Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 12:34:59 GMT
An Open Letter to the Federal Communications Commission
Over the years many radio hobbyists, HAMS, station engineers and others have said "The FCC reads these forums!"
That being the case, we have the advantage of being able to speak directly to the officials responsible for the rules under which we operate.
In this thread Members of the ALPB and all Forum Members are able to address their wishes and pleas to the people in power.
What do we want? More field strength allowance on certain bands? Dedicated hobby frequencies? Opening of new frequencies on new bands?
Say it here.
Be sure to spell-check carefully and maybe wear a suit and tie.
|
|
|
|
Post by part15engineer on Mar 25, 2017 12:50:58 GMT
if the AM band ever gets decommissioned for licensed AM Broadcasting i would like to see it split up between part 15'ers, some sort of licensed LPAM Service and TIS/HAR stations.
maybe put the TIS/HAR on 535 to 1605, licensed LPAM (20 Watts TPO into 15m Antenna) from 1605 to 1655 and some sort of expanded unlicensed part 15 AM (1 Watt with 15m Antenna) from 1655 to 1715
just a suggestion if the AM band is to some day be decommissioned for high power AM Broadcasting.
let's get it right this time around.
this country lags behind other first world industrialized countries with everything from healthcare to low power broadcasting. lets start to correct that and become a world leader again.
|
|
|
|
Post by station8 on Mar 25, 2017 14:15:07 GMT
Howdy all: Here is my out input. Don't let this upset or offend you guys ! I'm giving it to you straight from my experience !
Part 15'engineer and others you really need to think about what you said before speaking.
1) We need more frequency use then you asked for, You ask why, here it is in a nut shell there going to be issue if more part 15
Operators are in the same area are and could run into an issue of creating interference to each other you might think
It Won't happen but it could but you guys need to open your eye and look into the future.
2) Other issues let's just say the bands pretty full and you found a clear spot,but later for example a tis station went on the air
At 1600 khz and your freq you found is 1610khz and both of you are close to each other and the rest of the part 15 band
Is full of weak and strong station now whats going to happen to you, your out of luck !
3) If your going to split the band up you need to be more equal in it !
4) Now I see you guys want MORE IMPROVEMENT,But you ask for for slight changes that is not good I can
Tell you from experience from being in the army your waisting your and the FCC time your better asking
For what you want up front and you and the FCC can fine tune your improvement out better later !
In my testing what the new radio revolution is asking for improvement is more cents !
I could talk about more, But not enough room here could talk about on team speak if you want !
Don't let this offend you guys I'm just letting you know what I know personally from
Checking and doing the research !
Just so you guys know I called the FCC talk to them and told them what I'm doing and they did NOT have an
Issue with me at all they treated me great and the fcc where great to talk to !
I do believe I can say what I did because I got guts, How many of you guys called the FCC and talk to them
Straight out, but respectfull.
Have a great day
Station 8
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Mar 25, 2017 15:14:53 GMT
So you actually called the FCC and told them you want more power and a frequency for hobbyists?
What was the response?
Glad to hear you are actually doing something instead of talking about it for 1 1/2 years.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Mar 25, 2017 19:19:37 GMT
I have talked about this numerous times both in the elite section of our board the new radio revolutions website which is known as the initiative. Also I've talked about it in the public section plenty of times but will reiterate and start this all over again. Why people don't get together and make this thing work is not understandable to us.
First thing first open up the FM band from 76 MHz to 107.9Mhz then make it so that there is a hobby band at least from 87.1 to 87.9 MHz which in essence is way too little sense were talking about opening up the FM band from 76-108Mhz. Actually it should be 86.1-87.9Mhz for Hobby Broadcasting but lets start somewhere on this.
