• 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

You don't want to hear this leave Part 15 be.

R

radio8z

Hello all,

The fact is that part 15 rules allow intentional transmission subject to certain technical constraints. The reason for these restraints is to allow for personal use of the airwaves, ie, what were known in the old days as phono oscillators. Phono oscillators were invented because of costs associated with including amplifiers and speakers in record players. The assumption was that people had radios and could use them to listen to their records at much less cost than a player with amplifiers and speakers could command.

I have been reading the rules and using Part 15 AM since 1959. I seem to understand the original intent...namely to allow individuals to broadcast to their own receivers on their own property. The rules were well written by technically knowledgeable people to allow for personal use, and the restrictions you now face were designed to make community broadcasting unfeasable.

Through very clever means, many have achieved enough range that I believe goes beyond the original intent of Part 15. There is now talk about more power, more antenna length, more range, licenses. Folks, in your pursuit for more range with FCC blessing you are just going to ruin it for people like me who just want to wander around my modest 1/2 acre property and listen to what I transmit.

I have seen proposals about more power. What are you trying to do? Obviously, increase your range. Why?

If you see a real community need, why don't you pursue a real broadcasting license with a real antenna and real power? If you cannot get a license, then ask why. Don't try to make Part 15 something it is not and thus ruin it for people such as I.

Even those who did not grow up on a farm should understand that you do not pull the tail of a bull. That's what you are doing with your letters to the FCC. The rules for Part 15 have not been made less restrictive since I first started paying attention, and I can predict that they will not be relaxed now. If anything, they will change to eliminate all Part 15 intentional radiation. Keep a low profile on this. You will not like the outcome if you pursue it, and neither will I.

Neil
 
> Hello all,
>
> The fact is that part 15 rules allow intentional
> transmission subject to certain technical constraints. The
> reason for these restraints is to allow for personal use of
> the airwaves, ie, what were known in the old days as phono
> oscillators. Phono oscillators were invented because of
> costs associated with including amplifiers and speakers in
> record players. The assumption was that people had radios
> and could use them to listen to their records at much less
> cost than a player with amplifiers and speakers could
> command.
>
> I have been reading the rules and using Part 15 AM since
> 1959. I seem to understand the original intent...namely to
> allow individuals to broadcast to their own receivers on
> their own property. The rules were well written by
> technically knowledgeable people to allow for personal use,
> and the restrictions you now face were designed to make
> community broadcasting unfeasable.
>
> Through very clever means, many have achieved enough range
> that I believe goes beyond the original intent of Part 15.
> There is now talk about more power, more antenna length,
> more range, licenses. Folks, in your pursuit for more range
> with FCC blessing you are just going to ruin it for people
> like me who just want to wander around my modest 1/2 acre
> property and listen to what I transmit.
>
> I have seen proposals about more power. What are you trying
> to do? Obviously, increase your range. Why?
>
> If you see a real community need, why don't you pursue a
> real broadcasting license with a real antenna and real
> power? If you cannot get a license, then ask why. Don't
> try to make Part 15 something it is not and thus ruin it for
> people such as I.
>
> Even those who did not grow up on a farm should understand
> that you do not pull the tail of a bull. That's what you
> are doing with your letters to the FCC. The rules for Part
> 15 have not been made less restrictive since I first started
> paying attention, and I can predict that they will not be
> relaxed now. If anything, they will change to eliminate all
> Part 15 intentional radiation. Keep a low profile on this.
> You will not like the outcome if you pursue it, and neither
> will I.
>
> Neil
>
Man,,,,,,, Would you put a sock in it already? What are you trying to do, and what is your problem with People who want to use their Hobby to serve their community? And if no one can here (YOUR) station, what do (YOU) ever have to worry about anyway, The FCC cant bust you, if they cant here you.....CORRECT???
 
Man,,,,,,, Would you put a sock in it already? What are you trying to do, and what is your problem with People who want to use their Hobby to serve their community? And if no one can here (YOUR) station, what do (YOU) ever have to worry about anyway, The FCC cant bust you, if they cant here you.....CORRECT???

Hello,

Thanks for your reply.

What is it that I should "put a sock in"?

You wrote: "The FCC cant bust you, if they cant here you.....CORRECT???"

No. Not correct. I have an amateur license and I can be inspected without warrant because I signed the 610 form agreeing to inspections. If I operate illegally out of band, I will not just be asked to turn off my transmitter and all will be well. I will lose my license and be fined.

