Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

suncountry · Nov 4, 2005

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261747A1.html

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
Northeast Region
Boston Office
One Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02169

October 12, 2005

Raul Medina
First Pentecostal Missionary Church
Springfield, MA

NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION

Case Number: EB-05-BS-098
Document Number: W20063226003

The Boston Office received information that an unlicensed
broadcast radio station on 1700 kHz was allegedly operating in
Springfield, MA. On August 17, 2005, an agent from this office
confirmed by direction finding techniques that radio signals on
frequency 1700 kHz were emanating from the First Pentecostal
Missionary Church, in Springfield, where you are the pastor. The
Commission's records show that no license was issued for
operation of a broadcast station on 1700 kHz at this location in
Springfield, MA.

Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
§ 301. The only exception to this licensing requirement is for
certain transmitters using or operating at a power level or mode
of operation that complies with the standards established in Part
15 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.1 et seq. The
field strength of the signal on frequency 1700 kHz was measured
at 27,000µV/m at 35 meters, which exceeded the maximum permitted
level of 14.118 microvolts per meter (µV/m) at 30 meters for non-
licensed devices operating on frequencies between 490 kHz and
1705 kHz. See 47 C.F.R. 15.209(a). Thus, this station is
operating in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 301.

You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting
equipment without a valid radio station authorization constitutes
a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could subject the
operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to,
substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the
offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including
imprisonment. (see 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503 and 510).

UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED
IMMEDIATELY.

You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to respond
with any evidence that you have authority to operate granted by
the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in the
letterhead and reference the listed case and document number.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we are
informing you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant
material information before it to determine what, if any,
enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with FCC
Rules. This will include any information that you disclose in
your reply.

You may contact this office if you have any questions.

Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office

Attachments:
Excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended
Enforcement Bureau, "Inspection Fact Sheet", July 2003

______________
Deano
SunCountryFL.com
www.live365.com/stations/suncountry

suncountry · Nov 4, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

Most of the NOUO's are for FM stations, but there are a couple AMs that have received the dreaded letter. rfry, based on the measured field strength readings in the NOUO's, can you even take a stab at what kinds of output power these guys were running?

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
Western Region

San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, CA 92111

July 13, 2005

Overdrive Broadcasting
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION

Case Number: EB-04-
SD-198
Document Number:
W200532940002

The San Diego Office received information that an unlicensed
broadcast radio station on 1650 kHz was allegedly operating in
Flagstaff, Arizona. On May 17, 2005, agents from this office
confirmed by direction finding techniques that a radio
transmitter operating on the frequency 1650 kHz was located on
West University Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. The Commission's
records show that no license was issued for operation of a
broadcast station at this location on 1650 kHz in Flagstaff,
Arizona.

Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
§ 301. The only exception to this licensing requirement is for
certain transmitters using or operating at a power level that
complies with the standards established in Part 15 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.1 et seq. Your operation on
frequency 1650 kHz was measured at 7,400 microvolts per meter
(µV/m) at 122 meters. This exceeds the allowable unlicensed
limit of 14.5 µV/m at 30 meters established in 47 C.F.R. §
15.209(a). Thus, this station is operating in violation of 47
U.S.C. § 301.

You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting
equipment without a valid radio station authorization constitutes
a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could subject the
operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to,
substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the
offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including
imprisonment. (See 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503 and 510).

UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED
IMMEDIATELY.

You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to respond
with any evidence that you have authority to operate granted by
the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in the
letterhead and reference the listed case and document number.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we are
informing you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant
material information before it to determine what, if any,
enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with FCC
Rules. This will include any information that you disclose in
your reply.

You may contact this office if you have any questions.

William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office

Attachments:
Excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended
Enforcement Bureau, "Inspection Fact Sheet", July 2003

______________
Deano
SunCountryFL.com
www.live365.com/stations/suncountry

WCWalker · Nov 4, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

***I can tell you because I am acquainted with someone that is or was a part of the station.

They were using a single Rangemaster but the NAL was cancelled almost immediately after the alleged problem was corrected. It had something to do with the way the transmitter was grounded. They fixed the ground and have not have a problem since.

Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta against this station and they were constantly complaining to the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.