On the hobby frequencies you should be allowed to have up to 1 Watt possibly 5 Watts. The reason for so is that on a 5 Watt transmitter connected to a magnetic mount antenna you can get a signal about 1 to 2 miles with the antenna 6Ft from the ground. The signal is clear and in stereo to a car radio and even some high end Boom boxes and receivers like the Grundig 450DLX or Tecsun PL 880 I also have no doubt that a Yamaho, Rotel, National Panasonic would receive my signal quite nicely as well. A license (if any shall be required) sould be easy to get just give your location and you are given a call sign. No high end testing or fees need to be paid. Again just to reiterate this is a separate service not part 15. Part 15 should be a separate service than this hobby broadcasting service that were talking about. It should be more powerful then BETS one that is what is just above part 15 and in my opinion is not worth asking for.
The hobby transmitters should scan the frequencies to make sure that the frequency that you're choosing is clear. For example if you're going to use 87.9 MHz it should scan 88.1 to make sure that it is also clear. The sensitivity of this receiver that is built into the transmitter should be at no less then 1 µV. Also to transmit on even frequencies such as 87.2 or 101.2 would be illegal both for the hobby broadcasting service and for part 15. This will eliminate interference from commercial stations as most people who broadcast on the even frequencies are causing more interfearence because the band is not allocated for such use.
After 6 o'clock daily p.m. that is the transmitter will have to scan to make sure there is not a temperature inversion otherwise known as the ducting effect which causes far away stations to come in. When this happens the transmitter will scan for an empty channel that is not being transmitted on due to the Temperature inversion. We (At the New Radio Revolution) have already discussed this with an FCC agent who seems to like this idea very much and wants us to go ahead and get some of the stuff implemented in our petition for a separate service for hobby broadcasting as well as trying to make things a little bit better for part 15.
Giving us some real range and doing it legally here in United States will help you alleviate the issue with pirate radio because it will fill in the niches that are necessary for the Genres that have been blocked out since 1984. Not only that but for emergency broadcast information in rural areas such as Deltaville Virginia whereas on the radio you don't get much information dealing with this town. I can point out several times where there was tornado warnings for that area and yet nothing was mentioned on commercial radio. Only on a Richmond TV station app that I had to run on my android did I know anything about the tornado warning that was for my area. This is unacceptable and thus another reason for hobby radio to be respected and not rejected for the 1-2 mile range that the New Radio Revolution has been discussing on the forum and the rough draft petition which has been published in the Elite section for other Hobbyist who have been willing to participate to actually sit and read. There is a smaller scale version of the petition on the public section of that very same form.
Last but not least hobby broadcasting should not have the same burdens required as a business broadcaster. Hobby broadcasting is what is said hobby broadcasting therefore there is no profits being made from what we do. We do this for fun and to serve the community for which we are located in. When broadcasters argue that they have to pay in yet hobby broadcasters broadcasters don't there should be no consideration for what they're talking about because they are businesspeople business people are out there to make money hobbyists are there to entertain and do it for the fun and enjoyment of radio itself. Therefore we urge you to stop listening to these Invalid claims for they are not comparing apples to apples. Also Hobby radio stations might have a range of 1 to 2 miles whereas commercial stations will have a much greater range and having thousands of listeners where as a hobby station might be happy with a mere six listeners. Clearly you see that there is no Fair comparison between a nonbusiness hobby station and a station out for profit such as a commercial broadcast station. We feel that the radio waves need to have diverse programming. This is how Hoby radio is that key to such success.
As we've talked about earlier in this letter about expanding the FM band this is where some of these AM stations should be in the expanded portion of the FM band. This is how we can deal with the overcrowding of FM because of the translators that are constantly coming to FM because of the lack of quality on AM.
Next step for requirements should be made for the receivers coming into the United States for both AM and FM. In the 70s radios were much more sensitive and technology should be progressing in the 80s 90s and into the new millennium not regressing. Instead we've seen radios with much poor sensitivity than earlier radios. This causes radio stations to bleed the dial when a listener is too close. This makes it much more difficult to listen to AM and FM broadcasts. As the stations become more populated this problem is going to become more severe the only way to deal with that is to have much more selective And sensitive receivers that can block out the interference issues.
Plus more work needs to be done to eliminate the noisy power supplies and other things such as Hydro from interfering with AM. This will make the band much more usable and cause less issues for the existing radio stations. In turn this will allow more listeners which will equal a higher value for advertising.
