It never ends does it?

My answer would be to ignore them - it's not worth the effort to respond to stuff like that.

 all I can say is after its 7 already done then all I can say is after its 7 already done then we'll see where the fantasy is. Welcome to the new radio Revolution.

Oh freakin' wah. Did this REALLY need to even be a post?

mighty1650 Said:

Oh freakin' wah. Did this REALLY need to even be a post?

MrBruce Said:

mighty1650 With all due respect to you. I don't see my post as being a child's wah tantrum, I see two adult people creating a personal attack against those who support the inititive.

Why do I say a personal attack against thsoe who support the initiative? Two key words make this thread linked to, a dead ringer for a personal attack. Key word number one, is the frequency TheLegacy is asking for 87.9MHz. The second key word is ONE WATT.

There is no question in my mind, what group of people they are talking about. The other active initiative is NOT asking for 87.9MHz or one watt on that channel, but asking for relaxed rules in the AM and Short Wave radio bands, so it leaves us with one conclusion, their comments are geared towards TheLegacy's initiative.

It is often said that that group never attacks or wastes their time talking about the people involved in the initiatives,  but instead we always start the attackes here against them over there.

There are parts of TheLegacy's initiative that I do not think will pass, but then again, I am not wishing him any bad out come with his initiative. As crazy as some may think his proposals are, you never know, his propsals might just pass.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, there are many things in life that we never thought would be possible, but with time and a lot hard work, a lot of things we thought were impossible are now a reality. Television? Cell Phones? Computers? At one time in history, no one knew those devices would some day be a reality or a realistic possibilty.

But the truth is, you'll never know unless you try.

All I see is counter-productive talk, saying it isn't going to work. How do you know this unless you can say it HAS already been tried and it didn't work? Do you have iron clad proof of past failures? Legal documents proving such claims?

Bruce.

Put me on record as believing that 87.7 MHz and 89.9 MHz should be set aside by the FCC fior use by Part 15 radio stations with a Maximum Power of 1 Watt.

It is my right and your right as members of the public owners of the electromagnetic spectrum to propose sensible uses for channels that, in many locations, are completely unused and therefore wasted by present FCC mismanangement, and for which the need is evident by a responsible group of Part 15 users who have been crowded out of the main FM band by reckless over-issuing of licenses for lost cause and duplicative uses that do little more than waste energy.

Are we citizens of the United States of America with a First Amendment Right of Free Speech? Of coarse we are. The above is my Speech for today.

I don't see it as an attack on anybody. Yes obviously they are talking about the initiative, are they not allowed to? Looks to me as though they gave a solid reason as to why 87.9 won't fly with the mention of the TV repack coming up. Also bear in mind only one user mentioned the intiative specifically and was never mentioned again.

Carl I agree with you 100%

If the FCC wants to allow part 15 use on the FM broadcast bands, I think they need to think about ways for part 15 FM to exist without intentional interference to licensed broadcasters.

Wireless FM band microphones can't be used in a concert hall setting without a high powered licensed station putting out 25,000 watts near-by. I can see the licensed radio station over powering the FM wireless micrphone's small signal.

I know this personally, I have an Apollo FM91 FM wireless microphone originally sold by Radio Shack that I could not use because its tuning range is limited to 88.1 to 92.1 FM.

To see images of the Realistic Apollo FM91 FM wireless microphone, click this link below, it is the first few images at that link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=realistic+fm91&biw=1280&bih=570&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinmKnFparMAhWLdz4KHfOWA3YQsAQIGw 

The licensed radio stations in my area interfere with its useable range. It is a useless device no thanks to the FCC and it's blatantly stupid idea of allowing translators to further pack and jam the FM radio dial.

Why not allocate 87.9MHz for such use and NOT license full powered stations to the frequency?

Bruce.

"The licensed radio stations in my area interfere with its useable range. It is a useless device no thanks to the FCC and it's blatantly stupid idea of allowing translators to further pack and jam the FM radio dial."

Uh, I don't think you can really blame the FCC for the lousy range of that microphone. You might want to point the finger at radio shack.

This thread started with a re-post from another website quoted by MrBruce: "Seems like we're being talked about again as FANTASY DREAMERS."

The person who calls us "fantasy dreamers" has used that exact same expression before, and displays a misunderstanding of English words and their meaning.

"Fantasy" and "dreaming" are essentially the same thing and are normal and harmless pastimes.

Being wrong is also a protected liberty, and in this regard Retro Radio is correct in saying that they have a right to speak.

I can't blame Radio Shack for producing a LEGAL range part 15 transmitter device.

The range is 90 feet, because that is what the device was allowed in the 1970s. This device was cataloged until 1980 or so, then Radio Shack discontinued it.

In the 1970s the FM broadcast band was not jammed packed with translators like it is now.

Using any FM channel the microphone transmits on is now totally impossible, because the received signal at 90 feet is full of co-channel hetrodyne. Every FM channel in my area from 88.1 to 92.1MHz is occupied by a broadcast station.

A wireless microphone is not an IPOD to FM radio transmitter that is connected by a wire creating a semi-closed circuit. It is an open space device, that requires an open channel for use.

There are NO open channels in my area. Except for 87.9MHz.

True, this device must accept interference, but can not create it, but than again, if my right to use this device is not possible because the rules make it impossible, then that takes away my rights to use my device at all!!!!

Bruce.

Just to make it clear.

I am not exactly a supporter of the increase of 1 watt to unlicensed FM broadcast idea, but I am in support of 87.9MHz being designated as a legal part 15 radio transmitter device frequency, prohibiting full powered licensed broadcast stations from requesting its use for public broadcasting.

I am not saying, ban part 15 from the rest of the FM broadcast band, I am saying designate 87.9MHz as a legal frequency for part 15 transmitter device usage only. If licensed stations are allowed to occupy that same channel (Which is channel 200), we will be back to square one again, competing with full powered licensed stations preventing our use of such devices in a reasonable manner.

Under current FCC rules, a part 15 device transmitting on 87.9MHz is illegal.

Bruce.

PUBLIC NOTICE

I am officially withdrawing my support of 1 Watt for 87.7/87.9 Part 15 use.

I was carried away with generousity when I posted that but since it's not mine to give I can take it back and change it.

I am going on record as supporting 25 mW for Part 15 improvement, on newly authorized channels 87.7/89.9 MHz.

25 mW is the maximum power possible with a Ramsey FM30b, and is good to 1,000 feet, which is plenty for hobby broadcasting.

Also, instead of viewing the FCC inaction on 87.7/87.9 as "mismanagement", we'll call it "incomplete management", given the fact that other areas of FCC jurisdiction are managed adequately.

These changes occurred to me following a period of fantasy dreaming.

I agree that 87.9 should be an allowed frequency for part 15, however we would have to wait until the TV repack to see if opening 87.9 is even a possibility.

I have to disagree that anything posted was a direct attack on any individual but was instead a valid critism of one of the initiative's goals.

I also do not believe we have a "right" to broadcast. We are allowed to do so however in the event that our operation does not cause interference to a licensed operation. If there are no open spots then we are not allowed to broadcast. Unfortunately increasing part 15 limits wouldn't solve your problem Mr. Bruce, if anything your situation proves why expanding 15.239 might be near impossible.

Much like driving, broadcasting is a privilege and can be taken away.

Let's leave this thread with what has been posted.

Neil