognition by any means.

Nobel Prizes were named after Alfred NOBEL, were they not (regardless of your sentence construction)?

//

I apologize Mr. Fry for my spelling mistakes and or sentence construction as it's late in the evening, I don't have my glasses on, and I can't find my #%&* coffee cup!

Now regarding Alfred Nobel the inventor of dynamite or is it TNT (I forget), at least here's someone that has done something useful in his lifetime!

Radiopilot

 

[WCWalker]

Open country away from potential interference causing devices. Since Part 15 stations are located in urban, suburban areas or when in rural areas. in close proximity to other Part 15 devices that give off RF and other man made interference, it makes it impossible to get an accurate reading of these devices.

The FCC typically measures the field strengths of Part 15 stations close enough to their antennas that the effects of "urban clutter" and earth conductivity on the field at that point are minimal.

And the fields the FCC measures there typically are not "borderline" out of compliance for the NOUO they issue-- they a greatly out of compliance -- more than environmental effects alone could account for.

//

As long as you want to nitpick. It appears as though you've created some grammatical and spelling errors yourself. "NOUO they issue, the word issue should be issued. And it appears as "they a" should be written "they are".

 

[XRQKFM]

this Fox 1650 Flagstaff operation is awesome.

Their website is simple but slick and seamless to the Fox brand. Does Fox own this? If they're running Rangemasters, how many? Do they sell their own advertising or are they tied into an agency?

This is what a commercial part 15 station should look like. There is absolutely no hint that this is anything less than a broadcast station (which legally it is).

C5

Fox 1650 Flagstaff, is privately owned and uses two Rangemaster transmitters; they are responsible for selling local advertising. If you have $85,000, you can take ownership of it too! Fox 1650 Flagstaff & Surfside 1640 in the Carolinas are great examples of successful commercial part 15 AM operations; and proof some clueless fries don't belong in the kitchen, telling the Chef how to prepare the meal.

Our commercial operations websites, are only advertised on the air to avoid gnats with nothing better to do than mess up someone else's successful business. The owner of Fox 1650 Flagstaff, has had to deal with
gnats for years! I have taken a cue from him and keeping a low profile on the commercial side; not giving out the exact locations to just anyone, and definitely not on the web. The non commercial side is a different matter; as there is little financial damage that can be done by a swarm of gnats of small fry nature.


Going miniature!


Steve
www.radiobrandy.com
Going miniature!

 

[rfry]

Our commercial operations websites, are only advertised on the air to avoid gnats with nothing better to do than mess up someone else's successful business. The owner of Fox 1650 Flagstaff, has had to deal withgnats for years! I have taken a cue from him and keeping a low profile on the commercial side; not giving out the exact locations to just anyone, and definitely not on the web.

Just to note that it doesn't matter whether or not a "Part 15" system is a commercially successful business, or that of a hobbyist expecting and receiving no income from such an operation.

In neither case does keeping a low public profile give much protection to the operators of alleged "Part 15" systems, if they are non-compliant with Part 15.

Per the FCC website, all it takes for the FCC to investigate such operations is to receive believable information about them, which can be sufficient grounds for the FCC to investigate them.

By various electronic methods the FCC can find the exact geographic location of the source of any transmitted r-f waveform. Such detail does not need to be available by any other means.

If the FCC determines that an unlicensed source of radiation is not compliant with Part 15, then an NOUO is rather likely.

Once again I state that I don't care how anybody wishes to operate an unlicensed "Part 15" transmission system. Neither have I reported any such to the FCC.

All I wish to provide in my posts is a "heads up" to those who may be interested, and may stand to benefit from this information.

//

 

[radiopilot]

Our commercial operations websites, are only advertised on the air to avoid gnats with nothing better to do than mess up someone else's successful business. The owner of Fox 1650 Flagstaff, has had to deal withgnats for years! I have taken a cue from him and keeping a low profile on the commercial side; not giving out the exact locations to just anyone, and definitely not on the web.

Just to note that it doesn't matter whether or not a "Part 15" system is a commercially successful business, or that of a hobbyist expecting and receiving no income from such an operation.

In neither case does keeping a low public profile give much protection to the operators of alleged "Part 15" systems, if they are non-compliant with Part 15.

