|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 21, 2017 23:17:21 GMT
OCarl, I think you misinterpret my views. I'm all for petitioning for change and believe it's a reasonable request.. I think I just discussed this in the past week or so. 30 years ago 15.209 probably had potential close to what 15.219 does today with our excessive noise floor that didn't exist back then.. In the early 70s the FCC first amended in the ground lead and then softly after almost abolished 15.219 for manufactured devices because even without any radiated ground it was getting way too much range..
I often wonder how well the transmitters legally got out back in the 70s, there's no doubt it had to be a lot better than now.
Rule changes are needed simply to compensate for the airwaves pollution we have now.
LPB managed to potion a relaxation of the rules and even have a new rule created for part 15 campus broadcasting.
Less than a year ago ISS (I think it was them, I forget) petitioned to lift the 5khz limit and got it, now TIS systems don't half to sound like crap again.. Some other company petitioned last year for a relaxation of some other unlicensed bands and got it (I forget who or what, maybe microwave or ip or something, I don't recall off the top of my head, but they got it.. Search the FCC for "unlicensed", there have been several amendments granted in recent years..
I feel like someone like ISS could be effective in petitioning for part 15 amendments - because they are legitimate.. I just don't suspect that niche group of part15 hobbyist who intermingle with pirate associates publicly won't play out too well filing a petition for relaxation and amendments to the rules. HB might even be able to get some traction, even though there is an observable sense of part15 being "questionable due to public perceptions.
Again, this all comes back to the importance of maintaining distinction between part15 and pirate.
TIS stations were part15 until a mew rule was created for them in 1976
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 21, 2017 23:33:51 GMT
Incidentally, I will be posting on my blog soon about those TIS stations of the early 1970 which operated part15 before the TIS got their own rule. I just spent a few weeks researching it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 23:57:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by radiodugger on Mar 22, 2017 0:10:49 GMT
Doug, I don't particularly have a problem with you, but I am bothered a great deal by your activity at part15.us, such as: (1) promotion of illegal activity, insinuating us to be suckers for trying to abide by the regulations, (2) expressions of snubbing the FCC, and any actions which directly or indirectly are detrimental to the hobby of legal unlicensed broadcasting. (3) that includes poking at open wounds between hobbybroadcaster.net and part15.us like you did with the lift and paste...which you very well knew would make things worse.. and you did it just as when there were indications of thing getting a little better between the only two part15 websites on the whole internet.. (4) It's not about copy and paste, that kind of thing is common practice everywhere, but in this particular situation you know damn well you did it as a stab. (5) Part 15 hobbyist need to be more united. You and some others have been putting an air of piracy into the part15.us forum, and that is what bothers me a lot. Other than all that, I have no problem with you. (1) insinuating you to be suckers for trying to abide by the regulations? Me? I never said that, nor implied it. (2) Yeah, guilty. I am NOT a fan of the FCC. (3) You think I did that deliberately?? I cut & paste useful info from Keith Hamilton that all current and future Rangemaster owners need to know! OK< bad timing, I agree, but never, EVER claim to know my intentions, which were honorable. Make things WORSE? Ha! Bill seems to do fine with that himself! I think he needs therapy... (4) I did? So, I know DAMN WELL, do I? How do you know what my intentions were? This needs to stop. You really killed your credibility there, my friend. And be careful pointing a finger. You have THREE pointing BACK at YOU! LOL! (5) That, we can agree on! An air of Piracy...ARRR and beGARR, me hearties! A bit of rum and a ho HO! ARRrrr... Doug |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 22, 2017 7:54:04 GMT
Ok.. Perhaps I'm being too quick to lump you in as part of some of (what I sincerely consider) a big problem, but if I'm mistaken it's because of your general overall tone. But as for the infringement on HB.. All that area is so starkly obvious that I can't perceive how it could possibly have been anything other an intentional action of spite and insult... What's more, you have a tendency of spewing some of the most extreme and vicious insults directly about Bill that I've ever heard, so that inclines me to believe intentions.
