FCC's John Reed Comments on Part 15 AM Rules and Interpretations

Re: The Real Bottom Line on all this

RayThomas said:

I have been an interested reader of the Community Radio board for 2 or 3 years now, and have never made a comment until now. This discussion seems to have stretched into a territory any realistic, practical person could call ridiculous. First off, I am a 35 year commercial radio programmer and air personality. I'm also a licensed Ham operator and have done some experimenting with Part 15 equipment. I've gone through an FCC inspection at a station I was working for. I've also spent many brain-liquifying hours reading through hundreds and hundreds of NOUO's and NAL's issued by the Commission. Here are my logical conclusions:
1. Almost ALL of the NOUO's are for the FM band. Almost ALL involve field strengths that would indicate power outputs of at least a few watts, usually more. They DON'T CARE about your C-Crane modulator with 2 AA batteries that will go 100 feet instead of 50 if you turn up the output. They are going after pirates that often interfere with licensed stations, and these people SHOULD be arrested!
2. I've only ever seen a small handful of NOUO's issued for the AM band, and again these few have all seemed to involve someone with significant power. A recent one resulted from a complaint by a licensed TIS station that was being interfered with. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE 20-FOOT MAST YOUR 100-MILLIWATT HAMILTON RANGEMASTER IS MOUNTED ON! They have better things to do, bigger fish to fry!
3. As long as Part 15 operators run an honest 100 milliwatts, stay on AM, don't cause interference and don't try to compete with commercial stations, the FCC's own NOUO list indicates to me that there is nothing to worry about. The ground lead issue is subject to interpretation and will hopefully remain that way. Lets all have fun with Part 15 and quit splitting hairs and agonizing over nothing.

Click to expand...

Ray, everything you've said is right on target except for one thing. A Part 15 AM can compete with commercial stations and need not fear repercussions from the FCC. I spoke to the FCC about this during a visit they gave me a few years ago and they said they have no interest or rule concerning the program content of a part 15 station. This is why we now have quite a number of commercial, for profit part 15 stations now operating in this country.

Nice post Ray!,
I will admit as I follow and write these posts I go back and forth from being pained to laughing out loud!

Nice logic Rattan.

Rich I think what may be happening here is you are pained by some details on my site, you want to “clean up” what you see as some inconsistencies.

If you really want to help people receive accurate information it would seem a good idea to have a positive relationship with the manufactures, so you could have some influence on the material, honestly, in the past you have seemed adversarial, & I am pretty easy going. A bit more diplomacy I think would go a long way.

To be perfectly honest I would be open to changing some of these details if we had more of an equal exchange going, if you could be helpful to me, I wouldn’t mind doing some editing on the site you think would be helpful.
For example the line that represents a ground wire in the drawing you pointed out in the e-mail you sent, it could be labeled (shielded grounding wire) or (non-radiating grounding wire)

Since the whole site is geared towards the 3 meter radiator I just haven’t taken the time yet to have the information everyway, that is an old drawing, the ground is represented by a line, people reading the rest of the site are supposed to know it is not supposed to radiate, but it could be labeled.

I think it would be very helpful to come up with ways to provide non-radiating grounds in different situations for people, do you have any ideas Rich? Could you help? If you are actually helping me instead of spinning my wheels, I would be more then happy to take a look at any reasonable edits to the website you want to make to help people understand things better.

How can somebody put a transmitter on their roof, and limit the radiator to 3 meters, and still have a lighting/transmitter ground?

How can somebody use an indoor tabletop AM transmitter like the talking house that has it power supply ground to the house box ground, and limit the radiator to 3 meters?

Gentlemen! The FCC allows a wide variety of devices under part 15. Some of thm go just a few feet.
Some of them have been heard 1,000 miles and it was legal.

But just keep going to the FCC! You are putting presure on them to take what they call a hard
look at this whole thing. Good going. You want to blame thr NAB and commercial broadcasters
for what you are doing to yourselves.

What is this part 15 anyway? You have one tenth watt input. You have one twentieth watt out.
You have an inefficient antenna ten feet long. You might have one one hundreth watt ERP.

You are bothering the FCC. I pitty my friends who work for this agency if they are forced to
visit you. They are guys just like you and me who would like to spend a Friday night with their wives and girlfriends. They really don't want a Friday night with you in your bedroom in Podunk, Ohio or indiana
examining your part 15 device.

