Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  LRN.FM - The Liberty Radio Network
| |-+  Free Radio Forum
| | |-+  Excellent Part 15 transmitter and discussion group
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Excellent Part 15 transmitter and discussion group  (Read 4421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MidAtlanticEngineer

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Excellent Part 15 transmitter and discussion group
« on: October 10, 2010, 01:09:44 AM »

A perfect part 15 AM transmitter that is FCC and Industry Canada certified for broadcasting that -wont- break the bank in these hard economic times...I recommend the transmitter at this link :

http://buycertifiedpart15amtransmitter.cjb.net/

I also run a yahoo discussion group that goes into detail about LPAM and our group supports the petition that would have the FCC create an LPAM license class that is similar to LPFM.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPAM/

Logged

RFBurns

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • KROCKS RadioOne ZeroPointRadio
Re: Excellent Part 15 transmitter and discussion group
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2010, 12:20:21 PM »


I also run a yahoo discussion group that goes into detail about LPAM and our group supports the petition that would have the FCC create an LPAM license class that is similar to LPFM.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPAM/



Thats good to hear about petitioning for LPAM. However I do not think we need another license class that is similar to LPFM and here is why.

LPFM is NOT for individuals. LPFM is NOT commerical. LPFM, though a great concept, ended up being a total sham and disappointment. And just as what happend in the LPFM application and licensing processes, a lot of special interest groups horded in and hogged up most of the available channels and licenses, mostly by church groups.

I do not want to see the AM side of the coin get the same treatment. LPFM did NOT bring the public airwaves any closer to the public whatsoever. If anything, it drove it further away. LPAM SHOULD NOT TAKE THIS SAME ROUTE!

LPAM should be setup so that it follows the SAME requirements and technical specifications for the TIS service. 10 watts into a 49 foot antenna. Frequencies should be specified for the upper portion of the AM band, at least from 1500 to 1700 for maximum efficiency on the short 49 foot antenna.

LPAM should also have the options of operating commercially or non-commercial, and there should not be preference for approval based on intended operating mode or if it is a group or individual applying for the license.

The FCC needs to stop being stubborn and open up a filing window....and for longer than a mere 2 weeks! In these troubled economic times, its senseless to block new station construction and service. There is a lot of great talent out there in all fields of broadcast radio. Imagine the number of jobs that can be created with a new LPAM service!

And due to the economic situations, application fees as well as engineering studies should not equal the price of a 2 story mansion! This is not 1934, and the FCC needs to step into the 21st century.

Im all for a push to open up a new LPAM service...though right now my AM carrier current station is covering my entire town with a clean hum free signal and in stereo using CCUFF's C-QUAM board mounted in a LPB TX 2-20 transmitter operating at 5 watts through a TCU-30 coupler, I think that changing over to a 49 foot antenna via a tuner unit would actually decrease my signal's clarity at the outer range point. And chances are a new LPAM service wont include power levels any higher than 10 watts anyway when a carrier current station can pump up to 50 watts onto the power grid as long as the signal is 15mv/30m (47.715/f [1.670Mhz] = 93 feet), more than enough to have coverage in the streets so car radios can pick it up. This range increases at the lower end of the band up to 230 feet.

Plus there is the skywave effect at night. There may have to be limits in hours of operation depending on frequency of operation to protect those grandfathered stations that migrated into the upper 1610-1700 range. And those stations are protected so the engineering study may show that your frequency choice may not pass muster at all, or the station may end up being able to operate only in the daytime.

Yes LPFM was a hope for many, and turned out to be a sour lemon thanks to lobbying by NAB and special interest. Its time to STOP this special interest crap take over of what the FCC keeps calling "public airwaves".

It would not hurt also to expand the AM band another 50 Khz out to 1750 and move those navigation beacons to a better part of the spectrum. Same with the FM band and expand that below 88Mhz using the now unused 2-6 television spectrum and create a revised LPFM service that is NOT just for church groups or special interest either!

There is plenty of spectrum. One only needs to look at the spectrum chart and see just how much spectrum is hogged up by our lovely government. HUGE blocks of it.

What are they afraid of.....that were going to play Lady Gagah to aliens or something? Sheesh!


RFB

Logged
KROCKS ZPR 92.3 FM/1670 AM Stereo Online 128K/48K/24AAC+
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  LRN.FM - The Liberty Radio Network
| |-+  Free Radio Forum
| | |-+  Excellent Part 15 transmitter and discussion group

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 31 queries.