But ok, perhaps I am a little offbase, it's not like I haven't perceived things incorrectly before. I'll give the whole mess the benefit of the doubt for the time being.. You call things the way you see it, and I call it the way I see..
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 22, 2017 8:21:39 GMT
Thanks for the link, I downloaded it. Not sure if I heard this episode before but am sure I'll enjoy it. I have gained a lot of interest about ISS anyway and admire what they do.
As for my particular TIS interest, it was specifically about the old TIS/HAR systems of the early 1970s which were part15 before they ever had their own rules of operation. I can essentially prove that those transmitters were the specific reason that the ground lead got written into the three meters, and lot's of other interesting tidbits. But along the way I learned slot about TIS operations in general that I thought fascinating... or at least kind of cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by mighty1650 on Mar 22, 2017 12:12:08 GMT
Silence isn't necessarily an indicator of people being okay with what is being said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Mar 22, 2017 12:16:40 GMT
Incidentally, I will be posting on my blog soon about those TIS stations of the early 1970 which operated part15 before the TIS got their own rule. I just spent a few weeks researching it. I have been following your posts on HB. Very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 22, 2017 12:29:37 GMT
Silence isn't necessarily an indicator of people being okay with what is being said. What do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 22, 2017 12:38:44 GMT
Incidentally, I will be posting on my blog soon about those TIS stations of the early 1970 which operated part15 before the TIS got their own rule. I just spent a few weeks researching it. I have been following your posts on HB. Very interesting. I think so too, but it's surprising how sparse the information is concerning it. If my Google book request of making those two restricted views of documentations viewable it should reveal more, but even if it doesn't -- the "snippets" alone combined with other info reveals a world of insight into the situations back then and I believe my conclusions are pretty accurate in relation to part15. It still needs to be pieced together a little better though. |
|
|
|
Post by mighty1650 on Mar 22, 2017 14:00:55 GMT
Silence isn't necessarily an indicator of people being okay with what is being said. What do you mean? That was in response to this: |
|
|
|
Post by radiodugger on Mar 22, 2017 17:43:33 GMT
I understand, Mighty. Point taken.
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by radiodugger on Mar 22, 2017 17:45:29 GMT
Incidentally, I will be posting on my blog soon about those TIS stations of the early 1970 which operated part15 before the TIS got their own rule. I just spent a few weeks researching it. I have been following your posts on HB. Very interesting. Druid..you told us you were BLOCKED! Did you get around that? Doug |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 17:58:08 GMT
I can answer that, as Druid might not care to. It doesn't particularly bother me whether I continue to have access to the HB site (my main IP is blocked as well).
You can use routers to block access for a single or groups of IP addresses, but that isn't infallible. Different ISP's have different blocks of IP addresses assigned to them. So you need block every ISP in a certain geographic location, and sometimes that isn't practical. Besides, all you have to do to get around that is to access the site from a different location.
Then there are software solutions. You can block VPN's & TOR through various services (the addresses of VPN's are known, and TOR, although a private network, requires exit nodes, whose IP addresses are known). Because VPN servers are added all the time, and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of VPN service providers, that isn't an infallible method.
Then there is the information carried along in various levels of the TCP/IP protocol, which can allow websites to identify you. That's pretty sophisticated, and I think that, at best, a simplistic approach is generally used. Using a different, unknown (to the website) device easily gets around that.
Blocking IP's of readers is usually not worth the effort it takes. Unless, of course, you're running a top secret, classified web site with restricted readership. At best, anybody who does it for a hobby site is suffering from delusions of grandeur.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiodugger on Mar 22, 2017 18:26:53 GMT
Blocking IP's of readers is usually not worth the effort it takes. Unless, of course, you're running a top secret, classified web site with restricted readership. At best, anybody who does it for a hobby site is suffering from delusions of grandeur.Nicely put, David! Good then. I heartily approve!  Doug |
|