I have warned you guys about doing yourselves in many times. I won't be back to read a response.
So, don't bother!!!!! Go ahead call the FCC some more on eachother!!!!

My opinion is that most of the responses to Mr. Fry's original post have been disgraceful in that they are personal attacks based on assumptions and they have drifted way off the topic of the post. Instead of just taking the post for what it is, which is a verbatim exchange with a FCC official and leaving it be at that, we have been audience to personal attacks and in general juvenile and non-professional conduct on the part of many posters simply because they don't like the information presented. That is all good and well but debate it on facts rather than on emotion. Why cannot comments be posted on the content of the post without ascribing motives which you cannot support to Mr. Fry?

Why would someone post a comment and in doing so state " I won't be back to read a response.
So, don't bother!!!!! Go ahead call the FCC some more on eachother!!!!"

That certainly does not advance the discussion nor does it add useful information. You are free to take your ball and go home but some of us have balls also and will continue to pursue meaningful discussion and leave personal attacks out of this in our pursuit of information and facts. My attack here is on behavior and is not directed at anyone individually.

Would you be proud if the FCC reads this thread? Chances are they do and the reaction to some of the attitudes expressed here cannot be positive.

Oh, and be assured that I will read responses.

Neil

Neil,

Read this. You gave your opinion, so, here is mine; My opinion is, I don't need your opinion. Your meaningful is my meddling. Fry's factual is my bs.

Your micromanagement on this thread and your faux "voice of reason" is unnecessary. That's what radio-info's job is, not you.

Who are you afraid of? The fcc works for me. It's government. Pardon me for "ascribing" here, but, Fry is also just another guy with an opinion and and big ego who thinks he is right. There are plenty of wrong people with big egos.

I follow the rules, and can prove it where the rubber meets the road. I've done it since 1967 (before that w/my Knight kit) and if I wake up, I'll do more tomorrow.

O, and I don't care who reads this. You and Fry both give me an attitude.

Thanks.

Prais,

Thank you for posting. As promised I read your reply. Good deal on the KnightKit. That's how I got started and still get it out of the cobwebs now and then just to play.

I also appreciate you stating that your opinion is that your don't need my opinion. I am OK with that.

I do however wonder what you meant when you posted "who are you afraid of?". You go on to say that the "FCC works for me". I don't disagree and I have not attacked them at all.

You also state that your follow the rules. Isn't that what I promote? You might be interested in looking at this thread:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=2d5eca74cfa2de06c105509df6b0c0e5&topic=108452.0

in which, according to my postings would appear to me that you and I have much to agree on.

I would hope the "attitude" that I give you is positive. So far it appears to be the case.
Thanks again,

Neil

Hi Neil,
I think you do a great job on this board, I think it can be difficult when people communicate over a medium like the internet, people just are not as courteous generally as they would be face to face, so it takes some extra special “grace”

I speak with FCC agents that say they read this board, and others, they have referred to certain posts.

I think keeping a positive attitude here is paramount, and the correct thing to do, if any of my posts have been or have been received as non-professional to others I apologize and am ready to try to make it right.

Keith,

Thank you, and your last post goes a long way to promote civility and to advance part 15 activities. It is welcomed from from you as a respected member of this board.

Neil

Re: The Real Bottom Line on all this

RayThomas said:

I have been an interested reader of the Community Radio board for 2 or 3 years now, and have never made a comment until now. This discussion seems to have stretched into a territory any realistic, practical person could call ridiculous. First off, I am a 35 year commercial radio programmer and air personality. I'm also a licensed Ham operator and have done some experimenting with Part 15 equipment. I've gone through an FCC inspection at a station I was working for. I've also spent many brain-liquifying hours reading through hundreds and hundreds of NOUO's and NAL's issued by the Commission. Here are my logical conclusions:
1. Almost ALL of the NOUO's are for the FM band. Almost ALL involve field strengths that would indicate power outputs of at least a few watts, usually more. They DON'T CARE about your C-Crane modulator with 2 AA batteries that will go 100 feet instead of 50 if you turn up the output. They are going after pirates that often interfere with licensed stations, and these people SHOULD be arrested!
2. I've only ever seen a small handful of NOUO's issued for the AM band, and again these few have all seemed to involve someone with significant power. A recent one resulted from a complaint by a licensed TIS station that was being interfered with. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE 20-FOOT MAST YOUR 100-MILLIWATT HAMILTON RANGEMASTER IS MOUNTED ON! They have better things to do, bigger fish to fry!
3. As long as Part 15 operators run an honest 100 milliwatts, stay on AM, don't cause interference and don't try to compete with commercial stations, the FCC's own NOUO list indicates to me that there is nothing to worry about. The ground lead issue is subject to interpretation and will hopefully remain that way. Lets all have fun with Part 15 and quit splitting hairs and agonizing over nothing.