We will hope that the FCC will read this letter and consider what we are proposing here because we do believe that this will be the key to solving much of the problems with radio broadcasting here in the United States.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 20:19:45 GMT
With all due respect to the last 2 posts:
1) There already are rules to govern use of the Whitespace FM frequencies (86-88 Mhz). The devices to be used have to come with automatic interference-detecting hardware/software. Instead of creating something new, why not get clarification and/or modification of these existing rules to include hobby broadcasting? It would be a lot easier and would require little effort compared to to the other.
2) With that being said, there has to be some reason for the FCC to allocate spectrum space. It isn't sufficient to say that we want 1 watt because it allows us to be received 1-2 miles. Why would the FCC allow hobby broadcasters to get that kind of range when right now it's difficult to get beyond your property boundaries? Answer that to the FCC's satisfaction (and not our satisfaction) and you might be able to get it (or at the very least permission to use the Whitespace frequencies i.e., #1). The same argument applies to AM broadcasting - there has to be a reason other than 'we want it'.
3) Yes, hobby broadcasters haven't banded together to get the changes that you've talked about for a while. Most are either satisfied with the way things are, are afraid that the FCC might reduce or even take what we do have away, or do not have the time, abilities or inclination to get involved. Perhaps it's all 3 reasons mixed together in varying degrees. One of the things that I don't think it is is apathy, at least based on some of the emotional posts I see here or at Part15. us. To continue to say that, or even to hint at it is to do everyone a disservice.
I believe the way forward is #1. It would just have to take a letter to the FCC (at least to get clarification), so it wouldn't be a huge undertaking, and it wouldn't touch existing Part 15 rights. Anyone willing to take that on (it would have to be someone residing in the U.S.)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 22:18:43 GMT
Related Points About Clarification for Part 15 FM
DavidC is on target calling for clarification: "1) There already are rules to govern use of the Whitespace FM frequencies (86-88 Mhz). The devices to be used have to come with automatic interference-detecting hardware/software. Instead of creating something new, why not get clarification and/or modification of these existing rules to include hobby broadcasting? It would be a lot easier and would require little effort compared to to the other."
Ever since reading the rules or proposed rules as referenced by DavidC I have been withholding further comment until we learn more about what kind of equipment to expect and clarification as to how wireless mics and low power stations are treated in this rule-making.
On the problem of Part 15.239 I go on complaining about the FCC's lack of uniformity (compared for example to 15.219) as to how hobbyists can realistically and seriously measure their own compliance given the requirement of extremely expensive measuring equipment to manage field strength. Tim in Bovey has conclusively shown that the FCC's certification of transmitters under 15.239 is wildly unreliable with most certified models on the market being greatly in excess of the legal power.
For 15.239 it would be useful to have a measurable output power into an FCC defined antenna which would not meaningfully depart from controlling through certification which obviously is unreliable, except that this simpler approach would be within the means of hobbyists.
In both of the above matters with respect to part 15 use of FM it is clarification we seek.
|
|
|
|
Post by station8 on Mar 25, 2017 22:40:59 GMT
Howdy y all: I'm going to put it straight to you guys !!!!!!
I'm NOT going to talk about this anymore here !!!
There is someone who is NOT in this country,But also in this country who got mix signals out there !!!
STOP IT !!!!
If you want you know more about makeing changes to law,
Then get your butts to the team speak meetings !!!!
And ask question to a person who has talked one to one with several FCC agents and
This is where you can stomp the confusion out !!!
And if you can't make the meeting this mean several things about a person and there opinions !!
THIS DISCUSSIONS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES WITH PROBLEMS OVER AND OVER AND
IT NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!
Hate to put to you guys,but you asked for it.
Have a great day
Station 8
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Mar 25, 2017 23:38:17 GMT
You will get more respect from the FCC if the final draft you send to them has no spelling mistakes and other grammar mistakes.
It has to look more "professional" to be considered seriously.
Other than that it looks good.
Your point about the bad radios that have poor overload rejection and bad selectivity is a very good point as a lot of interference is this, not the transmitters.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dear FCC
Mar 26, 2017 0:56:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by thelegacy on Mar 26, 2017 0:56:14 GMT
I'm going to try to put it nicely since this keeps on being brought up over and over again and again.
They FCC agent when we were taking this mode of operation as far as trying to get the laws reinterpreted warned us against doing it this way.
From what I gather it could have a detrimental effect on part 15 as we know it and cause the FCC to reopen the case for part 15 causing the Range to be lowered once again. Keep in mind that the first time that the range was lowered it was because of a smart aleck character with a potty mouth known as Howard Stern. Somebody was broadcasting his Sirius XM satellite feed on FM and was close to a church and was interfering with the church radio broadcast to their part 15 audience.
That being said the FCC is certainly not going to increase part 15 Section 239 and if you keep on going in the direction of reinterpretation of the law you could lose what you have on AM which is quite a bit further than what we have on FM.
Trust and believe us here at the new radio Revolution we are doing things the right way so that we don't cause problems with the service that you already have and that you're broadcasting under. The new hobby service however will give you that one to two mile range and we're talking using these frequencies of 87.7 megahertz to 87.9 megahertz for that very purpose. If there is going to be an expansion of the band as I have mentioned further on up this forum I do believe that we need to have a certain block saved for hobby radio broadcasting.
Furthermore if you had participated in the new radio Revolution from the day that we started which was June 5th 2015 until present you would understand and know what it is that we're trying to do. We have given you folks ample ways of doing it from meeting on the ALPB TeamSpeak rooms to meeting on our special phone conference line which could hold up to 50 folks. But again it seems like there is no interest.
It's almost like people are second-guessing what we're doing from time to time and we have to continue to reiterate over and over what it is that we are trying to do.
Taking our work and redoing it so that it only increases the range to bets - 1 it's not what we had in mind and I already know that that is what some of you folks may try and do. This is why our petition is the way it is and it's in the elite section until things get more closer to being posted. When it is time you will know as we will let you see it but until then and until we get the participation in the support that it will take to actually get it done and this should be supported by all of you folks that are in the hobby I can see that it will take a lot longer than what it should. By now if everyone had supported us we would have been well on our way to a petition that would have been published probably would have been put on the fcc's agenda by now. But too many folks keep asking the same questions and they really don't participate and when you answer the question they keep asking it again so it makes no difference is pretty redundant and it's pretty repetitive and it's a waste of time to keep having to repeat what we've been saying from day one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 1:10:44 GMT
There's a Problem Here
This thread was intended to be an Open Letter to the FCC.
But some of us are talking to OURSELVES and not to THEM.
You are telling US off and in front of the face of the FCC.
It is humiliating and embarrassing.
Please forgive our bad co-ordination; please allow us to start anew.
From now on address your remarks to the FCC.
NOT to members of the ALPB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 1:28:54 GMT
The Initiative members such as Station8 and thelegacy are free to discuss what they think in this Forum. But others are also free to disagree and put forward their own opinions. While doing that, keep it in mind that ALL discussions have to meet the few rules that this Forum has.
Absolutely NO ONE has to 'STOP' because someone else disagrees with them. If people don't like what is being discussed, they can respond (again, within the rules), or not. It's up to them.
And if Station 8 is referring to ALPB meetings when he talks about 'team' meetings, let it be known that while topics surrounding the Initiative might be discussed during those meetings, the ALPB is NOT the Initiative. In fact, the ALPB has taken great care to distance itself from any advocacy, and is focused only on improving low power radio broadcasting from the technical and programming perspectives - not rule changes.
I say this so that there is no confusion as to what the Initiative is, and what the ALPB is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 1:56:57 GMT
Thanks, Carl, for bringing us back into line.
Dear Mr./Mrs. FCC:
We as Part 15 broadcasters understand the reasons for the rules as they now exist. It is essential that unlicensed broadcasters not interfere with existing licensed stations.
Unlicensed broadcasters, however, do perform an essential service to the community. Because our signals are very tiny, our programming, of necessity, must be focused locally, to provide information and services that even the smallest licensed station cannot provide. In addition to that, there is no point in providing programming that licensed stations can and do do better - we have to be different. In doing so, it keeps alive music (and other) formats that are being driven into extinction, such as jazz, classical, alternative album rock, etc.
The conundrum therefore is this: how can we, as unlicensed broadcasters provide these specialized services to a reasonably sized community, while at the same time minimizing interference to the crowded broadcast bands, particularly FM.
That is why I, as a member of that fraternity of Part 15 broadcasters, propose the following:
- Allow community broadcasters to use certified whitespace devices in the 86-88 Mhz spectrum that is soon to be opened up
- License these community broadcasters, so that they have the potential to use the maximum power allowed (1 watt) where there are no other licensed whitespace stations in the vicinity. I say potential, because I would propose that for the purposes of this license, a community be defined as being 1/4 mile in radius, and work would have to be done to determine the power necessary to generate a city grade signal within such a community. The total coverage area for the station would, of course, be larger than 1/4 mile with a lesser signal.
- I propose that the New Zealand model for low power broadcasting be used for regulation purposes. Licenses would be free (or minimal cost), subject to availability of open frequencies, and the FCC has the right to inspect a station before it goes 'live' to air. Once 'live', stations self-regulate, although the FCC has the right to conduct inspections if complaints are received. Community broadcasters would be exempt from most reporting requirements
I believe that this proposal, if implemented, would increase the FCC's ability to meet its objectives of managing and providing radio services to the public. People have demonstrated as new radio formats and frequencies have been introduced that if they see value in it, they will find a way to tap into it.
It would also provide local alternatives to existing broadcasters, while minimizing interference, and it would not impact their existing businesses. If anything, it will bring more interest back to radio, and could potentially be of huge benefit to the industry at large.
Sincerely
Artisan Radio
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 2:11:53 GMT
I'm breaking the thread topic again, but my previous post is the way that you convince the decision-makers of an organization to listen to what you have to say. You frame the problem in THEIR terms (not yours), and you demonstrate how your proposal will help THEM, with their problems, whether it be meeting an objective, or regulation or whatever.
I didn't spend much time on the meat of my proposal, but wanted to outline the format. If something like this was undertaken, you would obviously have to do your homework on the technical aspects, and more work on the benefits, such as giving proof (hopefully) that community broadcasters wouldn't impact existing station businesses.
I didn't go into the assertion that community broadcasting would reduce piracy, as there are both good and bad things about that statement (the FCC could always say that their 'tiger' teams are going to do that anyway), but it would be interesting to do due diligence, research what happened in New Zealand and see if it did.
Just talking to the FCC isn't going to do you much good unless the individual you're talking to is a decision-maker.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 26, 2017 9:07:18 GMT
It sounds like two concepts are being suggested here.. and by the way, I would suspect if the FCC reads these boards it would most likely be the agents and not those with rule making power (as David pointed out).. But anyway, it seems like two concepts are being address in this thread..
One is to petition for Part15 rules to be relaxed so unlicensed broadcasters can better achieve increased coverage area in these broadcast bands.
The other is to petition tion for a new classification of ultra-low licensed broadcasting to achieve the same objective. (more realistic hope IMO).
As for Part15 considerations, I recently post link to some documentation, which either no one was interested because it appeared to be about TIS stations, or maybe I'm just getting the cold shoulder over my part15 community divisions rants... But whatever the reason, the point remains that the documentation directly relates to what is being discussed here..
The document proceedings were not about TIS, because it didn't even exist yet, but it is about how a Part15 operation ultimately led to a brand new licensed classification being created. This is basically what you all are talking about.
It is also the origin of part15 broadcasting as we are familiar with today.
Here we have a small company manufacturing the first whip and mast portable Part15 transmitters, and they have gone into business selling them to organizations, restaurants, and National Parks to provide information and advertisements. Now they approach the National Highway Department with their business model in hopes of selling it to them..
This was the beginning, they sold the units, and part15 AM became commonplace for the first time... However, it also led ultimately to three things occurring because of it; first the ground lead, next the FCC almost eliminating the alternative Part15 rules; and third a brand new licensed classification became established.