Per the FCC website, all it takes for the FCC to investigate such operations is to receive believable information about them, which can be sufficient grounds for the FCC to investigate them.

By various electronic methods the FCC can find the exact geographic location of the source of any transmitted r-f waveform. Such detail does not need to be available by any other means.

If the FCC determines that an unlicensed source of radiation is not compliant with Part 15, then an NOUO is rather likely.

Once again I state that I don't care how anybody wishes to operate an unlicensed "Part 15" transmission system. Neither have I reported any such to the FCC.

All I wish to provide in my posts is a "heads up" to those who may be interested, and may stand to benefit from this information.

//

Here is another classic example of how Mr. Fry just doesn't get it... he thinks by not giving exact locations, addresses, etc. it's to avoid the FCC, I do the same I will not give out pertinent information which could be used by the small fries in the world but also the nosey pickings of the RIAA, BMI, NASCAP, or any other nitpicking agency out to get anyone broadcasting if you're not registered with them.

Then you have the envious other NAB knuckleheads with no morals also trying their best to get you off the air without warrant other than you are the competition.

Mr. Fry you are so wrong... you do care how we run our Part 15 or you wouldn't be on this and many other boards continually posting how we Part 15 operators are breaking some kind of FCC rule when in fact you are the one wrong in that assessment. You nitpick the rules to death until it 'fits' your interpretation and everyone must follow otherwise your in violation and an NOUO is in your future... it's written in your posts each time and everyone is so aware of it.

Well from the manner of the posts lately Mr.Fry it seems you're losing steam and even though I know for a full fact you are a very competent RF engineer and have a lifetime experience and knowledge to share this is one area I would refrain from until you setup a Part 15 AM with all the little ground/antenna variances and come up with your own conclusion, after all if the FCC came to vist you shouldn't your credentials alone be enough to have a very complex discussion with the FCC agent and come up with something we could all use, after all you claim the FCC agents all know how to use the FIM and are knowledgeable in all aspects of the Part 15 rules... right?

Radiopilot

 

[rfry]

Here is another classic example of how Mr. Fry just doesn't get it. ... Mr. Fry you are so wrong... etc

The statements in your reply above were not unexpected by those wishing to justify their unlicensed operations legally permitted by Part 15.

Please post any scientific or even experiential proof to support your statements, as I have done for mine.

//

 

[radiopilot]

Here is another classic example of how Mr. Fry just doesn't get it. ... Mr. Fry you are so wrong... etc

The statements in your reply above were not unexpected by those wishing to justify their unlicensed operations legally permitted by Part 15.

Please post any scientific or even experiential proof to support your statements, as I have done for mine.

//

I know you want to hook me into more of the same rebuttal after rebuttal and it's not going to happen Mr. Fry.

Accept the fact that those who run a Rangemaster, SSTRAN or any number of compliant Part 15 AM transmitters setup per the rules even if the antenna/transmission length isn't 100% what you like it to be doesn't mean they aren't legal, you may wish them to be but the NOUO's prove otherwise, be it that the FCC doesn't want to bother checking up on these installations and they are probably correct in their not doing so, the fact that FM violations are rampant as can be seen in the NOUO database means they aren't after the thousands of Part 15 AM installations.

There is no need for scientific/experiental proof and the Part 15 rules don't require such, those that must submit for a certification may have to but not the user of such devices. Sure anyone with enough time on their hands can create charts, conduct computer analysis, etc. for their own benefit and I applaud them for it, you yourself have posted many good charts but that is all they are your charts and anecdotes, it means nothing to the Part 15 user if he chooses not to use them and prefers to use what is at his disposal on the FCC website and the Part 15 rules.

You can't force feed these findings you've come up onto users of these systems... sorry if you believe otherwise.

Radiopilot

 

[Timewarp]

Let’s put this in simple English. One Twentieth of a watt is cordless telephone power.
This will not effectively serve much more than a city block. Like your cordless phone,
someone with a deluxe setup may hear you miles away. But you may have trouble next door.
If you built a part 15 AM at a school, the principal may have trouble getting a clear signal
in the office. unless he turns off the computers.