Click to expand...

Bingo! Well said. This is exactly what it's all about. Engineers like Mr. Fry will always blabber on about the 'black and white" issues - while they are being led away to the firing squad. The harm done by constantly harping about this issue has now led to a "clarification" from the FCC (you knew it would come eventually - seeing how things were going on the boards), which now makes Part 15 AM even more difficult and restrictive while consolidating corporations steamroller over the remaining airwaves. Hardly seems fair or right.

Meanwhile the "gray" politicians promise us one thing during elections and when in power, give us something else (it's called lying - but we gladly accept that!). Other, better-connected corporate interests lobby the FCC to get IBOC established (sorry - I keep harping on this, but this seems way more serious than this ground lead business) - and we HAVE to accept that with no recourse (unless of course you're an opposing corporate interest with deep pockets).

Krimles,

Wouldn't it be a great thing if, instead of working to drastically reduce or eliminate the possibilities of using Part 15 stations for the public good, engineers would use their technical knowledge to advance the state of the art and help others to improve their operations? An intelligent person would realize that when you go to a government agency and ask them to clarify their rules, they are going to find ways to make them more restrictive, not more generous.

One wonders what the motivations of such persons are. Is it just the satisfaction of being right all the time? Or are they acting at the behest of some of the large media companies? These discussions, which have occurred on numerous "radio info" boards all over the Internet, have been annoying to read and extremely counter-productive. They may ultimately result in monetary forfeitures and equipment seizures for those who otherwise would have been left alone.

It is not likely that even the most efficient Part 15 AM station would pose an interference threat to a licensed station. The power level of those stations is thousands or even millions of times greater than even the most efficient Part 15 station could ever be.

Our government has given control of all of our media to a handful of huge corporations. None of us will live to see that decision reversed. A few people have correctly concluded that the IBOC de-BOCle is really nothing more than a huge spectrum grab to further eliminate choices by radio listeners. Industry people will say, too bad; radio is a business. In other words, listeners' rights don't matter, it's the almighty dollar that determines what is right. So, it's OK for CC to switch on a 50 kW IBOC signal and wipe out reception on 5 AM channels for literally millions of square miles, but God help the poor slob who grounds his Part 15 AM transmitter to prevent his home from burning down due to a lightning strike.

For those that think the FCC will establish a lower power AM radio service, I would not place any bets on that. The AM band is full of noise and interference as it is; most of it self generated. I am not expecting them to open it up to thousands of new low power stations any time soon.

Re: The Real Bottom Line on all this

Krimles said:

The harm done by constantly harping about this issue has now led to a "clarification" from the FCC (you knew it would come eventually - seeing how things were going on the boards), which now makes Part 15 AM even more difficult and restrictive while consolidating corporations steamroller over the remaining airwaves. Hardly seems fair or right.

Click to expand...

I believe that "Krimles" is the OEM for the Procaster transmitter, for which product his business was granted Part 15 AM certification.

Krimles, and other OEMs of Part 15 certified AM transmitters such as Hamilton and Talking House should have nothing to fear in an FCC "clarification" if the equipment they submitted for such certification actually met the requirements for Part 15.219 as recently clarified by John Reed of the FCC OET branch, and particularly with respect to the internal loading coils in these transmitters.

One might reasonably expect that such OEMs should fully investigate and understand the regulatory limits of Part 15 AM before they design, build, test and submit the data for their products to the FCC certification process. But this is not to say that the FCC process for reviewing such applications and awarding such certifications is perfect.

Also note that an FCC clarification does not change the rules upon which they comment. The clarifications only explain them in terms more likely to be generally understood.
//

audioguy said:

Krimles,

Wouldn't it be a great thing if, instead of working to drastically reduce or eliminate the possibilities of using Part 15 stations for the public good, engineers would use their technical knowledge to advance the state of the art and help others to improve their operations? An intelligent person would realize that when you go to a government agency and ask them to clarify their rules, they are going to find ways to make them more restrictive, not more generous.