Read my post again. I do not care if anyone is listening to my "station"!

You wrote "what is your problem with People who want to use their Hobby to serve their community?". I have no problem with this. My point is don't expect the FCC to change the rules favorably just because someone claims to "serve their community". If some are serving their community, great!

You also wrote: "What are you trying to do?". I am trying to just keep part 15 as it is for the legal use it provides.

Neil
 
>
Neil, I tend to agree with most of your obversations
including the last statement about not making a fuss
about changing the rules as they stand. However there
was some interest in providing an outlet to experminters
in the beginning of the P15 rulemaking which is evident in the
homebrew section and the ownership and operation of up
to 5 such units. So that and complete lack of type of
programming stipulation has opened the door to possible
limited commericial/noncommericial comunity broadcasting.

I think the LPAM proposal is where all efforts ought to
be placed. We need technical and political allies to
make this have a chance for success. I think that we
need to be open minded about this even accepting a part
of the spectum that present broadcast receivers can't receive.
This might get us out of the QRM quadmire that the AM band
has become and will get worst with so called digital
transmission. I'm thinking in terms of cheap microchip
converters that could transfer these transmissions into
1710 Khz. Sounds too technical and impossible? Consider
that Linux was also given the same write-off 10 years ago.
The same idea could apply to the FM band. The basic idea is
to say to the NAB that we don't even want to mess with your
band, just give us a place to go..and watch us grow.

JohnA
 
Reply to JohnA

Hi John,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Yes, Linux is good. But it is not regulated. The problem with radio is that the highway has one lane. We cannot build more lanes if we need them. I disagree that Part 15 was established for experimenters. That is what amateur radio is for.

I hope my original post generates some thought. I would hope that those who desire to serve a community need find some venue other than Part 15. It just won't work as it is. I believe it is not realistic to think that the rules are going to be changed in a favorable manner.

I could and would support a separate LPAM service. I believe, however, if licensing is involved, most would be left out. If no licensing, then there will be chaos. Just don't make try to include this in part 15.

I ask "what is it that your are trying to do?". Broadcast to the community? Great, but part 15 rules really block this. Multiple transmitters and the various other workarounds are interesting, but I still don't think it is workable. I live in a suburban area, and I have never heard or heard of a part 15 station "serving my community".

Ask yourself "what is it that I want to do?". If, like me, the technology is a challenge, get a ham license and work the world with 1000 watts. You just can't broadcast. If, also like me, you just want to listen to your own programming in your own house or yard, then part 15 is great.

Neil
 
> Hello all,
>
>
> I have seen proposals about more power. What are you trying
> to do? Obviously, increase your range. Why?
>
> If you see a real community need, why don't you pursue a
> real broadcasting license with a real antenna and real
> power? If you cannot get a license, then ask why.


Neil:

I spent 24 years in broadcasting, all at AM stations. Here's what I said,
in part of my comments to the Commission:

..."I have also attempted to buy licensed AM stations twice, only to watch the price soar to absolutely unreachable amounts, for small facilities in poor
condition, that could never earn back a fraction of the asking price in this particular market. So, I had pretty much given up on that dream forever."

I'm probably not the only one on this board that this has happened to..

And the current operators don't give a hoot about the listeners. My comments
there are even more blunt:

..."The current AM band is struggling. (The total AM share in my area is 4.8).
In this market, out of the stations that I can pick up, three right here in town and two out-of-town signals belong to facilities that appear to have no more involvement than an automated legal ID at the top of the hour. If you were to visit them (as I have)I believe you would find a locked building with a satellite dish and/or a computer keeping it on the air. In my book, that is not what the "airwaves belong to the public" statement intended."

My comments are way too long to post in their entirety.

Don't
> try to make Part 15 something it is not and thus ruin it for
> people such as I.
>
> Even those who did not grow up on a farm should understand
> that you do not pull the tail of a bull. That's what you
> are doing with your letters to the FCC. The rules for Part
> 15 have not been made less restrictive since I first started
> paying attention, and I can predict that they will not be
> relaxed now. If anything, they will change to eliminate all
> Part 15 intentional radiation. Keep a low profile on this.
> You will not like the outcome if you pursue it, and neither
> will I.
>
> Neil
>


The outcome in this market couldn't be any worse. I do underatsnd your point, and it is well taken. My Part-15 has done well. It has somewhat of an audience,
but streaming gets WAY more listeners.