> Most of the NOUO's are for FM stations, but there are a
> couple AMs that have received the dreaded letter. rfry,
> based on the measured field strength readings in the NOUO's,
> can you even take a stab at what kinds of output power these
> guys were running?
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html
>
> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
> Western Region
>
> San Diego Office
> 4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
> San Diego, CA 92111
>
>
> July 13, 2005
>
>
> Overdrive Broadcasting
> Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
>
>
> NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION
>
> Case Number:
> EB-04-
> SD-198
> Document Number:
> W200532940002
>
> The San Diego Office received information that an unlicensed
>
> broadcast radio station on 1650 kHz was allegedly operating
> in
> Flagstaff, Arizona. On May 17, 2005, agents from this
> office
> confirmed by direction finding techniques that a radio
> transmitter operating on the frequency 1650 kHz was located
> on
> West University Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. The
> Commission's
> records show that no license was issued for operation of a
> broadcast station at this location on 1650 kHz in Flagstaff,
>
> Arizona.
>
> Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47
> U.S.C.
> § 301. The only exception to this licensing requirement is
> for
> certain transmitters using or operating at a power level
> that
> complies with the standards established in Part 15 of the
> Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.1 et seq. Your
> operation on
> frequency 1650 kHz was measured at 7,400 microvolts per
> meter
> (µV/m) at 122 meters. This exceeds the allowable unlicensed
>
> limit of 14.5 µV/m at 30 meters established in 47 C.F.R. §
> 15.209(a). Thus, this station is operating in violation of
> 47
> U.S.C. § 301.
>
> You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting
> equipment without a valid radio station authorization
> constitutes
> a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could
> subject the
> operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to,
>
> substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the
>
> offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including
>
> imprisonment. (See 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503 and 510).
>
> UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE
> DISCONTINUED
> IMMEDIATELY.
>
> You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to
> respond
> with any evidence that you have authority to operate granted
> by
> the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in the
>
> letterhead and reference the listed case and document
> number.
> Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we are
>
> informing you that the Commission's staff will use all
> relevant
> material information before it to determine what, if any,
> enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance
> with FCC
> Rules. This will include any information that you disclose
> in
> your reply.
>
> You may contact this office if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> William R. Zears Jr.
> District Director
> San Diego Office
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
> Excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, As
> Amended
> Enforcement Bureau, "Inspection Fact Sheet", July 2003
>

suncountry · Nov 4, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

If the station was using a Rangemaster, it should probably concern us that the FCC sited a field strength as proof of rule violation. I would assume that during the inspection the FCC was made aware that the transmitter was a FCC certified Part 15 AM transmitter, and still the inspecters used a field strength reading to determine whether the operation was legal or not.

> ***I can tell you because I am acquainted with someone that
> is or was a part of the station.
>
> They were using a single Rangemaster but the NAL was
> cancelled almost immediately after the alleged problem was
> corrected. It had something to do with the way the
> transmitter was grounded. They fixed the ground and have
> not have a problem since.
>
> Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta
> against this station and they were constantly complaining to
> the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.
>
>
>
> > Most of the NOUO's are for FM stations, but there are a
> > couple AMs that have received the dreaded letter. rfry,
> > based on the measured field strength readings in the
> NOUO's,
> > can you even take a stab at what kinds of output power
> these
> > guys were running?
> >
> > http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html
> >
> > FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
> >
> > ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
> > Western Region
> >
> > San Diego Office
> > 4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
> > San Diego, CA 92111
> >
> >
> > July 13, 2005
> >
> >
> > Overdrive Broadcasting
> > Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
> >
> >
> > NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION
> >
> > Case Number:
> > EB-04-
> > SD-198
> > Document Number:
> > W200532940002
> >
> > The San Diego Office received information that an
> unlicensed
> >
> > broadcast radio station on 1650 kHz was allegedly
> operating
> > in
> > Flagstaff, Arizona. On May 17, 2005, agents from this
> > office
> > confirmed by direction finding techniques that a radio
> > transmitter operating on the frequency 1650 kHz was
> located
> > on
> > West University Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. The
> > Commission's
> > records show that no license was issued for operation of a
>
> > broadcast station at this location on 1650 kHz in
> Flagstaff,
> >
> > Arizona.
> >
> > Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47
> > U.S.C.
> > § 301. The only exception to this licensing requirement
> is
> > for
> > certain transmitters using or operating at a power level
> > that
> > complies with the standards established in Part 15 of the
>
> > Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.1 et seq. Your
> > operation on
> > frequency 1650 kHz was measured at 7,400 microvolts per
> > meter
> > (µV/m) at 122 meters. This exceeds the allowable
> unlicensed
> >
> > limit of 14.5 µV/m at 30 meters established in 47 C.F.R. §
>
> > 15.209(a). Thus, this station is operating in violation
> of
> > 47
> > U.S.C. § 301.
> >
> > You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting
>
> > equipment without a valid radio station authorization
> > constitutes
> > a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could
> > subject the
> > operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited
> to,
> >
> > substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against
> the
> >
> > offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions
> including
> >
> > imprisonment. (See 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503 and 510).
> >
> > UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE
> > DISCONTINUED
> > IMMEDIATELY.
> >
> > You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to
> > respond
> > with any evidence that you have authority to operate
> granted
> > by
> > the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in
> the
> >
> > letterhead and reference the listed case and document
> > number.
> > Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we
> are
> >
> > informing you that the Commission's staff will use all
> > relevant
> > material information before it to determine what, if any,
>
> > enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance
> > with FCC
> > Rules. This will include any information that you
> disclose
> > in
> > your reply.
> >
> > You may contact this office if you have any questions.
> >
> >
> >
> > William R. Zears Jr.
> > District Director
> > San Diego Office
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> > Excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, As
> > Amended
> > Enforcement Bureau, "Inspection Fact Sheet", July
> 2003
> >
>
______________
Deano
SunCountryFL.com
www.live365.com/stations/suncountry

