|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on May 14, 2018 13:10:10 GMT
From RECNETI realize most of us already know this, but there is some useful data about other countries as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by part15engineer on May 14, 2018 13:33:42 GMT
she's a smart lady, i tired to lure her over here but apparently she was not interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on May 14, 2018 13:36:20 GMT
she's a smart lady, i tired to lure her over here but apparently she was not interested. Yes. She handled a modification for our CP and then the License to Cover. Highly recommend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 13:37:40 GMT
Interesting
As the ALPB we are curious about unlicensed broadcast allowances in other countries, and from the REC survey we learn that only a few countries have given it much thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by part15engineer on May 14, 2018 13:42:55 GMT
i'd be happy with malaysia's 50mW ERP, but would be really happy with NZ's GURL,
50mW ERP with some good height (about 30-50ft) would cover an apartment complex or average size trailer park easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on May 14, 2018 15:41:37 GMT
Seems that New Zealand, Canada and Malaysia have it best on that list....for FM anyway. Some have nothing for AM...does that mean it isn't allowed at all? or it isn't known?
And what does non specified mean? anything goes or no unlicensed use permitted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 16:11:28 GMT
Interpreting Legalese
Mark touches upon a question that probably requires a lawyer: "...what does non specified mean? anything goes or no unlicensed use permitted?"
My own way of answering that question might not save me if I was inspected, but I tend to think that if something isn't specifically forbidden, it is therefore legal to do.
For example, some areas of part 15 rules have nothing to say...
Nothing is said about radials buried in the ground, so we assume it's o.k. to use them for better range.
No restrictions are specified in the rules as to program content, so we assume we can open the mike and say any godforesaken thing we want, yet we hear of bring-downs based on complaints about content, but technical reasons are usually cited as the ultimate reason for the violation.
Top hats added to antennas and loading coils are not mentioned in the rules, yet how are they considered when the FCC measures the antenna?
Transmitter kits are in an eternal gray area because they are not expressly forbidden nor allowed, and in my view the FCC allowance for home-made transmitters logically include kits because kits are home-made by the builder, but others would disagree.
Even rules that are specified can be mis-understood... in the case of 15.219 the "final RF stage must not exceed 100 mW"... I happen to believe that the final RF stage is obviously the antenna itself, but almost everyone else insists it's the final RF stage in the transmitter and neither the loading coil nor the antenna.
If you ask Aijet you'll get a smile and a lie.
I'd enjoy knowing what career FCC professionals think of their sorry Chairman.
|
|