I did have 3 issues with the petition that I addressed, namely power levels,
need for some type of commercial/revenue source and programing.

I might add that some of the big boys knew about the station. CC bought time on it for a gospel concert because none of the 5 stations in their cluster targeted that particular market!

What I don't know is, if LPAMs and Part-15s can peacefully co-exist together.<P ID="signature">______________
Proudly remembering the days of the hometown "country giant" radio stations now at
http://www.live365.com/stations/alanmccall</P>
 
Reply to Radioboy

Radioboy,

Thanks for your response. You have and are living the life.

What struck me in your post was your comment about LPAM coexisting with part 15 AM.

I don't see it happening. Part 15 AM does and will always be subject to interference from licensed stations. I would like to see a LPAM service separate from part 15.

The issue I see is that there will be competition and, to put it bluntly, fights for licenses. Money and influence will prevail.

My best wishes to you if you reenter broadcasting and struggle in this environment. I have fond memories of radio in the 50's and 60' but those days are gone.

Neil
 
Neil is right (Re: You don't want to hear this leave Part 15 be.)

Hello All,

I agree with Neil on this issue. Part 15 AM and LPAM should remain two separate legal entities. I support an LPAM service as long as the rules that are adopted prevent interference, allow commercial LPAM stations, *and* keep LPAM stations from becoming just another set of satellators broadcasting canned, non-local content.

Part 15 AM should remain as it is. It was originally instituted to allow the low-cost AM phonograph oscillators as Neil wrote, and it has since grown to encompass limited-area commercial broadcasting for realtors and other businesses ( www.talkinghouse and www.talkingsign ) and non-commercial broadcasting for public facilities such as parks, museums, marinas, and schools ( www.theradiosource.com/products-infomax.htm ). These Part 15 AM transmitters (and their remote outdoor antenna systems) enjoy the FCC's approval, and skilled and diligent operators can use them to achieve significant ranges without breaking the rules. Asking for higher permitted unlicensed power levels is tantamount to turning the AM broadcast band into another CB radio band--does anyone *really* want that? -- JasonW
 
Re: Neil is right (Re: You don't want to hear this leave Part 15 be.)

Hi Jason,

Glad to know that I am not the only "nut" out there.

I may have a spare sock. Do you want it?

Neil
 
Re: Neil is right (Re: You don't want to hear this leave Part 15 be.)

> Hi Jason,
>
> Glad to know that I am not the only "nut" out there.
>
> I may have a spare sock. Do you want it?
>
> Neil

I appreciate the offer, but I have plenty of extra, well-worn ones for playing "tug-'o-war" with my neighbor's dog. :) -- JasonW
 
Here's my 2 cents
I think that the origional intent of part 15 was different then what it is now but things change, technology changes, society needs change. I would think the FCC would want to best serve the public using their limited resources the best they can. If turning the old Part 15 AM section rule (15.219) into more of a LPAM allowance serves everyone then why not.
 
> Here's my 2 cents
> I think that the origional intent of part 15 was different
> then what it is now but things change, technology changes,
> society needs change. I would think the FCC would want to
> best serve the public using their limited resources the best
> they can. If turning the old Part 15 AM section rule
> (15.219) into more of a LPAM allowance serves everyone then
> why not.
>
Hello Keith,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall in the 50's and 60's there were many AM stations operating with 100W to 500W power. Some of the proposals I read here are talking about this power range. Should this be part15 or should it be reincarnated broadcast regulations?

True, things change. I think an appropriate response will be to write a new section of FCC rules to cover the expanded service proposed. My concern, which I tried to convey in my original post here, is that if Part 15 is opened for modification, then it is very likely that it will be written to eliminate "phono oscillators". I have no objection to what has been mention as higher power "community" and expanded range broadcasting, but I do not see this happening without license/regulation rules, and a subsequent feeding frenzy where some win and most lose. If licenses are required to permit this under part15, then what becomes of unlicensed operation?

Regards,

Neil
 
> Hello all,
>
> The fact is that part 15 rules allow intentional
> transmission subject to certain technical constraints. The
> reason for these restraints is to allow for personal use of
> the airwaves, ie, what were known in the old days as phono
> oscillators. Phono oscillators were invented because of
> costs associated with including amplifiers and speakers in
> record players. The assumption was that people had radios
> and could use them to listen to their records at much less
> cost than a player with amplifiers and speakers could
> command.
>
> I have been reading the rules and using Part 15 AM since
> 1959. I seem to understand the original intent...namely to
> allow individuals to broadcast to their own receivers on
> their own property. The rules were well written by
> technically knowledgeable people to allow for personal use,
> and the restrictions you now face were designed to make
> community broadcasting unfeasable.
>

The FCC recently opened a rulemaking that would allow power companies to put broadband Internet onto their wires nationwide. This would make it possible to create a wired wireless Broadband system almost anywhere that is on the power grid.

The system will be entirely unlicensed, using Part 15 rules. Since the Internet was much less "developed" in 1959, it would be fair to say that the use of Part 15 devices has evolved as the technology has evolved.

I also note that TV is now in color and they cancelled "Leave it to Beaver."

Parhaps we need to abandon our quaint childhood grasp of what is real and good, and instead grab on tight to what's needed right now.


-Dick
 
BPL and other interference.

> The FCC recently opened a rulemaking that would allow power
> companies to put broadband Internet onto their wires
> nationwide. This would make it possible to create a wired
> wireless Broadband system almost anywhere that is on the
> power grid.
>
> The system will be entirely unlicensed, using Part 15 rules.
> Since the Internet was much less "developed" in 1959, it
> would be fair to say that the use of Part 15 devices has
> evolved as the technology has evolved.
>
> I also note that TV is now in color and they cancelled
> "Leave it to Beaver."
>
> Parhaps we need to abandon our quaint childhood grasp of
> what is real and good, and instead grab on tight to what's
> needed right now.
>
>
> -Dick
>
Thanks for your thoughts Dick. Yes,I do hold on to quaint memories. They contribute to my understanding of where things are going just as the study of history does.

I believe you are referring to the BPL power line system. My understanding is that where deployed for testing this is creating serious interference problems in the shortwave broadcast and amateur bands. Also the IBOC system is triggering complaints from BCB listeners and DXers.

It appears that in implementing our modern technology, we are making the radio spectrum less useful for old technologies. I wonder if you or anyone else here sees analog AM and FM going away, such as is happening with VSB TV.

When TV goes all digital, there will be a tremendous amount of spectrum freed. Maybe the new technology can go there.

Neil
 
Re: BPL and other interference.

> > The FCC recently opened a rulemaking that would allow
> power
> > companies to put broadband Internet onto their wires
> > nationwide. This would make it possible to create a wired
> > wireless Broadband system almost anywhere that is on the
> > power grid.
> >
> > The system will be entirely unlicensed, using Part 15
> rules.
> > Since the Internet was much less "developed" in 1959, it
> > would be fair to say that the use of Part 15 devices has
> > evolved as the technology has evolved.
> >
> > I also note that TV is now in color and they cancelled
> > "Leave it to Beaver."
> >
> > Parhaps we need to abandon our quaint childhood grasp of
> > what is real and good, and instead grab on tight to what's
>
> > needed right now.
> >
> >
> > -Dick
> >
> Thanks for your thoughts Dick. Yes,I do hold on to quaint
> memories. They contribute to my understanding of where
> things are going just as the study of history does.
>
> I believe you are referring to the BPL power line system.
> My understanding is that where deployed for testing this is
> creating serious interference problems in the shortwave
> broadcast and amateur bands. Also the IBOC system is
> triggering complaints from BCB listeners and DXers.
>
> It appears that in implementing our modern technology, we
> are making the radio spectrum less useful for old
> technologies. I wonder if you or anyone else here sees
> analog AM and FM going away, such as is happening with VSB
> TV.
>
> When TV goes all digital, there will be a tremendous amount
> of spectrum freed. Maybe the new technology can go there.
>
> Neil
>


They have discussed broadband in the upper 700 Mhz band.
 
Re: Reply to Radioboy

> Radioboy,
>
> Thanks for your response. You have and are living the life.
>
>
> What struck me in your post was your comment about LPAM
> coexisting with part 15 AM.
>
> I don't see it happening. Part 15 AM does and will always
> be subject to interference from licensed stations. I would
> like to see a LPAM service separate from part 15.
>
> The issue I see is that there will be competition and, to
> put it bluntly, fights for licenses. Money and influence
> will prevail.
>
> My best wishes to you if you reenter broadcasting and
> struggle in this environment. I have fond memories of radio
> in the 50's and 60' but those days are gone.
>
> Neil
>

Neil,

Thank you for the kind words. You're right, it is an absolute struggle!

