|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 18, 2016 9:06:34 GMT -7
I think Neal's suggestion is a good one. It really combines a lot of the aspects of what we've been talking about into a coherent whole. And there is precedent for it as well. There are certain amateur bands which limit power, and within each band there are sub bands for different modes. There are even different sub bands and modes for different classes of licenses. The only extensions are 1) being allowed to transmit music and 2) the addition of frequencies for this use.
Maybe we could even consider asking for a new band in the shortwave spectrum as well :-) But that may be too much - perhaps get the idea passed in principle first, see how it goes.
Amateur radio operators are well respected by the FCC, even though there are always a few bad apples. It's definitely non commercial, so it wouldn't be seen as a threat by others, such as the NAB. However, like many things, that could be both good and bad - the one problem I see, at least right now, arises out of that non commercial nature. You wouldn't be able to set up a commercial radio station in those bands, i.e., no advertising - you would have to go the regular Part 15 route. If the motive to increase power and range is to make money with a radio station without going through the expense and regulation of a regular station, you'd be out of luck. Non commercial stations with sponsorship (like LPFM) could perhaps be explored but it would be difficult to enforce.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 18, 2016 9:15:30 GMT -7
maybe a separate license that requires a technician class type entry level knowledge test but the license would not be amateur related it would be it's own class.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 18, 2016 9:21:42 GMT -7
|
|
|
Forget FM
Mar 18, 2016 9:22:14 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by mighty1650 on Mar 18, 2016 9:22:14 GMT -7
I actually really like this route, give it to full blown ham operators, they have proven knowledge and trust. As mentioned the only people closer to the FCC than the NAB, is the AARL and the Hams.
|
|
|
Forget FM
Mar 18, 2016 9:24:52 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by mighty1650 on Mar 18, 2016 9:24:52 GMT -7
Call it something like Amateur Broadcast License
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 18, 2016 9:39:40 GMT -7
I just sent an invite to Don Schellhardt from the Amherst Alliance Petition and invited him to join us.
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 18, 2016 10:16:22 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 18, 2016 10:22:28 GMT -7
i became aware of that few months back. i am on the Long Wave Club of America forum and this has been mention there on numerous occasions. the FCC is considering opening up a long wave ham band and there are some part 5 experimental licensees operating beacons there now. more info can be found at the LWCA website LWCA Main Page
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 18, 2016 10:26:23 GMT -7
Some interesting tidbits of information from the above longwave links.
You need several hundred watts of RF (according to one of the authors) to get 1 watt ERP, due to inefficient antennas.
The FCC has also apparently been petitioned by the ARRL and others multiple times to open up an amateur band in that space.
Just taking the opposing side for a bit, I'm wondering if keeping the service separate from amateur radio might not be a better idea. In other words, propose a class of low power licensing similar to that of New Zealand, just above and below the existing AM broadcast band. It should be licensed, but like New Zealand, the license is easy to get - the fact that it is licensed will weed out those who have no knowledge (they can use existing Part 15 rules). There is some form of minimal regulation (no reporting requirements, though) but the service is largely self regulating, again, like New Zealand. The details would obviously have to be worked out.
I'm just thinking that while keeping it as a pseudo amateur radio license might appease the NAB, it might run afoul of the ARRL and amateur radio enthusiasts, who would feel that we were perverting what they are now. And I also think that the explicitly non commercial aspect of amateur radio would be a downside to this service (You're not supposed to take any money at all when operating as an amateur).
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 18, 2016 11:53:11 GMT -7
that licensing idea was kind of where i started out at. in the case of a ***Licensed*** am service then we can ask for a little bit more power such as 1 Watt RMS TPO (5 Watt PEP) and definitely a TIS style 15 meter antenna. this should produce a signal (and contour) similar to a TIS station.
|
|
|
Forget FM
Mar 18, 2016 20:45:28 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by mighty1650 on Mar 18, 2016 20:45:28 GMT -7
I agree that having licensed users is a good idea, however creating an entirely new licensed service might be too much. Could we not potentially reach out to the AARL and get some support? Or would that be counter productive?
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 19, 2016 8:05:11 GMT -7
We could. And if we decide as a group to go the amateur radio way, we will. But I always try to look at the other side of the equation, and I suspect that if new frequencies are going to be opened up, the ARRL will ask why regular amateurs aren't getting them, as opposed to these newcomers. What Part 15 is is really a cross between amateur radio (one way) and broadcasting - no one may want us (except ourselves, of course).
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 19, 2016 8:09:41 GMT -7
ok we are all over the place here,
i think we need to make steps in the process,
1st decide on a firm frequency range,
2nd power levels and antenna size
3rd licensed (and type of license), or unlicensed
4th come up with some Technical (modulation, bandwidth, etc)
5th decide if this will be allowed commercial or only non commercial.
6th decide if we want program rules (and what type) or if we don't want programming rules.
|
|
|
Post by davidchamberlain on Mar 19, 2016 8:10:42 GMT -7
I guess the point is that other countries have created this special class of licensed (but easy to get) broadcasting in the fringes of broadcast bands. These countries saw the benefits of doing so - I think I'm going to attempt to find out just what those governments saw as benefits. Obviously, eliminating piracy was one, which if we use the FCC's arguments (that there are pirates around every corner) against them, will actually REDUCE interference to the licensed stations. I'll bring it up at the ALPB meeting tonight with Johny C (who runs a station in New Zealand) and see if he can't direct me to (or give me) some of the original proposals there and documentation.
|
|
|
Post by Variety 1560 AM on Mar 19, 2016 8:11:00 GMT -7
maybe Niel or David could approach the ARRL and see if they are interested in assisting us with the project. whoever approaches the ARRL should have good communications skills, a amateur license and be an active member in the organization.
|
|