WCWalker · Nov 4, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

***Yes, this is correct. Essentially they were informed Field Strength was not an issue but the way the ground was set up was. Apparently they ran the ground lead something like 250 feet to a tie off when the FCC would rather see it go straight to the mast or at least directly down to the ground underneath the transmitter. Once the ground lead was trimmed down to the appropiate lenth the problem was solved.

Still, you have to question the legitimacy of such readings. If you read the post earlier about my experiences with the alleged high field strength reading on my own station in KC you will note that their Field Strength Meter showed my station as being overpower even when the power level on the transmitter was set at ZERO and essentially my signal was not going even 100 feet!

And to further illustrate my point, an FCC Supervisor confided to a friend of mine (GM of a 5kw AM station) that the FCC can not accurately read very low power AM signals in the field with their equipment. My experience proves it!

> If the station was using a Rangemaster, it should probably
> concern us that the FCC sited a field strength as proof of
> rule violation. I would assume that during the inspection
> the FCC was made aware that the transmitter was a FCC
> certified Part 15 AM transmitter, and still the inspecters
> used a field strength reading to determine whether the
> operation was legal or not.
>
> > ***I can tell you because I am acquainted with someone
> that
> > is or was a part of the station.
> >
> > They were using a single Rangemaster but the NAL was
> > cancelled almost immediately after the alleged problem was
>
> > corrected. It had something to do with the way the
> > transmitter was grounded. They fixed the ground and have
> > not have a problem since.
> >
> > Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta
> > against this station and they were constantly complaining
> to
> > the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Most of the NOUO's are for FM stations, but there are a
> > > couple AMs that have received the dreaded letter. rfry,
>
> > > based on the measured field strength readings in the
> > NOUO's,
> > > can you even take a stab at what kinds of output power
> > these
> > > guys were running?
> > >
> > >
> http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260037A1.html
> > >
> > > FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
> > >
> > > ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
> > > Western Region
> > >
> > > San Diego Office
> > > 4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
> > > San Diego, CA 92111
> > >
> > >
> > > July 13, 2005
> > >
> > >
> > > Overdrive Broadcasting
> > > Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
> > >
> > >
> > > NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION
> > >
> > > Case Number:
>
> > > EB-04-
> > > SD-198
> > > Document Number:
> > > W200532940002
> > >
> > > The San Diego Office received information that an
> > unlicensed
> > >
> > > broadcast radio station on 1650 kHz was allegedly
> > operating
> > > in
> > > Flagstaff, Arizona. On May 17, 2005, agents from this
> > > office
> > > confirmed by direction finding techniques that a radio
> > > transmitter operating on the frequency 1650 kHz was
> > located
> > > on
> > > West University Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. The
> > > Commission's
> > > records show that no license was issued for operation of
> a
> >
> > > broadcast station at this location on 1650 kHz in
> > Flagstaff,
> > >
> > > Arizona.
> > >
> > > Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to
> 47
> > > U.S.C.
> > > § 301. The only exception to this licensing requirement
>
> > is
> > > for
> > > certain transmitters using or operating at a power level
>
> > > that
> > > complies with the standards established in Part 15 of
> the
> >
> > > Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.1 et seq. Your
> > > operation on
> > > frequency 1650 kHz was measured at 7,400 microvolts per
> > > meter
> > > (µV/m) at 122 meters. This exceeds the allowable
> > unlicensed
> > >
> > > limit of 14.5 µV/m at 30 meters established in 47 C.F.R.
> §
> >
> > > 15.209(a). Thus, this station is operating in violation
>
> > of
> > > 47
> > > U.S.C. § 301.
> > >
> > > You are hereby warned that operation of radio
> transmitting
> >
> > > equipment without a valid radio station authorization
> > > constitutes
> > > a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could
> > > subject the
> > > operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited
>
> > to,
> > >
> > > substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against
>
> > the
> > >
> > > offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions
> > including
> > >
> > > imprisonment. (See 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503 and 510).
>
> > >
> > > UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE
> > > DISCONTINUED
> > > IMMEDIATELY.
> > >
> > > You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to
> > > respond
> > > with any evidence that you have authority to operate
> > granted
> > > by
> > > the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in
>
> > the
> > >
> > > letterhead and reference the listed case and document
> > > number.
> > > Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we
>
> > are
> > >
> > > informing you that the Commission's staff will use all
> > > relevant
> > > material information before it to determine what, if
> any,
> >
> > > enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance
>
> > > with FCC
> > > Rules. This will include any information that you
> > disclose
> > > in
> > > your reply.
> > >
> > > You may contact this office if you have any questions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > William R. Zears Jr.
> > > District Director
> > > San Diego Office
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attachments:
> > > Excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, As
> > > Amended
> > > Enforcement Bureau, "Inspection Fact Sheet", July
> > 2003
> > >
> >
>