On a different note, my guest article, "Recreating the Sound of the Hometown Country Giant," is scheduled to be published in the Nov. 23 Radio World.
It deals more with programming than engineering.

They're requested, and I have provided them with, a picture of my station's
studios. It's the real deal, with turntables, Spotmaster cart machines, a TEAC reel-to-reel and a Cetec/Sparta audio board. Of course, it also has CD players
and now, a streaming computer..but the pic focuses on the more unique older
items. You might find this interesting.

The stuios is not just for looks..you can listen at the link in the signature below.

Kindest regards,

radioboy
<P ID="signature">______________
Proudly remembering the days of the hometown "country giant" radio stations now at
http://www.live365.com/stations/alanmccall</P>
 
Re: BPL and other interference.

> > > The FCC recently opened a rulemaking that would allow
> > power
> > > companies to put broadband Internet onto their wires
> > > nationwide. This would make it possible to create a
> wired
> > > wireless Broadband system almost anywhere that is on the
>
> > > power grid.
> > >
> > > The system will be entirely unlicensed, using Part 15
> > rules.
> > > Since the Internet was much less "developed" in 1959, it
>
> > > would be fair to say that the use of Part 15 devices has
>
> > > evolved as the technology has evolved.
> > >
> > > I also note that TV is now in color and they cancelled
> > > "Leave it to Beaver."
> > >
> > > Parhaps we need to abandon our quaint childhood grasp of
>
> > > what is real and good, and instead grab on tight to
> what's
> >
> > > needed right now.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Dick
> > >
> > Thanks for your thoughts Dick. Yes,I do hold on to quaint
>
> > memories. They contribute to my understanding of where
> > things are going just as the study of history does.
> >
> > I believe you are referring to the BPL power line system.
>
> > My understanding is that where deployed for testing this
> is
> > creating serious interference problems in the shortwave
> > broadcast and amateur bands. Also the IBOC system is
> > triggering complaints from BCB listeners and DXers.
> >
> > It appears that in implementing our modern technology, we
> > are making the radio spectrum less useful for old
> > technologies. I wonder if you or anyone else here sees
> > analog AM and FM going away, such as is happening with VSB
>
> > TV.
> >
> > When TV goes all digital, there will be a tremendous
> amount
> > of spectrum freed. Maybe the new technology can go there.
>
> >
> > Neil
> >
>
>
> They have discussed broadband in the upper 700 Mhz band.
>
Hi,

That was probably for what is called mesh networking. If you are interested, this site:
http://www.qrz.com/directory.cgi
has lots of information and discussions about BPL, etc.

Neil
 
Re: Reply to Radioboy

> > Radioboy,
> >
> > Thanks for your response. You have and are living the
> life.
> >
> >
> > What struck me in your post was your comment about LPAM
> > coexisting with part 15 AM.
> >
> > I don't see it happening. Part 15 AM does and will always
>
> > be subject to interference from licensed stations. I
> would
> > like to see a LPAM service separate from part 15.
> >
> > The issue I see is that there will be competition and, to
> > put it bluntly, fights for licenses. Money and influence
> > will prevail.
> >
> > My best wishes to you if you reenter broadcasting and
> > struggle in this environment. I have fond memories of
> radio
> > in the 50's and 60' but those days are gone.
> >
> > Neil
> >
>
> Neil,
>
> Thank you for the kind words. You're right, it is an
> absolute struggle!
>
> On a different note, my guest article, "Recreating the Sound
> of the Hometown Country Giant," is scheduled to be published
> in the Nov. 23 Radio World.
> It deals more with programming than engineering.
>
> They're requested, and I have provided them with, a picture
> of my station's
> studios. It's the real deal, with turntables, Spotmaster
> cart machines, a TEAC reel-to-reel and a Cetec/Sparta audio
> board. Of course, it also has CD players
> and now, a streaming computer..but the pic focuses on the
> more unique older
> items. You might find this interesting.
>
> The stuios is not just for looks..you can listen at the link
> in the signature below.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> radioboy
>

Radioboy,

I look forward to seeing your article.

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


Back
Top Bottom