|
|
Post by mark on Jun 8, 2018 0:03:42 GMT
In regards to part 15......my first order of business would be to have unlicensed use of the AM and FM bands removed from part 15 and adopt Canada's approach and have a separate category just for this. Only these two bands would be covered by this separate section and would be the rules for unlicensed use. Now, for AM, the ground lead and antenna length rule would be scrapped, and so would the 100mW DC into the final as this is impossible to enforce. An agent can't go into someone's transmitter to start measuring to see if it's 100mW to the final amp. Again Canada's BETS-1 rule would be adopted....field strength only and the transmitter could be located anywhere. The max. allowed would be 1000uV/M@30 meters which would get a good signal to a local neighborhood. The 30 meters is still not to far that an inspector wouldn't have to go too far away to measure. Zero tolerance and if you are out of compliance you have 10 days to fix. The current Canadian rule is 250 uV/M@30 meters. This is the AM band and interference is not as likely as this band is far removed from communications and others don't use amplitude modulation. Of course no interference to licensed stations would be allowed.
Then I would have lunch.
Now for FM.
Canada's BETS-1 says 100uV/M@30meters.....I would go to 500uV/M@30 meters and again this would allow for a good signal in your neighborhood around you and no interference to any other bands or other stations would be allowed. A transmitter would have to be "clean" and this rule would not be allowed within a mile from any airport. 500uV/M would not be a problem except in large urban areas where interfering may be more likely so the rule would vary between rural and urban areas. In cities over a certain size and within their boundaries the allowed field strength would be 100uV/M@30meters. Same as Canada. That's still 4+ times what you have now.
Zero tolerance for interfering with another station or another band. This would be much better than you have now and the world wouldn't fall apart.
But I an not in charge so this is just food for thought. As for being minister of ISED(Industry Canada) same would be here.
Then I would call it a day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 0:17:24 GMT
Down to Business
Mark's plan to revitalize low power radio in the U.S. is what we want.
Say goodbye to Pai.
Give Mark his desk, a pen, and the best secretary, so he can fix our low power rules for radio!
The ALPB has the best thinkers!
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jun 8, 2018 4:44:24 GMT
Mark has a great plan. And Carl did you know you were a poet and didn't even know it.
|
|
Rich
Full Member
RF Systems Engr (retired)
Posts: 112
|
Post by Rich on Jun 8, 2018 10:14:03 GMT
... Now, for AM, the ground lead and antenna length rule would be scrapped, and so would the 100mW DC into the final as this is impossible to enforce. ... Again Canada's BETS-1 rule would be adopted....field strength only and the transmitter could be located anywhere. The max. allowed would be 1000uV/M@30 meters which would get a good signal to a local neighborhood. ...
Just to note that the suggested new limit for unlicensed AM setups of "1000uV/M@30 meters" is less than legally can be possible now when strictly meeting FCC §15.219 (see the chart below).
The chart shows a field intensity of greater than 1 mV/m (="1000 uV/M") at a distance of a little more than 200 meters (>650 feet), for the conditions stated at the top of that chart.
The transmitter power shown in the chart is the output power of its final r-f stage, excluding the power lost in the base loading coil and r-f ground path used for the 3-meter monopole radiator. However the field intensities shown in the chart do include those losses.
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by part15engineer on Jun 8, 2018 10:31:51 GMT
yeah i don't agree with the AM portion and most commercial manufacturers make it easy to measure input to the final stage with tap points for Volts, Amps, and ground such as the rangemasters, others are certified as 100mW fixed input to final such as the procasters and talking houses.
the fm, i'm all on board with.
although FM should be a certain mW (something measurable) into 50 ohms present at the terminals of a dipole. for instance my marconi 2955 comm service monitor can measure down to microwatts but fm could be put in the mW range into a dipole 0 DBD gain or if a CP is used (-1.5 DBD) then the signal can be increased by 1.5 DB to the terminals of the antenna. i actually have a shively 6632 CP bay sitting in garage i'm going to put to use here to further reduce the generated F/S of my homebrew 15.239 system here across the H/V planes. the CP adds another 1.5 DB of loss to the system and will improve my signal within the primary 200 ft contour of my system.
F/S is not easily measurable without $8-15K Dollar calibrated test equipment.
|
|
Rich
Full Member
RF Systems Engr (retired)
Posts: 112
|
Post by Rich on Jun 8, 2018 10:47:08 GMT
...F/S is not easily measurable without $8-15K Dollar calibrated test equipment. And that is true for both the AM and FM broadcast bands.
The reason that the FCC added §15.219 was their recognition that radiated field intensities are difficult and expensive to measure, accurately, and that doing so is beyond the scope of what reasonably can be expected for most users of "Part 15 broadcasting" equipment.
Prior to §15.219, the only applicable rule for unlicensed AM was §15.209, which limits field intensity and is silent on the power and antenna system used.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jun 8, 2018 16:00:01 GMT
I had to push the boundaries a bit but still keep a compromise between the rights of the licensed broadcasters and the hobby broadcasters. With AM and FM. My rules would allow home built or uncertified transmitters like the Sean Cuthbert or SStran for example while having an easier way of rule enforcement.
1000uV/M@30meters while getting a good signal to a neighborhood meets my objective and eliminates the nuisance of the ground and antenna and allows for any location for the transmitter. People with no access to do the current set up would be able to do this hobby if they want AM, without regard to ground length. Transmitter power wouldn't matter.
As for FM the boundaries are pushed to the limit with zero tolerance for ANY interference in another band or station and still reflecting the rights of the licensed stations. And note the rural and urban allowed field strength where interference is less likely and residences are further apart.
A guideline would be published so the average hobbiest would have an idea with AM and FM when the max field strength is reached.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jun 8, 2018 17:20:11 GMT
I've given up on FM for Hobby Broadcasting in the USA and this is why:
My broadcast engineer friend explained to me why certain entities are so hard on FM Hobby Broadcasters. Its all about commercialized Radio and the competition certain entities feel Hobby broadcasting will effect them on an already overcrowded band.
Why he's spending time and money on The Legacy!!
Because of my sheer drive to revitalize Album Rock he feels that he can demonstrate (Using my station) that AM Radio does not need scrapping and FM does not need AM Translators. Plus he is not a fan of digital Radio for many technical reasons (He said).
His proposal to the FCC is to allow the same power as TIS stations and scrap the ground lead rule and come up with a decent antenna profile not too ugly for resident areas and reasonable for the 2 mile coverage.
I've talked to him about my proposed C-Quam AM Stereo requirement in order to be approved for the new service and he agreed with me to a point but we have some differences in opinion we get along great. He is a big fan of C-Quam and hopes to move to Deltaville, VA to help with a major campaign to show how Hobby broadcasting when done right is a crucial part of the AM revitalization effort as well as balance to Radio. He points out that many members of these well known entities started out as kids on AM transmitters which sometimes covered many miles during his hey days in Radio and only a small hand full of members in these well known large entities we know now complained to the FCC until some tried to make money from it. He will show that many hobbyist don't want money but rather spend their time learning and providing a niche programming content like The Legacy.
Getting backers is the way to go in any proposed law change and now I have one in my corner who can supply technical data to the FCC where as I was not able to do before this turn of events (In favor of The Legacy).
I'll keep you posted on our efforts to improve both AM and Hobby Broadcasting so everyone will enjoy a reasonable 1-2 mile listenable coverage on AM.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jun 8, 2018 19:13:29 GMT
I gave my take on what I would do if I were(in my dreams) FCC commissioner.
Would be interesting to hear what others would do to revitalize hobby broadcasting if they were commissioner.
|
|
|
|
Post by djboutit2 on Jun 10, 2018 7:41:27 GMT
81.1 to 87.3 should be opened for unlicensed broadcasting with like 40w min but I would really like to see 180w and 180ft max antenna height with a decent amount of restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jun 11, 2018 4:46:52 GMT
But no receivers would get those frequencies, except maybe some older radios that had a TV sound band with analog tuning. I know channel 3 was 87.7 but I'm not sure what channel 2 was.
Oh just thought that radios made for the Japanese market like the Sony ICF- 801 would get that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 10:03:09 GMT
Also
TECSUN PL-310 can be set for the Russian FM band:
64 - 108 MHz
or Japan's FM band:
76 - 108 MHz
|
|
|
|
Post by part15engineer on Jun 11, 2018 14:58:08 GMT
first thing I would have done,,,
FM: Revoke much of these translator licenses, revoke every satellator license and every AM translator license, I would have the fm band reorganized. I would carve out 88-92 for hobby broadcasting at 1 W ERP, license by rule, anyone with a interest in a commercial, non comm, translator or lpfm would be barred from this class of service and you would be limited to two stations per individual nationwide, 92-96 would be lpfm at up to 250W no haat restriction again if there is a interest in another broadcast service you would be barred from this class of license and there would be a limit of two stations per entity / individual, the rest of the band would be a mix of commercial, non comm, and real translators that are used as fill ins and not range extenders. lpfm's would be disallowed translators. IBOC would be allowed on FM in the 96-108 band. no TIS / HAR on FM.
AM: reorganize the AM band, 1650-1710 hobby broadcasting license by rule, 2 Watt (about 1W output to ATU / Antenna) input to final stage being defined as the final transistor in the rf circuit and no antenna, ground, coax length restrictions. Carrier current would also operate here and part 15.219 would be eliminated as redundant. same rules as the FM hobby broadcasting service apply to am. you can have two low power license by rule undertakings meaning one am one fm, two fm, or two am no more.
1600-1640 TIS 10W 30m antenna height, music would be allowed to be broadcast, all other rules would remain the same as current rules.
900-1590 100kW ND Day/Night clear channels
540 to 900 10kW ND Day/Night local stations
I would have the fcc and customs crack down on noisy part 15 devices, switching supplies, grow lights, dimmers, etc and non certified FM transmitters.
there would also be some technical regulations imposed on the two hobby broadcasting bands comparable to its commercial counterpart to minimize interference. also the content standards applied to full power licensed stations would apply to low power hobby broadcasting. IE: no so called 7 dirty words, etc. would be permitted.
require CQuAM on commercial ful power stations, ban iboc from fm, reinstate the AMAX standard and require manufacturers to incorporate cquam and reasonable quality receivers for the AM / FM Bands into their designs.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jun 11, 2018 16:52:11 GMT
Part15engineer for FCC chairman! Really goes over a line that I thought I couldn't cross but the big corporations should have to share the airwaves too and not be able to "buy governments" to make rules all in their favor.
Didn't consider the translator thing cluttering up the FM band with my proposal.
Like the rule on cleaning up the interference from the A/C power.
Now all that has to happen is one of us has to get appointed to FCC chairman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jun 13, 2018 12:38:34 GMT
81.1 to 87.3 should be opened for unlicensed broadcasting with like 40w min but I would really like to see 180w and 180ft max antenna height with a decent amount of restrictions. How did you come up with these arbitrary figures? There's a lot more science involved. |
|