One wonders what the motivations of such persons are. Is it just the satisfaction of being right all the time? Or are they acting at the behest of some of the large media companies? These discussions, which have occurred on numerous "radio info" boards all over the Internet, have been annoying to read and extremely counter-productive. They may ultimately result in monetary forfeitures and equipment seizures for those who otherwise would have been left alone. ....remainder snipped....

Click to expand...

Audioguy,

I am trying to restrain from stating what I want to in response to your post. I am an engineer and it is not my personal quest to be proven "right all the time", it is my duty and it is what I get paid for. I have designed life support systems and what do you think the consequences of this would be if I made up the rules and ignored the physics and your loved one was monitored by my device and the doctors made decisions based on data gathered due to my engineering and it was faulty? We get paid for and are expected to be right all the time and woe to us if the bridge falls into the river or the company goes TU (tits up meaning broken or not working) because of our "incompetence". Remember what the engineers advised before the Challenger disaster? This could be the subject of another post.

Why do you doubt us when we interpret the FCC rules and try to inform and educate folks like you to keep you out of trouble? Why do you assert that we are influenced by big interests? Why would you say "Wouldn't it be a great thing if, instead of working to drastically reduce or eliminate the possibilities of using Part 15 stations for the public good, engineers would use their technical knowledge to advance the state of the art and help others to improve their operations?" Where do you think the use loading coils and the practical application of the theory for AM which extended the range under part 15.219 came from?

I am deeply disappointed with your attitude. I and others such as Mr. Fry have tried to advance the body of knowledge regarding hobby use of radio technology and get nothing in return but bashing when you don't like the reality of the facts presented. You question the motivation of some of us. Did it or does it now occur to you that the motivation just may be that we studied hard, gained experience, and understand the technology and are just motivated to share this hard earned knowledge so it will be easier for you to practice the art and stay out of trouble with the FCC?

Go and "engineer" on your own if you don't like what we present and best wishes. You are under no obligation to follow our advice nor are you permitted to impunge our motives. Go do what you want with or without us.

Neil

Neil,

Thanks for your comments! First, I do not question your engineering prowess. I also studied hard and I am also an engineer (as it happens). I also understand that if you can't use an impedance matching network to match the output of a transmitter to its load, you are not going to be radiating anything. It seems that is where we've now arrived, thanks to these "interpretations". And I, for one, am very upset about that.

Now that we've had the rules "interpreted" such that any kind of useful Part 15 operation will be out of the question, what challenges are left for you guys? There won't be any more discussions about antennas, loading coils, or ground plane efficiencies, since nobody will be permitted to use them (ground mounted or otherwise).

To fill this void, I have a suggestion: why not turn your talents to debunking the I-Block myth. Let's start with the idea that it's "In Band On Channel". NOT! Then we can go after the suggestion that a 32 kbps data rate amounts to "High Definition" radio. NOT! At about that point, it will be appropriate to start calling people over at the FCC and getting some interpretations of how their rules allow a station to occupy 5 radio channels (of course, according to HD radio proponents, this is not the case, but anyone with a radio knows differently). I think a little digging into that would be time well spent. How about a little investigation of occupied bandwidth masks, transmitter IMD products, and related issues?

Now THAT would actually be useful!

//

Audioguy,

Thank you for your very courteous reply to my rather agitated post. As a fellow engineer I believe you can understand my frustration which prompted my rather animated reply. Wouldn't you just once like to see Scotty tell KirK "I told you the engines couldn't take it, now you have killed us all". In our dreams.

Regarding the "interpretation" of the rules, the rules were always there before this and the new read really doesn't do anything except remove the speculation and bending as I see it.

Regarding IBOC, you know more than I and I am not prepared to comment or become vocal about this. This doesn't mean it is not a problem, rather it means that I am not prepared to engage in a discussion about it. Perhaps you will carry the banner on the board about this and I will become educated by your posts and be motivated to comment when I know something.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply and you have smoothed my ruffled feathers.

Neil

R. Fry said:

cgbrock said:

I replaced the wire from my elevated transmitter to ground with a shielded coax cable. I did not notice any appreciable difference in signal quality or range.Chuck

Click to expand...