ajhenderson · Nov 4, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

> ***I can tell you because I am acquainted with someone that
> is or was a part of the station.
>
> They were using a single Rangemaster but the NAL was
> cancelled almost immediately after the alleged problem was
> corrected. It had something to do with the way the
> transmitter was grounded. They fixed the ground and have
> not have a problem since.
>
> Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta
> against this station and they were constantly complaining to
> the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.

When there are three AMs in the market, it's not tough. The guy who's always bitching is a good guy, but his station clears every sports team in the market and runs ESPN weekends. No wonder there.

xmusicmatt · Nov 5, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

> Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta
> against this station and they were constantly complaining to
> the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.

I can see where a licensed broadcaster would be a little peeved that a flea powered Part15 AM station was "clearing" Premere's Fox Sports Radio Net... The station in Flagstaff goes to show, if your in the right spot and provide people with something they want, they will listen.

______________
Lenks
Program Director/Music Director
X Music Online
The X
Today's Best Music
http://www.xmusiconline.com/

ajhenderson · Nov 5, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

> > Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta
> > against this station and they were constantly complaining
> to
> > the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.
>
>
> I can see where a licensed broadcaster would be a little
> peeved that a flea powered Part15 AM station was "clearing"
> Premere's Fox Sports Radio Net... The station in Flagstaff
> goes to show, if your in the right spot and provide people
> with something they want, they will listen.

And that huge syndication companies will do business with even you (generic "you", of course).

WCWalker · Nov 5, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

***The people that complain actually are not particularly bright.

For starters, even a part 15 AM station will get listeners with proper marketing. That in turn potentially attracts new listeners to the AM band who in turn, are likely to find OTHER AM stations they might like. This helps keep the AM band alive by introducing new listeners. Use it or lose it.

There is a small radio market in the Northeast that recently found itself facing an FCC audit because two or three stations in the market kept contacting the FCC to complain about the other stations alleged improprieties. The FCC grew sick and tired of the constant nagging and decided to Audit and Investigate EVERY SINGLE LICENSED radio station in the market. Ironically, the part 15 AM in that market did not face the same scrutiny because they kept out of the fray.

Moral of the story? If you keep harping to the FCC about alleged problems they quite likely will scrutinize your own facility equally or more than the station you are complaining about. Unless you have a proven, legitimate complaint it is best to reserve judgment and err on the side of caution by not stiring up any trouble.

> > > Apparently someone in the Flagstaff area had a vendetta
> > > against this station and they were constantly
> complaining
> > to
> > > the FCC about Fox Sports 1650.
> >
> >
> > I can see where a licensed broadcaster would be a little
> > peeved that a flea powered Part15 AM station was
> "clearing"
> > Premere's Fox Sports Radio Net... The station in
> Flagstaff
> > goes to show, if your in the right spot and provide people
>
> > with something they want, they will listen.
>
> And that huge syndication companies will do business with
> even you (generic "you", of course).
>

dickfry · Nov 5, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

> And to further illustrate my point, an FCC Supervisor
> confided to a friend of mine (GM of a 5kw AM station) that
> the FCC can not accurately read very low power AM signals in
> the field with their equipment. My experience proves it!

It's a fact. As a person who has done too many AM proof of performance tests, I can testify that even the industry standard Potomac AM meters cannot read signals that are hiding in the 'grass.' The desired weak signal disappears when there's a lot of noise of ANY kind, whether it's power lines, auto ignition on a nearby road, other stations, etc.

This isn't an FCC problem, it's a technology problem. Even if you can calculate a signal exists at a location, you may not be able to measure it above the other trash that co-exists with it.

-Dick

WCWalker · Nov 5, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

***Dick, thank you for reinforcing my point. I certainly don't lie about personal experiences I've had when dealing with the FCC and I am not about to fabricate some story claiming I was running a tenth of a watt but in reality I was using some 20 watt transmitter and that is why I was overpower. The fact of the matter is it was a Trans AM 100, the power level was at ZERO and it was still showing off the scale on the FSM even though I could no longer hear the station on the radio about 25 feet away from the transmitter.

I will take the word of the FCC on this matter (since it comes from more than one individual there) and not the word of R. Fry.

> > And to further illustrate my point, an FCC Supervisor
> > confided to a friend of mine (GM of a 5kw AM station) that
>
> > the FCC can not accurately read very low power AM signals
> in
> > the field with their equipment. My experience proves it!
>
> It's a fact. As a person who has done too many AM proof of
> performance tests, I can testify that even the industry
> standard Potomac AM meters cannot read signals that are
> hiding in the 'grass.' The desired weak signal disappears
> when there's a lot of noise of ANY kind, whether it's power
> lines, auto ignition on a nearby road, other stations, etc.
>
> This isn't an FCC problem, it's a technology problem. Even
> if you can calculate a signal exists at a location, you may
> not be able to measure it above the other trash that
> co-exists with it.
>
>
> -Dick
>

JasonW · Nov 5, 2005

Re: And Another FCC Notice Of Unlicensed Operation

Thank you as well, Dick, for sharing your experience with professional industry-grade Field Strength Meters.

The FCC also is known to give some leeway even if limits are being somewhat exceeded, as long as no harm is done (as police often do with speed limits). Sometimes they'll allow a *lot* of leeway. I once asked the Anchorage office about setting up a Part 15 AM transmitter in a remote Eskimo village, using a full-size 1/4 wavelength Folded Marconi antenna (made of 300 ohm TV twinlead) and a full-blown radial system. Such an antenna system is *way* over the Part 15 limits. Their response: "Since it's hundreds of miles away from the nearest city, as long as you don't interfere with any other stations that can be received in the village, we have no objections." -- JasonW

> ***Dick, thank you for reinforcing my point. I certainly
> don't lie about personal experiences I've had when dealing
> with the FCC and I am not about to fabricate some story
> claiming I was running a tenth of a watt but in reality I
> was using some 20 watt transmitter and that is why I was
> overpower. The fact of the matter is it was a Trans AM 100,
> the power level was at ZERO and it was still showing off the
> scale on the FSM even though I could no longer hear the
> station on the radio about 25 feet away from the
> transmitter.
>
> I will take the word of the FCC on this matter (since it
> comes from more than one individual there) and not the word
> of R. Fry.
>
>
> > > And to further illustrate my point, an FCC Supervisor
> > > confided to a friend of mine (GM of a 5kw AM station)
> that
> >
> > > the FCC can not accurately read very low power AM
> signals
> > in
> > > the field with their equipment. My experience proves
> it!
> >
> > It's a fact. As a person who has done too many AM proof of
>
> > performance tests, I can testify that even the industry
> > standard Potomac AM meters cannot read signals that are
> > hiding in the 'grass.' The desired weak signal disappears
> > when there's a lot of noise of ANY kind, whether it's
> power
> > lines, auto ignition on a nearby road, other stations,
> etc.
> >
> > This isn't an FCC problem, it's a technology problem. Even
>
> > if you can calculate a signal exists at a location, you
> may
> > not be able to measure it above the other trash that
> > co-exists with it.
> >
> >
> > -Dick
> >
>

rfry · Mar 22, 2009