This illustrates some of why I believe it is unrealistic to hope for any major changes to part15, but it is reasonable to aim at a petition for a new licensed (and much easier to acquire) class of public broadcasting.
Anyway here is an edited version of the commission proceedings, which most any part15 broadcaster would find very interesting:
:........................
HEARINGS Before The COMMISSION ON HIGHWAYS BEATIFACATION
April 17, 1972. (excerpts pages 575 to 586)
Testimony of Andy Matson, on behalf of INFO Systems, Inc., Bozeman, Montana
MR. MATSON. First of all I would like to thank you.. for this opportunity to present our INFO System concept providing advertising and other informational services.. INFO Systems is actually a low-powered, limited-range radio transmitter or transmitters utilizing a ten-foot antenna, operating on the AM broadcast band, within the FCC minimum requirements of Part 15, Subpart E. The frequency used in a particular area is provided for by a study of the use of the broadcast band.
INFO Systems can provide service on either AC or DC power and can be programmed either by utilizing tape cartridges or live transmissions...
The original idea behind INFO Systems was aimed at providing information to motorists as they traveled through the Big Sky Country of Montana. We have since been approached by and have made installations for various uses in several States and have many more in the planning stage. It is rather ironic but our original idea is the one that brings us here and has received quite a response from various agencies in recent months.
Our conception of rest areas information systems started a couple of years ago, and we now have 35 rest areas throughout the State. Along with the rest area concept, motorists stopping in safety rest areas may dial their radios to the frequency indicated on the sign located in the rest area.
..Our tapes are of the endless loop type and repeat themselves continuously. These tapes are geared to whatever information might be appropriate for the designated
location. By establishing a series system of transmitters a continuous zone can be created for the motorist as he travels a certain segment of highway. This involves a number of transmitters but provides a variable length message without requiring a motorist to stop.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. How far do the transmitters transmit?
MR. MATSON. This will depend on the area you put them in- the locale. Our recent experiment and demonstration in California indicates this would probably be around four a mile. We put it every 1400-hour feet.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. Four miles?
MR. MATSON. Four to a mile in a zone.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. Four to a mile would be a 1,000 feet a piece.
MR. MATSON. They say 14 feet apiece. I will submit those figures 1 have from my files from the Federal Highway people in California. They have done quite a survey on this. We have been out there about five times. In fact, this has been in the mill about ten months, but we have had some controversy with broadcasting people and other delays.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. Is that the sort of transmitter that doesn't interfere with anything?
MR. MATSON. Yes. The gentleman from the FCC made reference to this particular idea. We do not the cable technique but we operate with a ten-foot antenna and put it up in the air...
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. So you need four per mile?
MR. MATSON. That is what we quote, but an exact figure would depend on the particular situation. That is what we have come up with in California where we have done most of this work. I might mention the motorist's interest briefly. Motorists are primarily concerned with three types of information: visitor, commercial, and traffic. The principal existing sources for such information evolve mainly around billboards, signs, commercial radio, and printed matter. We feel the INFO Systems concept creates yet another media through the element of localized radio.
By comparing the INFO Systems concept with the aforemen tioned media, one can conceptualize the advantages of each in their own category. Through evaluating the particular media in this setting, the versatility of INFO Systems' localized radio fills an apparent void now in existence. We feel the service INFO Systems can provide is one which can't be duplicated by existing means. INFO offers on-the-spot coverage and is available for whatever type information you may wish to provide in a given situation...
This is a pilot effort with very high potential. It would be approximately five areas averaging five miles each that could be made operational within 6 to 9 months of budget authorization. This is just an example of that particular program in California... I might also refer to the Yellowstone National Park project, which the gentleman from FCC mentioned. There are 33 transmitters in use in the Park now... I might mention briefly the advertising and commercial information that we have done in transmitters.. ..In the same sense the multiple transmitter zone as described earlier relating to moving vehicles can be adapted to the unusual traffic condition situation, or it can be used as a customer service information zone or as a descriptive source while traveling a segment of scenic highway..
In closing, I would like to play on your imagination for a moment. I get this feeling when I am up at Big Sky and listening to Chet Huntley. He has a great voice. You might picture yourself driving through the beauty spots of America on your next vacation. You arrive at one of the many scenic turnoffs or parking areas to view the scenery, or possibly you're traveling an exceptionally scenic route. Wouldn't it be nice to be informed of what you're seeing and what lies ahead via your own radio by simply dialing Roadside Radio?
My thought on this is "Turn In, Tune It On," and you get the area information and whatever you may wish to put on the tape. I might describe the equipment, and, if you care for a demonstration, I have a setup over here in which I simulate a car radio with a transistor radio. You can listen to the tape right there as it is sent from the transmitter.
MR. WRIGHT. You have the tape that you can transmit from right here?
MR. MATSON. Yes, sir.
MR. WRIGHT. Which would give you what you would receive when driving?
MR. MATSON. Yes, or you might be using a transistor radio like in Yellowstone. You can walk all around the area and, while you are walking, listen to the explanation of the geyser, Old Faithful, or whatever the particular transmission might be.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. You don't work for the State of Montana; you are in private industry?
MR. MATSON. Yes, sir, we are a private corporation and local corporation in Montana.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. You just design systems or do you manufacture equipment?
MR. MATSON. We do both. In fact, we are having a new tape repeater designed for us. The first of these units were installed a couple of weeks ago. They will be guaranteed for 90 days' continuous usage out of a single tape. We have had some problem with this in some isolated areas where we have had to go out and fix tapes that had broken. The new tape repeater will also be under our label. Those are made in Minneapolis.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. Is the equipment easy enough to handle? Let's say, if it was near an intersection of a remote highway somewhere the people who service the motels could service the same equipment?
MR. MATSON. Yes. The service needed for the transmitter is about nil. The only service necessary would be with the tape player and cleaning the head periodically and that type of thing, or periodically changing the tapes. That is why we went to this different tape repeater that would guarantee this type usage.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. Thank you.
MR. MATSON. I will turn this tape on.
(Tape was Played)..
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. Have you tried to sell the restaurant owners and hotel owners and others on using this system?
MR. MATSON. That is one area that you can become involved in. This is where you get into the area of advertising and commercial radio broadcasting. We had no intent to violate or interfere with commercial radio. We feel the 300 to 500 feet range that we get is adequate enough for most rest areas. I have seen many people throughout the country in the last eight months who would like to have a zone. But we feel if we get into the area of restaurants and motels, depending on the particular application, then we might be violating some of the possible laws.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. You misunderstand what I meant. I am assuming from the tape you played that time would not allow them to embellish on their advertising. That is real advertising when you say '"Beautiful shaded room," or whatever. If you say "Off Route 9, fifteen miles to the right is the Shady Rest Motel'* and that is all you said— I assume that you feel that you could get something, or the State or whoever is putting in the system could get something for it.
MR. MATSON. I put this particular tape together to get advertising of a particular customer's service places. In our advertising in Montana, we have a 30-second spot in which you get a lot more information in, in a particular time on a tape. I didn't mean to go through this tape so fast, but that was the general idea.'.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. I heard that. I think the radio station would have a right to object if you started accepting 30-second commercials, but if you use this as a guide—
MR. MATSON. As I mentioned, we are not trying to compete with radio. We have had many stations interested in this, mainly from the standpoint of creating something so if billboards have to be removed there could be a visual direction placed on the tape and maybe a combination of the two that would somewhat alleviate the problem.
MR. BLOOMINGDALE. I find that very interesting.
MR. MATSON. ..As far as radio frequencies go, the West probably has better opportunities. But we can operate anywhere and go to any length necessary to find a frequency that won't interfere with other existing stations...
MR. WRIGHT. Is there any way you can program this thing so it would give answers to questions—in other words, somebody press the button and wants to find out something about a motel or something like that?
MR. MATSON. '...we haven't gotten that far yet unless you would tie it in with a push-bottom type of thing or jukebox type operation.
MR. WRIG
[/b][/b]
|
|
