379
edits
RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246: Difference between revisions
→The Microradio concept
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/196908 original petition] which was received by the FCC on July 17, 1997 proposed amendments to the rules to permit "microstations" on the AM and FM broadcast bands. The microstation would serve an area of one to several square miles to service a single small municipality or a very small neighborhood of a larger municipality. According to the petition, the microradio broadcast service would provide an opportunity for individual citizens and small groups of citizens to operate radio broadcast services and would expand the variety of subjects and types of entertainment presented. New musical groups could present their music society and new social and political options could be discussed. | The [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/196908 original petition] which was received by the FCC on July 17, 1997 proposed amendments to the rules to permit "microstations" on the AM and FM broadcast bands. The microstation would serve an area of one to several square miles to service a single small municipality or a very small neighborhood of a larger municipality. According to the petition, the microradio broadcast service would provide an opportunity for individual citizens and small groups of citizens to operate radio broadcast services and would expand the variety of subjects and types of entertainment presented. New musical groups could present their music society and new social and political options could be discussed. | ||
The concept called for one AM and one FM channel be set aside for microbroadcasting. Each station would serve a specific geographic location (referred to as a "cell"). Microstations would be one watt, use nondirectional vertical antennas no more than 50 feet above ground level. Licenses would be issued for a 5 year term and have a flat regulatory fee of $50. | The concept called for one AM and one FM channel be set aside for microbroadcasting. Each station would serve a specific geographic location (referred to as a "cell"). Microstations would be one watt, use nondirectional vertical antennas no more than 50 feet above ground level. Licenses would be issued for a 5 year term and have a flat regulatory fee of $50. Transmitters did not have to be type accepted and can be built from kits. | ||
in a [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201586 subsequent filing] in March 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt stated that microstations should not be licensed to larger corporations and that multiple microbroadcasters should be permitted to share a frequency and that perhaps power ceilings greater than one watt should be considered. The petitioners opposed the concept of a noncommercial only service and that some licenses should be set aside for race-based and gender-based groups. | in a [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201586 subsequent filing] in March 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt stated that microstations should not be licensed to larger corporations and that multiple microbroadcasters should be permitted to share a frequency and that perhaps power ceilings greater than one watt should be considered. The petitioners opposed the concept of a noncommercial only service and that some licenses should be set aside for race-based and gender-based groups. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
In April 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt wrote "special comments" in the proceeding claiming that prosecutions of microbroadcasters should be halted and that retroactive amnesty be provided to those who would likely be able to be licensed as a low power FM broadcaster citing the case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked a proposed injunction against pirate radio broadcasts being made by [[Wikipedia:Stephen Dunifer|Stephen Dunifer]].<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/204953</ref> | In April 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt wrote "special comments" in the proceeding claiming that prosecutions of microbroadcasters should be halted and that retroactive amnesty be provided to those who would likely be able to be licensed as a low power FM broadcaster citing the case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked a proposed injunction against pirate radio broadcasts being made by [[Wikipedia:Stephen Dunifer|Stephen Dunifer]].<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/204953</ref> | ||
=== The "Two | === The "Two-Tier" System === | ||
The Leggett/Schellhardt "two-tier" system claimed to be based on consultations with members of the microbroadcast community.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/209620</ref> It called for each tier to have its own dedicated AM and FM channel and instead of type acceptance for transmitters, they proposed that "people" by authorized by requiring a station's technical operation to be supervised by a person holding an amateur radio service license or a General Radio Operators License. | |||
==== Tier One - neighborhood stations ==== | |||
Tier One would be "neighborhood stations" that would be limited to a transmission radius of one mile or the number of miles to reach the farthest boundary of the nearest community of 500 people or more. Power levels were not specified other than it should be a "single digit wattage" (double digits in rural areas). A basic (low-cost) engineering study is required and type acceptance is not required due to the low powers. | |||
==== Tier Two - community stations ==== | |||
Tier Two would be "community stations" with a transmission radius of 5 miles. Like with Tier One, no specific power level was proposed, but recommended that it would be in the "double digits". | |||
== The Skinner proposal (RM-9242) == | == The Skinner proposal (RM-9242) == | ||
| Line 59: | Line 65: | ||
=== The Committee on Democratic Communications/National Lawyers Guild Concept === | === The Committee on Democratic Communications/National Lawyers Guild Concept === | ||
The [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/207135 CDC/NLG concept] called for a noncommercial service with only one station per owner and stations shall be locally programmed. Stations would be limited to 50 watts in urban areas and 100 watts in rural areas (no HAAT standard was provided) with the ability to also use 87.5, 87.7 and 87.9 MHz. Microstations would be "registered" with the FCC with a filing fee and would use a "voluntary body set up by the local or regional micropower broadcast community to oversee micropower stations". Equipment shall meet basic technical criteria in respect to stability, filtering, modulation control, etc. Registrations shall last for 5 years and there should be no "public service" requirements imposed by the FCC. Microbroadcasting of special events (demonstrations, raillies, festivals and concerts) do not need to be registered but are encouraged to meet all technical requirements. | |||
=== The CRC Concept === | === The CRC Concept === | ||
=== The REC Networks Concept === | === The REC Networks Concept === | ||
==== First concept ==== | |||
REC's [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201569 first concept] as mentioned in comments in RM-9208 called for the creation of a low-power AM (LPAM) service using the expanded AM band (1620~1700 kHz) as a first choice before selection of standard AM band channels (540~1600 kHz), 1610 kHz was excluded due to travelers information stations. On FM, REC disagreed with the RM-9208 single frequency concept and proposed that any channel could be used, as well as 87.5, 87.7 and 87.9, where available in respect to Channel 6 TV stations. On FM, the REC concept would resurrect the old Class D FM service with a 10 watt transmitter power output and no limit on ERP. A new Class E would be established with a limitation of 1 watt. LPAM stations would be limited to 5 watts in the 1620~1700 kHz band and up to 1 watt in the 540~1600 kHz band. Transmitters do not have to be type accepted and stations must be supervised by a holder of an amateur radio service license of General class or higher or the holder of a General Radiotelephone Operators License. Antennas should be limited to vertical polarization at no higher than 60 feet above ground. HAAT above 100 meters would have ERPs adjusted to compensate. The service could be commercial with a $150 filing fee. Class D stations must be equipped with EAS decoders but encoding is not necessary. | |||
==== Second concept ==== | |||
Several months later, REC released a [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/215457 second concept] which called for an expansion of the FM broadcast band to include the spectrum currently used by TV channel 6 in order to create 30 additional channels between 82.1~87.9 MHz. The two Channel 6 TV stations at the time in New Haven, CT and Juneau, AK would be allocated to different channels. Primary status for stations on 82.1~87.9 MHz. Establish the ability for travelers information stations in the expanded FM band. Use frequency coordinators instead of distance separation requirements for the extended FM band. The second concept does not mention LPAM stations. | |||
== Proceeding timeline == | == Proceeding timeline == | ||
On March 5, 1998, the FCC would extend the comment period on RM-9208 by nearly two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201887</ref> | On March 5, 1998, the FCC would extend the comment period on RM-9208 by nearly two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201887</ref> | ||
On May 22, 1998, the FCC would extend the reply comment period on RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246 (event broadcasting) for a period of two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/208876</ref> | On May 22, 1998, the FCC would extend the reply comment period on RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246 (event broadcasting) for a period of two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/208876</ref> | ||