• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

To Part 15 Broadcasters

W

WCWalker

Guest
Fry is now alleging the FCC's own labs are somehow permitting illegal Type Accepted Part 15 devices to get onto the market despite having passed inspection at an official FCC lab.

Rest assured if these units were illegal they would have been pulled off the market years ago. Both the USI Trans AM 100 (LPB unit to some) and Talking House Transmitter and ISS Infomax have been around for decades and thousands of these units are in use all over the country as I write this. How often do we see an NAL associated with someone using one of these transmitters or the Hamilton Rangemaster? Or the new Procaster? Almost never.
 
William C. Walker said:
Both the USI Trans AM 100 (LPB unit to some) and Talking House Transmitter and ISS Infomax have been around for decades and thousands of these units are in use all over the country as I write this. How often do we see an NAL associated with someone using one of these transmitters or the Hamilton Rangemaster? Or the new Procaster? Almost never.
Click to expand...

How is anyone to know (reliably)? Published FCC citations for unlicensed Part 15 issues never state such details.

//
 
They most certainly do publish NAL's for Part 15 stations that allegedly are not in compliance.
 
William C. Walker said:
They most certainly do publish NAL's for Part 15 stations that allegedly are not in compliance.
Click to expand...

What I wrote is that the published notices do not identify the equipment used (by nomenclature and manufacturer), so that anyone would know from reading them whether or not the transmitter was certified for Part 15.
//
 
But there are ways to find out what type of equipment was being used...
 
I'm trying to picture myself as a person who is intent on shutting down part 15 am and fm operations.
If I were that type person I'd be emailing FCC personnel, and telling all, embellishing everything I could to make it seem to an agent that nearly everyone doing this hobby was breaking the law.

It's easy to do too. FCC Regs fall somewhat inbetween white and black, and are left up to agents to decide what is right and wrong. Since we all have different opinions, some operators may be fined or shut down while at the same time, operators doing the same thing may be passed.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: we are dealing with 1/10th of a watt, maybe enough power to break thru the noice of your computer, and if you are not interferring with a local commercial AM (or FM) station, I see no reason to deal with details such as "the ground wire was 6" too long". This is not a good reason to call a FCC field agent out to inspect.

While in my opinion it is all well and good to discuss what is blatantly illegal regarding part 15 broadcasts, the little details are not important, nor should they be, and in reality they are not.

We should be concentrating on how to put on MORE part 15 stations instead of discouraging people to try to. But this is what has been happening on this board for a couple years now (corrrection, probably 5 years now). Why?

Future part 15ers are looking for instruction, and tips on how to make it happen, not for advice on how to shut down before they even start.

This board has a tendency to concentrate on telling people they are totally wrong, and that they shouldn't broadcast. Overall, that is how it translates to a user who is casually interested in part 15 broadcasting.

If that continues to be the case, maybe this board should be renamed.
"Don't Get Into Community Radio".

Or maybe we should have that one entered on the board, so that the naysayers and people who interpret the law could post there, and the part 15ers, hoping to broadcast and ask for help, could post here.

How bout it?
 
Very well stated, Carl. This is one reason why I want to host the Part 15 broadcasters' conference. Besides dealing with established Part 15 stations I hope to have workshop sessions for those wanting to start a station, be it for a hobby, on-campus education station or something more.
 
As someone who HAS received a notice of apparent liability for 100 watt operation of a pirate on the 40m SW broadcast band AND paid a $1000 fine in 1991 , let me tell you, I am, as a pt15 operator, extremely wary of rules and want to make sure my output will not be
a 2nd offense. So I understand Mr Fry's position and am happy to hear ANY opinions of interpretations.

When I hear the licensed users of 1620 override my signal within a few blocks of my house I am reassured that there can be no
stunning letters from my quite-local field office.

There's certainly a lot of "grey areas" in interpretation of the rules.
"Thinking out loud" and probing for helpful clarification from the FCC should not be considered as trying to cause trouble.
A forum like this IS about "thinking out loud".
 
Ladies and Gentlemen of this Board,

Recently Mr. Fry posted verbatim his exchange with Mr. Reed of the FCC regarding part 15 AM regulations. That thread and this which was spawned has contained some very unkind, unwarranted, and unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Fry's methods and intents.

I would hope posters here would take the high road and not resort to attacking the messenger when we don't like the message and focus on the facts and the truth, but for some of us the only response seems to be to impunge the reporter. Let's leave that to folks running for political office.

As I read Mr. Fry's exchange with Mr. Reed, where he had the integrity and courtesy to gain permission from Mr. Reed before publishing the exchange, I see nothing in Mr. Fry's posts which indicate he "wants to destroy part 15 broadcasting". Can anyone cite for me a statement of Mr. Fry's which is not based on the facts presented?

It was stated that Mr. Fry categorically has "something to hide". I don't know yes or no, but this should not be a factor when evaluating his exchange with Mr. Reed.

What could destroy part 15 broadcasting is ignorance of or disregard for the rules on the part of us who cause problems by doing so.

If you want to discuss the rules I urge you to do so from facts and not rumors or second hand information gained from someone who knows someone who works for the FCC. Mr. Fry has directly contacted and reported his communicatons from a legitimate government authority on this topic and he is not operating on hearsay. So what is the problem?

Let's take the high road here and keep personal attacks out of the discussion. Read Mr. Fry's posted exchange for what it is which, in my opinion, is a good example of accurate reporting which seems to be lacking in most media.

Neil
 
Prais said:
WHO CARES WHAT Fry says.
Click to expand...

The fact that Fry has ZERO experience using the very transmitters he vilifies is just cause to question his judgment and motives.
 
My FCC says, "Fry is just an annoying blowhard." My source prevously endorsed my part 15 operation by visit and letter, and suggested I
ignore him.

As long my house is made of brick (it is), I would say,"whose afraid of the big, bad wolf."
 
Prais said:
My source prevously endorsed my part 15 operation by visit and letter, and suggested I ignore him.

As long my house is made of brick (it is), I would say,"whose afraid of the big, bad wolf."
Click to expand...

This relates to my post today in the original thread. It seems to me that the crux is how the FCC chooses to define "ground lead," not whether it radiates.

Would you mind sharing some details of your operation?

Chuck
 
"Chuck"

What details are you after? I notice that there are probably a hundred "multiple identity" people on radio-info. You only have 3 posts, all today. Why the sudden interest?

We are "fcc engineer inspected" and certified legal by him. I'm satisfied.

I don't know you from Adam. With respect, To answer your question, I DO mind.

Drop by and see me. I'll show you around.

Prais
 
Prais said:
"Chuck"

What details are you after? I notice that there are probably a hundred "multiple identity" people on radio-info. You only have 3 posts, all today. Why the sudden interest?

We are "fcc engineer inspected" and certified legal by him. I'm satisfied.

I don't know you from Adam. With respect, To answer your question, I DO mind.

Drop by and see me. I'll show you around.

Prais
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to arouse suspicions. Many people don't mind posting info about their station. I think it helps the entire Part 15 community if we have technical details about installations that have actually passed an inspection. I wasn't trying to get you in trouble - I don't even know or care who you are or where your station is!

I have had a Part 15 station for about 1-1/2 years. Here is the website if you're interested, which has all of my technical details: www.geocities.com/victory1610am

So how many posts do I have to have before I'm not treated like an undercover FCC agent?

Chuck Brockway
Twin Falls, Idaho
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom