|
|
Post by End80 on Dec 26, 2019 8:21:31 GMT
Also posted this at part15.us..
For anyone concerned about legally operating a Part 15 community station, one should be thoroughly familiar with the famed KENC station, what he did right, as well as where he went wrong. Numerous legal issues are addressed in this detailed, rather in-depth chronology of the rise and eventual demise of his part 15 station. He could have continued the station and maintained it’s two-town reach had he chose to – simply by installing additional compliant installs, but after the year-long battle with the FCC over his existing installs, he had become too frustrated of even bothering to try.
But it’s not a discouraging a story by any means, rather this is an encouraging story, as long as you learn from Kens mistakes then you can achieve establishing a successful and legal part 15 community station (if that is your objective) as others are doing today.
A Look Back at KENC 1620 AM part15lab.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-look-back-at-kenc-1620-am.html
It should be also noted, just a few years later Ken’s application for a LPFM was granted and he’s still broadcasting today KYAC, so it's ultimately a happy story.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Dec 26, 2019 8:27:11 GMT
By the way.. I've noticed this before; whenever I click on a link from a post in this forum it always takes me to a "about://redirect.viglink - Navigation cancelled" page... Is it just me? I always have to copy and paste the link from here to get to the intended page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Dec 26, 2019 23:54:23 GMT
I've heard about KENC over the years, but not what the details, I think this is before I was reading the boards too much.
Glad that he graduated to LPFM and all of his good intentions with providing a local radio service weren't lost.
Thanks for writing that, and keeping your blog going!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Dec 27, 2019 0:05:26 GMT
ViglinkI've seen 'Viglink' before, maybe a Boards redirect system for outside sites? I don't know, but I don't use the button for the link, just make sure the cursor is on a new line and paste the link in. It won't seem to get activated as a link if it's in with other text. Oops, looked it up, " VigLink VigLink is a San Francisco-based, outbound-traffic monetization service for publishers, forums, and bloggers. VigLink specializes in in-text advertising and marketing... " More en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VigLinkBoomer
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2019 21:23:57 GMT
Regarding forum links to other sites, not sure what you experienced. Does this happen when you click on a link within a post, or when you try to create a link? I've not noticed a problem with either. Here's a little test. The ALPB has a new (permanent I hope) URL domain name. The old .com URL was lost in the transition. Anyway, the new URL is thealpb.us and is currently hosted on the Part15.org servers thanks to Part15's owner Jon Paul Janze. So there's a URL link to click on and here's a "button" link to the same: THEALPBSee if one, the other or both work. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Dec 28, 2019 0:53:13 GMT
It's when I click on a link in someone's post, it always takes me to a "Vigil-link Navigation Cancelled". So to avoid that I usually just copy the link and paste it into a new window.. maybe the problem is on my end having something to do with me not having a strong internet connect. No matter, I can live with it.
Even the link you just posted "THEALPB" takes me to a "navigation cancelled page: this is the link it takes me to in my address bar:
about://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_157749442932412&key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&libId=k4ovfozf0102ylrr000DA959negm2o0i6&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fmbcf.boards.net%2Fthread%2F2918%2Fkenc-story%3Fpage%3D1%26scrollTo%3D15629&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fthealpb.us%2F&title=The%20KENC%20Story%20%7C%20The%20MICRO-BROADCASTERS%20COMMUNITY%20Forum&txt=THEALPB
No problem, it's easy enough for me to work around.
Hey, it could be my browser, it's Internet Explorer 11, can't upgrade it or use another browser because I'm using an early model Microsoft Surface RT tablet. But no worry, by right-clicking and copying and pasting the link instead it takes me directly to the ALPB site (or wherever a link here is intended to go.) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 28, 2019 0:59:34 GMT
Do the links in my previous post do the same? If so I'd have to agree there's probably something going on with your connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Dec 28, 2019 1:07:57 GMT
Do the links in my previous post do the same? If so I'd have to agree there's probably something going on with your connection. See my previous post as I edited it after you asked. ANY AND ALL LINKS within a post here do it.. If no one else is experiencing this fluke, then obviously it must be something incompatible on my end.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jan 2, 2020 7:33:04 GMT
Some interesting things in this article I would like to point out. First of all the FCC agent according to the article mentioned a ground lead of 3M which is 10 ft but he did not included as the entire antenna system which would have been good for us if Kenwood of follow the FCC agents suggestion and kept with the one transmitter.
This might go to show that running multiple transmitters too close to one another where it continually makes the station get out will draw a high profile causing each and every one of those transmitters to be inspected right to the letter of the law.
It was interesting to when I spoke with David dombrowski on the phone he mentioned a single story with a ground. I don't know there's so many different things about the story it would have been nice to have all the paperwork where one could know every little fine detail about it.
It is also noted in the article how the FCC did not accept a toroid or filter for the ground meaning that most part 15 operators who practiced at AR in a false sense of security.
And finally I am very sad and disappointed that the part 15 hobby broadcasting community did not take up some type of fundraiser website to help Ken and his adventure with trying to get things changed in favor of us hobby broadcasters. I think had we all stood by him and try to find him we might have gotten some things change for the better. But it is not too late for that because Michelle Bradley seems to be on the side of the hobby broadcasters.
.
It is now 2020 a new decade and quite possibly we could get some change. If it's totally true that a lot of these AM radio stations are dying or slowly falling out and if the digital plot 4 a.m. does not succeed we could have a possibility at doing something that would help us out for hobby broadcasting and at least get things so that we can have a robust signal for at least two miles to a portable radio of decent quality.
I hope maybe more people will ponder up on the story of Ken Cartwright and maybe more information will surface all I know is we need to stick together to improve things and now we're looking at a new decade so this could be good.
|
|
Rich
Full Member
RF Systems Engr (retired)
Posts: 112
|
Post by Rich on Jan 2, 2020 11:08:01 GMT
Some interesting things in this article I would like to point out. <clip> While not included in the article, Ken Cartwright might have believed strongly that his Part 15 AM installations were FCC-compliant based on the text, photos and drawings appearing in the printed and on-line information of the transmitter manufacturer. [Most of such information has been removed (or muted) since then, but may still be present there to a reduced degree.]
IIRC, that documentation back then described/recommended mounting the transmitter with its attached ~3-meter, radiating "whip" on top of a building or other structure at an elevation of about 35 feet above the Earth, and showed a conducting path from the transmitter chassis or r-f ground terminal to a buried ground rod next to the structure.
Some distributors/installers/operators of Part 15 AM systems attempt(ed) to define the ground lead as only a short (~18"-24") conductor connecting the transmitter chassis or r-f ground terminal to the top of a "massive" ground wire or grounded tower. However Physics shows that there is nothing to stop the r-f current flowing on that short conductor from continuing to flow over that attached and much longer conductor, to reach r-f ground (Earth).
The physical length of that total path in the case of KENC greatly exceeded the 3-meter length allowed by FCC §15.219(b), which was the root cause of Ken Cartwright's FCC citations.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jan 2, 2020 11:57:24 GMT
I'm going to address to your points individually , because we're on different wavelengths...
------------- "..the FCC agent according to the article mentioned a ground lead of 3M which is 10 ft but he did not included as the entire antenna system which would have been good for us if Kenwood of follow the FCC agents suggestion and kept with the one transmitter..." ---------------
I'm not sure what you mean "follow the FCC agents suggestion of keeping with one transmitter" - he never suggested anything like that. But the agent did personally tell Ken several times that 3 feet of lead was acceptable (according to Ken), then later (according to a KENC press release) a staffer of Senetor Wyden's office told Ken that the FCC told their office that a "3 m" lead was acceptable..
Other than Kens own personal accounts there is no actual collaborating evidence to back any of it. We only have what Ken said. Nevertheless, I beleive his accounts, and the fact that Ken was objecting to having only 3 foot makes me believe it even more.
The 3 meter ground lead allowance quote was later and came third hand; The FCC talked to Wyden, then the Wyden office relayed the information to Ken, and the Ken relayed the info to us.. so again there's no real collaborating evidence that the "3 m" quote was even accurate - It could be nothing more than a misquote for all we know.
However, (as I've pointed out before) a ten foot ground lead does correspond with the established norm for the last 50 years of post-mounted part 15 transmitters elevated 8 to 10 feet with a good ground (thousands of them) at NP and historic sites even today. There is no indication that any of them ever were cited. But then again, their range are always reasonably confined to their individual areas despite their 8 foot leads.
That's actually why they're called "whip and mast" installations.
------------------ ..This might go to show that running multiple transmitters too close to one another where it continually makes the station get out will draw a high profile.. --------------------
Well.. I don't think the KENC story shows that at all. But if say, three tranmitters are pysically linked together within a few feet of each other (ie: cordinated), then that would essentially become a single install having at least an 9 meter antenna sytem with 300mw input.. So no, that's not legal and there have been NOUOs for doing that. But Ken wasn't doing that, and his multiple tranmiters were not an issue, and no other installations have ever received citations for doing it either.
Using multiple transmitters spread around an area (as KENC did) for the purpose of expanding range is clearly permitted in documentations by the FCC. The issue with KENC was one antenna was 40ft and another was 100ft, and with those two transmitters he was covering 2 towns.
I tend to suspect the 3rd tranmitter which was never cited was only used during sports game at the high school stadium - I don't know that for fact, but for several reasons (it's proximity to the primary transmitter for one) it seems that might have been the case.
---------------- ..the FCC did not accept a toroid or filter for the ground meaning that most part 15 operators who practiced at AR in a false sense of security... ------------------
That's correct, the FCC rejected the filter because it didn't alter the radiation of the system. It actually should have, the reason it didn't -as has been speculated before, was because the power/audio leads were circumventing the filter by simply providing another path to ground. For filters to be effective then all available paths to ground would need choke holds on them.
------------------- ..And finally I am very sad and disappointed that the part 15 hobby broadcasting community did not take up some type of fundraiser website to help Ken.. ---------------------
A fundraiser would have accomplished nothing, nor did the efforts of congressmen Rep. Kurt Schraeder, Senator Ron Wyden, Stayton Mayor Gerry Aboud, Keith Hamilton, and Kens own attorney in Washington.. They all tried to help him and it accomplished nothing other than a pointless frenzy.. The bottom line was that KENC instals were extremely out of compliance, no fundraser could have changed that.
-------------------- ..It is now 2020 a new decade and quite possibly we could get some change... ..all I know is we need to stick together to improve things and now we're looking at a new decade so this could be good. ----------------------
As you know, I've never considered hope for a relaxation of the rules to be realistic.. Part 15's creation and sole purpose is to restrict signals to a confined area - that's all it is - that's the only thing Part 15 is, a restriction device.
It's already possible to expand range with Part 15 legally by using multiple transmitters, of course that entails additional expense and effort but it's entirely possible and there are many part 15 stations who do without issue.
If and when the analog AM bands dies out, that would make 15.219 basically an obsolete rule, and then maybe we can broadcast willy nilly without restriction or observation of the rules, but I wouldn't bet on it. Anyway you look at it will never be legal to broadcast with a single transmitter over larger areas without some form of licensing in place.. unless our society collapses entirely, and along with it the rules which hold things together.
To be honest I think we already have a good thing with Part 15 as it is, we have more liberties and less aggravation then any licensed stations do, we don't have to answer to anybody and pay no fees (other than maybe BMI), and the only rule we have to abide by is to keep the signal of each transmitter local.
How is that unsatisfactory?
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jan 2, 2020 12:21:01 GMT
While not included in the article, Ken Cartwright might have believed strongly that his Part 15 AM installations were FCC-compliant...
I have no doubt at all that Ken strongly believed he was operating legally. During that time most hobbyist believed it too. |
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jan 2, 2020 18:58:36 GMT
I am a late comer but I read almost all of the article as it was quite long to read it all literally but the first citation referring to the tower acting as a long ground line was technically in violation as the tower could act as a 40 ft ground wire. But I don't understand the accusation of to much field strength as NOTHING is stated about field strength if you are using the 100mW into final and 3 meter antenna. The owner of Decade Transmitters here in Canada told me in a conversation a while back that some agents don't know their you know what from their you know what and their mission is to find something to shut you down. Even if it's bogus.
Not all but some are like this.
If the ground attached to the tower was disconnected why was that not OK? Seems the agent was intent on the field strength being too much which is bogus. You have your day to prove your case I assume. As for multiple transmitters here in Canada yes you can do that but here's the problem....they can't be transmitting the same thing!, as far as I remember. I will check again if I can find it as it's a CRTC rule, not Industry Canada's rule.
|
|
Rich
Full Member
RF Systems Engr (retired)
Posts: 112
|
Post by Rich on Jan 2, 2020 21:15:35 GMT
... I don't understand the accusation of to much field strength as NOTHING is stated about field strength if you are using the 100mW into final and 3 meter antenna. ...
Typically, the FCC measures field intensity during an on-site inspection of a "Part 15" AM station, to learn whether or not it meets §15.209, should the operator claim it does (which would make an overly long ground wire of no importance). |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jan 2, 2020 22:06:09 GMT
I am a late comer but I read almost all of the article as it was quite long to read it all literally but the first citation referring to the tower acting as a long ground line was technically in violation as the tower could act as a 40 ft ground wire. But I don't understand the accusation of to much field strength as NOTHING is stated about field strength if you are using the 100mW into final and 3 meter antenna. The owner of Decade Transmitters here in Canada told me in a conversation a while back that some agents don't know their you know what from their you know what and their mission is to find something to shut you down. Even if it's bogus.
Not all but some are like this.
If the ground attached to the tower was disconnected why was that not OK? Seems the agent was intent on the field strength being too much which is bogus. You have your day to prove your case I assume. As for multiple transmitters here in Canada yes you can do that but here's the problem....they can't be transmitting the same thing!, as far as I remember. I will check again if I can find it as it's a CRTC rule, not Industry Canada's rule.
We have the option of compliance with either 15.209 OR 15.219. with 15.209 we can have the antenna as long as we wasn't it but it must not exceed field strength limits. - but it excessively exceed the field strength. With 15.219 we can only have 10 feet of antenna, and field strength doesn't matter. - Kens install also excessively exceeded antenna length.
Ken was required to meet at least one of those regulations, but he met neither.
The agent did tell Ken it would be OK to disconnect the ground from the tower, and that's exactly what Ken did for awhile, but he eventually connected it back anyway using an unapproved filter, at which point the FCC began issuing more citations.
|
|
