|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 99 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 75 of 99:
| 
Apr 18 11:29 UTC 2001 |
Re 73: But what if there seems to be plenty of frequencies available, but
no way (or even an application process) to get a license to use them? In the
last couple of years the FCC was about to allow micropower licenses, but a
heavy lobbying effort by the National Association of Broadcasters (including
NPR, which is disappointing) killed it.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 76 of 99:
|
Apr 18 12:06 UTC 2001 |
RE#74-- Indeed he does. Perhaps not all the time but I've listened in several
times. He must have some sort of robot playing music and adds on it. I've
heard spots for Mill Creek Sporting Goods, a gun show at the Saline Fair
Grounds, and a spot for that card store behind the Fox Village theater. The
last time I picked it up I was just scanning the FM band in the basement of
my house, located about two miles, as the crow flies, from his surplus museum.
To top it off, it was going even though he's in jail. (As do the Friday
meetings.)
|
danr
|
|
response 77 of 99:
|
Apr 18 12:24 UTC 2001 |
re #72: I am FOR micropower radio stations. I want people to be able to
get licenses to run them. BUT, as Rane points out, licensing is
essential. All I can say is to keep lobbying your representatives and
senators and get them to pass a law forcing the FCC to allow them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 99:
|
Apr 18 14:50 UTC 2001 |
Are the objections of NPR, NAB or anyone else easily available on the
web? I've heard that they objected, but have not heard their reasons.
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 99:
|
Apr 18 15:03 UTC 2001 |
They objected on the grounds that it would create too much interference
for people trying to listen to their stations, basically.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 80 of 99:
|
Apr 18 15:14 UTC 2001 |
I'd like to see the details of the analysis that demonstrates that.
If there are open channels at 0.2 Mhz intervals, how does the interference
occur if those channels are used for minipower stations?
|
tpryan
|
|
response 81 of 99:
|
Apr 18 15:54 UTC 2001 |
If you where broadcasting mini-power on 107.3fm, would your
neighbor be able to get 107.1fm?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 99:
|
Apr 18 17:37 UTC 2001 |
Sure. I can now hear separate stations on 91.1 and 91.3 (and
similarly elsewhere on the 'dial'). It does depend somewhat on
the quality of the transmitting and receiving equipment, however, so
they are sufficiently selective. Transmitters for mini-stations would
have to be type approved (and people take their chances when they
buy receivers).
|
scott
|
|
response 83 of 99:
|
Apr 18 18:29 UTC 2001 |
So what's the problem with somebody manufacturing micropower transmitters with
sufficiently accurate transmission characteristics? It's commonplace in the
world of cell phones and CD radios, and has been for years. If I recall, the
biggest argument the anti-micropower lobby used was that "these amateurs would
be all over the spectrum with their crappy homebrewed stations".
|
raven
|
|
response 84 of 99:
|
Apr 18 18:43 UTC 2001 |
I don't mind the idea of getting a liscense as I have stated before. What
I mind is that the liscense is 4000 dollars (which I don't have) and that
it's the law that stations have to be over 100 watts (which adds even more
to the expense of a station). If I am responsible about making sure the
station doesn't overlap other stations and stays on frequency why should
I be prohibited from broadcasting because I am a low income person? Perhaps
for those in the upper middle class they can see no difference between a
4000 dollar liscense and say a 200 dollar liscense, but I can assure you
when your means are limited that that is a large difference indeed.
Also Stephen Dunifer states on his Radio Free Berkeley web site that
there are now ic chips that will keep a micropower station on frequncy
and from interfering with adjacent frequncies so the argument that low
cost home brew stations can't be run responsibly.
|
raven
|
|
response 85 of 99:
|
Apr 18 18:45 UTC 2001 |
is a lot of bs. For some reason the end of my last response got cut off when I
posted it...
|
goose
|
|
response 86 of 99:
|
Apr 18 21:44 UTC 2001 |
RE#80 -- I'm sure its in the public comments of the notice of rulemaking on
the FCCs website, btu it's a bitch to find things on there. I remember
reading about the NAB complaining that eliminating third channel separation
was going to cause all sorts of chaos, 2nd channel separation was not enough
for them.
|
krj
|
|
response 87 of 99:
|
Apr 18 22:22 UTC 2001 |
Rane in resp:80 :: Analysis? What analysis? The FCC's studies said there
would be no problem. The broadcast lobby made up a CD of bad-sounding
radio, sent it to everyone in Congress, and claimed that this is what
radio stations would sound like if the micropower proposal passed.
Bluntly, the broadcast lobby *lied* to maintain its stranglehold.
|
krj
|
|
response 88 of 99:
|
Apr 18 22:26 UTC 2001 |
Here's a URL for the FCC's discussion of that bogus CD the broadcasters
sent to Congress:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/News_Releases/2000/nret00
05.html
|
gull
|
|
response 89 of 99:
|
Apr 18 23:56 UTC 2001 |
Re #82: The argument is more that, say I'm on the fringe of a
commercial station's coverage area. Now let's say someone starts up a
micropower FM station nearby on the same frequency. Their signal is
either going to capture my receiver, or cause really annoying flutter
between theirs and the commercial station's.
Personally, I agree that this probably wouldn't have been a widespread
problem, though it probably would have happened some places. The
current broadcasters were simply acting in their own narrow self
interest. Not only do they not want more competition, they really don't
want the headaches of having to deal with more reception complaints.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 99:
|
Apr 19 06:27 UTC 2001 |
Something wrong with that URL, Ken. Would you check it please, and post
again?
This may be the analysis that I asked about earlier.
Because the transmitter would have to be type-approved, and each would be
set up to operate only on the licensed frequency, I would judge that a 100
watt xmtr would cost ca. $1,000.
I also think that the FCC would only license corporations to run such
ministations, for the public protection that offers. That's not a big
burden, however, as incorporation costs very little.
|
krj
|
|
response 91 of 99:
|
Apr 19 21:35 UTC 2001 |
((Rane, I just retested the link by reading the conference through
Netscape and clicking on it, and it worked fine. My link seems to be wrapped
around two lines. If you can't get it to work, try a google search:
fcc low power disinformation hatfield
and that should get you right to the page.))
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 99:
|
Apr 20 06:06 UTC 2001 |
I thought I had corrected for the wrap, but I left a little bit because
it did not show in the window into which I pasted the URL. Works OK now.
The report answers my question: the FCC believes there are no valid
reasons not to license the low power FM stations. Well, try, try, again.
To succeed, of course, you have to get a lot of congresspersons to
support the service.
|
krj
|
|
response 93 of 99:
|
Apr 20 12:42 UTC 2001 |
IIRC, the law passed by Congress forbids the FCC from doing anying
regarding low power licenses. Period. The agency is not allowed to make more
studies or more proposals. Ever. Of course the law *could* be repealed.
All you would have to do is outbid the broadcast lobby for the affections
of Congress.
Again IIRC, it was commented at the time that Congress had never before
overruled the FCC on spectrum management.
Big Lies and Big Money have closed this issue for the forseeable
future.
|
gull
|
|
response 94 of 99:
|
Apr 20 14:54 UTC 2001 |
It's just part of the country's continued shift to the right. The
radio spectrum is now seen as a resource that can be auctioned off to
the highest bidder.
|
flem
|
|
response 95 of 99:
|
Apr 20 15:05 UTC 2001 |
The em spectrum is very valuable, and brings the government lots of money.
I seem to recall that recently, a band of frequencies were auctioned off for
some ludicrously large amount of money. It was supposed to be the most
expensive auction purchase ever. iirc, Nokia got it, but I could be wrong.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 96 of 99:
|
Apr 20 16:29 UTC 2001 |
the auction price is very cheap for the revenue produceing
resource gained. What the goverment should get also is a piece of
the action. Of gross revenue, not just net profit.
|
gull
|
|
response 97 of 99:
|
Apr 21 03:25 UTC 2001 |
Re #96: In the case of radio and TV licenses, they do, I think. Aren't
there annual renewal fees?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 99:
|
Apr 21 05:33 UTC 2001 |
The amateur radio license must be renewed at 10 years intervals. I
don't know what the interval is for commerical licenses.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 99 of 99:
|
Apr 21 11:45 UTC 2001 |
It is much shorter for commerical (broadcast) licenses. Like
every three or 4 years.
re 97: re 96: I was thinking not only a percent of gross advertising
revenue in the case of broadcasters (radio&TV), but also percent
of revenue for wireless phone use.
|
