|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 15, 2016 10:21:28 GMT -7
i think we can forget trying to get more power on FM, that one is dead on arrival i believe the USA FM band is just too congested near major cities to allow for any kind of real power increase. the absolute best we can hope for on FM is to get the BETS-1 standard here in the USA, but i even think that may be dead on arrival and not considered.
we should probably concentrate on relaxing AM restrictions, opening up 1710, and concentrate on longwave and shortwave.
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 15, 2016 22:58:38 GMT -7
I think that AM is dicey as well. It has relatively decent range (up to a mile or more) with a good transmitter & installation, much more than Part 15 FM. One of the concerns there would be the potential to actually lose what is already there if it is opened up.
I say to focus on LW and SW - both are relatively under utilized (SW at any rate) and I believe a case can be made to set up a hobbyist broadcasting service in a dedicated frequency band (one suggestion is in or around the 49m band, which is 5.9-6.2 Mhz), similar to amateur radio (but one way, of course). The objective would be innovation - both technical (such as experimentation with different transmission modes, including digital) and programming (delivering services and material that isn't readily available elsewhere). Although simulations would have to be done, if power output is kept low (say, 1 to 5 watts), the chances of interference outside of that band would be low (and, like amateur radio, stations could be self-regulating within the band).
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 16, 2016 7:54:07 GMT -7
while shortwave broadcasters have been abandoning the shortwave band, there is still plenty of amateur, military, aviation, maritime, and believe it or not broadcast RPU's. the frequency range needs to be researched and chosen carefully. long wave is a little better, most of the services are abandoning long wave and it is becoming a desert down there. there would be no need for antenna restrictions on long wave because practicality will be the limiting factor and more power can be used because it is a longer wavelength and nearly impossible to get an efficient antenna setup at those frequencies. the only thing really left down there really is military (for sub communications) and maybe some power companies still using carrier current control signals. maybe something around the 1750m band but expand around that existing band and a power bump would be feasible.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 16, 2016 12:33:59 GMT -7
Fred Baumgartner (LPAM Petition fame) thinks we should try for a LPAM band between 1710 to 1790. he says there is nothing useful there and it still isn't in the broadcast bands.
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Mar 16, 2016 13:01:52 GMT -7
I think that AM is dicey as well. It has relatively decent range (up to a mile or more) with a good transmitter & installation, much more than Part 15 FM. One of the concerns there would be the potential to actually lose what is already there if it is opened up. I say to focus on LW and SW - both are relatively under utilized (SW at any rate) and I believe a case can be made to set up a hobbyist broadcasting service in a dedicated frequency band (one suggestion is in or around the 49m band, which is 5.9-6.2 Mhz), similar to amateur radio (but one way, of course). The objective would be innovation - both technical (such as experimentation with different transmission modes, including digital) and programming (delivering services and material that isn't readily available elsewhere). Although simulations would have to be done, if power output is kept low (say, 1 to 5 watts), the chances of interference outside of that band would be low (and, like amateur radio, stations could be self-regulating within the band). I got thinking. Would the ITU have to be involved with 5.9 - 6.2 area?
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 16, 2016 16:00:28 GMT -7
Re ITU coordination. Good question. Since this would be primarily a domestic service with the low power levels, maybe not. I just don't know enough about it. Unless someone else does, appropriate frequencies would have to be carefully researched, as Part 15 Engineer pointed out.
I was just thinking that amateur radio could be used as a similar model for a shortwave hobbyist broadcast service, as in some ways they're similar, in other ways, not so much, but I think there's enough to work with.
There's certainly not as much space down on LW, even if it is emptier. And as for using 1710Khz & up, it makes sense, but I would think that a licensed, regulated LPAM service would be the way the FCC would want that to go. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but it's eons beyond what a typical hobbyist venture might look like.
I think that any sort of petition, if it's going to succeed, needs focus. Licensed regulated LPAM, or hobbyist SW, or hobbyist LW, or ... whatever, you fill in the blanks. Go after one thing at a time - it simplifies the task at hand and you might actually get something done. There's nothing that says that you can't go after something else at a later time.
I would suggest getting a consensus on what is the most desired change that has a chance of succeeding. It will likely be the hardest part of the entire exercise, as producing a document is not rocket science
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 16, 2016 17:04:45 GMT -7
so far it's me, you david, and druidhills. was hoping carl, rich, tim and a few other bright minds would come (the more the merrier) over. i bet rich fry would be a great resource for this petition.
Edit: just as i posted this i noticed another registration. welcome Mighty1650 to the group.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 16, 2016 18:03:49 GMT -7
|
|
|
Forget FM
Mar 16, 2016 19:52:53 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by mighty1650 on Mar 16, 2016 19:52:53 GMT -7
1710-1790 isn't something I had considered before, that would certainly be a good spot. I'm not entirely sure whats allocated there, maybe a ham band?
LW is actually already very lenient in its rules, allowing 5 watts of power and a 50 meter antenna. I suspect you could get some pretty decent range out of it, especially since there are zero domestic services on the band excluding a few aircraft beacons.
SW could certainly use a boost, 13.560 mHz got a boost in 2011. Maybe focus on the ISM bands?
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Mar 17, 2016 6:32:47 GMT -7
1710-1790 isn't something I had considered before, that would certainly be a good spot. I'm not entirely sure whats allocated there, maybe a ham band? LW is actually already very lenient in its rules, allowing 5 watts of power and a 50 meter antenna. I suspect you could get some pretty decent range out of it, especially since there are zero domestic services on the band excluding a few aircraft beacons. SW could certainly use a boost, 13.560 mHz got a boost in 2011. Maybe focus on the ISM bands? If one were to explore changes in the AM band I would recommend sticking only to 1710. My reasoning is that many car radios do not go beyond that point. Comments? Also, I sent Carl an invite via email so we will see what happens. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 17, 2016 7:32:09 GMT -7
welcome Niel and Carl :-)
i was thinking 1710-1790 and we can have converters built or we can build them. it is a trivial and cheap matter to move 1710-1790 down to the am broadcast via a converter. or who know if we got that band allocated maybe the FCC would mandate all new tuners manufactured after a certain date would include this new band.
it needs to be low power TIS like stations only.
topping out at maybe 100 Watts TPO into a 15 meter high onmi monopole antenna. the antenna can employ a top hat and a ground plane with a base loaded ATU system just like traditional TIS, unlike traditional TIS which is limited to 10 watts TPO, we would top out at 100 Watts and i think CQuAM should be mandated or at least allowed and all stations should be required to follow AMAX standards. no kind of digital should be allowed in this band.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 17, 2016 7:42:41 GMT -7
also we should be allowed 100mW into a 3 meter antenna on this band under part 15.219, as well as carrier current under 15.221. we will also need to come up with spacing standards between stations. no AM on FM translators though, this may raise the ire of the NAB. it would be a commercial service with strict ownership limits and you would not be allowed to have any vested interest in another radio or TV station. licensing would be cheap and easy to obtain. this service should be exempt from spectrum auctioning process except in the case of MX'd applications. programming should be locally originated for a good percentage of time to be determined and on the licensed portion of the rules two LPAM stations should not be allowed to simulcast the same programming.
we also need to focus on diversity of programming and diversity in ownership. we should work with the music licensing bodies to come up with a cheaper music license that is better suited to this class of station since they would be designed to cover only a small geographical area and would not have the range of a full power commercial station.
EAS would be a requirement in this license class. we wouldn't have multiple classes of license it would be two classes in this band part 15 and a 100 watt LPAM license
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 17, 2016 7:44:19 GMT -7
we may have to cut off at 1780 though and leave a 10khz guard band between this service and the 160m ham band.
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 17, 2016 8:03:53 GMT -7
If this is a very low power/hobbyist push, what would be the advantage to push for the opening up 1710-1780 (or 90) for commercial services, while leaving Part 15 essentially as it is? There already is lots of space for Part 15 in the current X band, and probably more coming. Why not let the guys who want to run commercially with an LPAM fight that battle?
Like I said previously, I believe that any effort needs to be (relatively) simple and focused. I could see opening up 1710, or maybe that and a few channels above 1710 for dedicated Part 15 broadcasters, maybe with a little more power, or antenna restrictions loosened. That would be a nice little, well defined package. I would prefer to see something done in the shortwave spectrum myself, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 17, 2016 8:28:47 GMT -7
i'd like to see something done in shortwave as well but because of ITU that may pose and issue (and is likely why the 13mhz band is such low power) with getting something allocated, i am open to maybe petitioning the fcc to opening 1710 to 1780 with 100mW rms (instead of input) tpo and 15 meter antenna with allowances for top hats and ground planes not counting against the 15 meters. i think the 1710-1780 because as has been pointed out that band has nothing on it (here in the usa and possibly worldwide) at all and is not within the broadcast bands which should nix any NAB issues. 100mW rms should give 400-500mW pep under full modulation with the 15 meter antenna 500mW pep should do very well on a band that has no high power stations
|
|