Interesting experiment, Chuck.

To some your result may mean that neither the shielded nor the unshielded ground conductor radiated. But really all that can be drawn logically from the result is that there is little difference between the radiation from the two configurations.

Click to expand...

That is true. But is it a leap to say that the shielded cable radiates less than the unshielded cable? Isn't this what shielding is designed to prevent? If we can make this leap, then the unshielded cable must have been radiating essentially zero for the range to stay the same. It's late -- where is my logic off ??

Chuck

Neil,

What many people do not understand is that the FCC, like most government agencies, is complaint driven. In most cases, they will not go out looking for the "eel under the rock", so to speak. If somebody makes an issue out of something, they will react to that. That is exactly what has happened here. The sad thing is, it wasn't even driven by a real problem, in that there was no actual complaint of interference. I have read many NAL's, and I don't believe I have ever even seen one that alleged that a Part 15 AM station was actually interfering with a licensed station! It's pretty hard to do, unless you're really stupid (and really close to the receiver)! FM, of course, is a different story.

I have a Part 15 station, and I enjoy operating it. I would like to be able to continue doing so.

Without paying a $10,000 fine.

//

Audioguy,

Please check your private mail.

Neil

cgbrock said:

But is it a leap to say that the shielded cable radiates less than the unshielded cable?

Click to expand...

The link below leads to a NEC-2 study of this subject, and shows that there is little difference in the gain and radiation pattern with and without a shield around the ground lead. Note that the density of the wire grid around the ground conductor is essentially solid, as far as 1.7 MHz r-f is concerned.

Also important to note in this NEC study is that both of the systems using a 20 foot ground conductor have about 13 dB more gain in the horizontal plane than when the 3-m whip is mounted near the earth, and the system uses a 1 inch ground conductor (the smallest of the three traces shown). A field increase of 13 dB multiplies the original field by about 4.5 times.

This NEC study shows that long conducting paths to r-f ground do add a substantial amount of radiation, other things equal.

LINK: http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/3-mMonopoleComparisons.gif

//

Rich,
So about the study you mentioned, the difference between the unshielded and shielded essentially being the same, It appears that the large radiation gain comes from the height increase, not so much from added radiation from the increased ground length.

Chuck, sounds like your original ground wire happened to be a poor radiator.

I think what Audioguy is saying is that when the FCC is prompted to interpret a rule, or generate policy, they will always gravitate to the more restrictive side, agents operating under the latest policy have much less leeway to operate with.

So it is what it is

Here is what an agent used to be looking at:

Section 15.219 Operation in the band 510 - 1705 kHz.
(a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage (exclusive of filament or heater
power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts.
(b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall not exceed 3
meters.
(c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be attenuated at least 20 dB below the
level of the unmodulated carrier. Determination of compliance with the 20 dB attenuation specification
may be based on measurements at the intentional radiator's antenna output terminal unless the intentional
radiator uses a permanently attached antenna, in which case compliance shall be demonstrated by
measuring the radiated emissions.

As of this year add this:

The 3-meter combined length specified in Section 15.219(b) refers to the length of all radiating elements. Attaching the ground lead to an unshielded radiating object, or the addition of a ground screen, will cause the effective length of radiating elements to exceed 3 meters, in violation of Section 15.219(b).

Actually I think this policy is actually helpful with 15.219(b)

So my concern is some very restrictive policy doesn’t come out in the future. I think the best thing for part 15 operators is fewer polices, leaving more latitude to the individual agents.

Ok folks, first I'll just put forward a thought for your consideration. It's just a thought.

Imagine a different radio service, say FRS, the Family Radio Service that also happens to require no license, etc. It's not on the broadcast bands and it's part 95 rather than part15, but I'm using it for the example to avoid "stepping on anybody's toes" hopefully..

Ok, now let's imagine a bunch of people buy FRS radios and start calling the FCC and asking questions.. "Do I need a license for this?" "Can I hook up a much bigger antenna to try and get more range?" "Can I broadcast my podcast 24hrs a day and 7 days a week over my FRS radio?"

The answers to all those questions are probably pretty darn obvious. But lets say the FCC is getting a lot of calls.. Do you really *really* think that just because they're getting asked questions, that the FCC is going to suddenly change the rules?

Do you actually think somebody is going to call up and say "Hi, can I put this ham radio DX antenna on my FRS radio to get more range out of it?" and the FCC is going to say "Actually, just cut the existing antenna right off that sucker..We're tired of answering people's questions about radio and to teach all you FRS people to shut up, we want all those antennas off all those radios right now!"

Ok, well they might joke about *wanting* to say that when they're back at the coffeepot, but I really honestly doubt they'd ever say it to a caller and I doubt even more that it would result in a sudden policy change requiring all the already certified FRS radios to have their antennas cut off. It just doesn't work that way, folks..

Now, there may be some GMRS licensees who paid for their license and have to share some channels with unlicensed FRS people who *wish* the FCC would make the FRS folks all chop their antennas right off, so they wouldn't have to share those channels with them. But that hasn't made it happen any more than people calling in with questions does.

I think that maybe there's a bit of a greater tendency for some folks to panic when it's "our hobby" that we're talking about, so hopefully an example from another part of the radio spectrum can put things back into perspective.

As far as what the motivations of Richard Fry (and this probably also holds true for other engineers such as Neil and Ermi Roos for example), as you might recall I asked Rich that a few days ago. And he told a little about what he tries to do and how he feels it's important..

But to cut to the point, Rich does what he does for much the same reason as *any* of us do. He does it because part15 is a hobby of his. He is a hobbyist just like I am, just like you are. But his hobby is being a broadcast engineer for part 15 broadcast band radio, as opposed to being station owner or dj. Certainly someone doing the engineering calculations and studying the regulations for part 15 BCB isn't any less of a hobbyist than someone who enjoys being a station owner or a dj or a program director?

I don't presume to know all of what broadcast engineers do at licensed stations. But part of their duties would almost certainly involve advising the station owner of the "black and white" if an idea appears to be likely to lead to an NAL or etc? And also explaining why. Showing it with charts and graphs, equations, checking with the FCC to confirm one way or the other. Now if it wasn't online he also might be testing and measuring gear under operating conditions and that sort of thing, but since I doubt anybody is in a financial position to pay his air fare to their station that just isn't practical to hope for in the online forum aspects of the hobby.

He does quite a lot to try and help people. If someone were to say "Hmm.. I was going to use a 2 inch diameter copper pipe for my antenna, but all I can afford is one inch diameter, how much of a difference will that make?" Many times Rich has set up an emulation and run it and put charts up on the net and explained the difference and how the chart shows it. When someone asks if a certain type of antenna might be a good idea, again, Rich often goes to work calculating and comparing and then explaining and giving his informed opinion, supporting his conclusions with explanations, equations, charts, graphs, diagrams. He also will inform you if in his opinion it would or would not be acceptable for part 15. Personally I would say he is not "blabbering on", he is acting like a broadcast engineer. And furthermore, one who also is generally well qualified, thorough, and conscientious. Also generally very polite considering how many interestingly excessive accusations and temper tantrums sometimes are directed at him.

You may not always like what he has to say. You don't have to agree either, he's just advising and explaining. And if you don't want 6 page long threads with over 1,000 views because you're afraid it will somehow affect how the FCC enforces the part 15 regulations, it might be worth noting that Rich didn't actually write most of this thread. If you didn't want a long huge argument, then why do it at all? Anyone who complained in this thread could have just read it, shrugged, and started another thread on something they felt was more important rather than perpetuating the arguments.

What are you really saying with acting this? That you have every right to participate in part 15 discussion group activities as a station owner, dj, program director and etc (I think that in many cases we end up being one person having to be all the above) but that Rich shouldn't be allowed to participate as a part15 broadcast engineer? Think maybe he isn't qualified enough or something?

Ok, so what would happen if next week Mr Fry decided he'd finally had enough of the sort of treatment he's been getting here (and elsewhere) and he left? Would you end up bashing Neil next? Ermi Roos? Where would it end? When there was nobody left to disagree with you? I'm sure somebody could always make a "Part 15 but no radio engineers allowed" forum, but would that actually help part 15 broadcasting at all?

Now having seen some of the comments Neil got, I'll state ahead of time that I only act as the "voice of reason" as a hobby. And usually only if I feel it serves a community (including online forums). So it's not like I'm a secret agent for the NAOVOR (National Association Of Voices Of Reason) or anything like that. Ok?

Daniel