Brattleboro Selectboard passes diluted resolution for rfb
Fri Nov 21 10:09:49 EST 2003
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 RogerKola@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/03 9:03:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > Again, huh?!?!? I don't see where the FCC implies that governing of the
> > airwaves is a local, not a federal issue. Part 15 states 100mW
> > power. It's pretty clear. The FCC has jurisdiction here, not the
> > Brattleboro city council.
> As for Part 15...if you only control the measured power and not the ERP, you
> leave a situation where a properly located 100mw transmitter with an
> appropriately designed antenna system on a tower or mountaintop has the same range as a
> 10w station in a less desirable location with a less efficient antenna
> system....this would mean that the FCC does not care to regulate "coverage" areas
> but leaves that to the "susceptible to interference" rule.
I'm not sure where this misinformation came from, but Part 15 doesn't
state anything about 100mw on FM, to my memory. Field strength limits
exist for all frequencies, save for those under 9KHz. There are other
Take a look at Part 15 of Chapter 1 of Title 47.
Some relevant parts are listed below:
Sec. 15.209 Radiated emission limits; general requirements.
Sec. 15.219 Operation in the band 510-1705 kHz.
Sec. 15.239 Operation in the band 88-108 MHz.
-Peter Murray (N3IXY)
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest