<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Re. CONELRAD:</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br><div>Interesting stuff. A bit more digging and I did find reference to the low power mode, and stations near the designated frequencies needing to retune their transmitters. One article said that it took the engineer of one station up to an hour to retune to the new frequency. Hope those bombers were flying pretty slow. The round robin thing is also referenced in several articles and how turning the transmitters on and off, as well as transmitting off frequency (which I guess causes a high VSWR). </div>
<div><br></div><div>Sounds like a scam to sell lots of replacement power tubes for transmitters.</div><div><br></div><div>I like the idea of <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"Civil Disobedience IS Civil Defense!" and adopting the symbol..</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">As for getting this to be an electoral issue, I have my doubts that you can get a significant number of voters interested enough to care, until it is too late. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">-steve<br></font><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:48 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Re. Steve:<br>
<br>
The nightmare scenario for "after the end of net neutrality" is that
the Bigs adopt _time-based_ or _QOS-based_ control of any content
that isn't paying through the nose.<br>
<br>
For example a typical small biz website's main page is about 2 meg.
Under the new regime they find it takes 60 seconds to load (long
enough to chase away customers), so they redo the site and now it's
only 200K. But the 200K version of the page still takes 60 seconds
to load. And if they slimmed it down to 20K it would still take 60
seconds to load. <br>
<br>
Even easier, just assign the lowest QOS priorities to "commoner"
traffic, so it's totally unreliable. Think call-drops in bad cell
coverage areas, translated to the entirety of the internet over both
wired and wireless media, so it becomes totally but randomly
useless. The reason you hear people say they "don't like to talk on
the phone" is because "the phone" has become crappy audio and
unreliable connections compared to what it used to be. Translate
that to the whole internet with the exception of the "preferred
channels," Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and of course Fox
News. "I don't go online any more except to buy stuff...." Right,
exactly.<br>
<br>
Either of the above would shut down internet broadcasting, and also
shut down small business websites, for which reason Main Street USA
ought to be up in arms about it, pitchforks & torches included.
<br>
<br>
If either of those censorship-by-"nudge" things happens, a huge
explosion of pirate radio would not be unexpected, including
deliberately stepping on big stations' signals to make the point.
For that matter, revenge-jamming of the entire AM & FM broadcast
bands by "outlaws" is a foreseeable consequence. Think of people
running around dropping off disposable jamming transmitters all over
a city, that kind of thing. Argh...<br>
<br>
What I'm thinking is: <br>
<br>
Make this THE issue of the 2014 Congressional elections. "The
biggest free speech issue of the 21st century." Every candidate
gets grilled on it: where do you stand on net neutrality? Anyone
who isn't with us gets dragged through a nasty primary battle. And
if they lie about supporting it, and get into office and do nothing
or worse, then they get primaried in 2016, which will be a
high-turnout year. <br>
<br>
And of course, back up the electoral strategy with a barrage of
lawsuits covering every possible angle, and with peaceful civil
disobedience designed to generate more trials where these issues can
be brought up again and again and again. <br>
<br>
Re. CONELRAD:<br>
<br>
I've read plenty of Civil Defense material from the Cold War era and
it described the low-power broadcast scenario. That Wikipedia
article is the first I've heard of anything like round-robin, and it
would be difficult to manage a round-robin system in the middle of a
nuclear attack. <br>
<br>
But either scenario might be adaptable to "modern conditions."
"Civil Disobedience IS Civil Defense!" Heh, may as well adopt the
CONELRAD symbol to go along with it, as a national logo for free
radio. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-11-04-Mon 10:46 PM, Steve Berl
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">According to <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONELRAD" target="_blank">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONELRAD</a> the
stations on other frequencies than 640 and 1240kHz shut down and
the stations that normally broadcast at 640 and 1240 took turns
round robin style transmitting.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>So nobody switched frequencies or went to lower power. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As someone who has actually navigated a boat by AM band RDF I
can say it would be very frustration if the transmitters kept
moving around. It would definitely make it harder to find
targets in the pre-GPS world. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Too bad about net neutrality. This might really suck. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Steve</div>
<div>
<div><br>
On Monday, November 4, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<br>
Federal circuit court in DC is set to rule on net
neutrality and appears poised to strike it down. <br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/</a><br>
<br>
That means say byebye to internet radio. Small-scale
community netcasters won't be able to "negotiate" fees
with The Bigs to get access, even at speeds that are
common today in residential broadband. <br>
<br>
If that occurs, it strengthens the moral justification for
pirate radio and similar solutions, by a decimal place or
two. In the spirit of which...<br>
<br>
...anyone here ever hear of CONELRAD? <br>
<br>
That was the late 1950s - early 1960s plan for Civil
Defense emergency broadcasting in the event of nuclear
war. All FM stations would go off the air, and AM
stations would switch over to low-power broadcast on 640
KHz and 1240 KHz. Incoming Soviet bombers (in the
pre-ICBM era) would be unable to use RDF (radio direction
finding) to navigate, while citizens could pick up the
emergency stations that were nearest to them. Radio dials
were marked with little triangles at 640 and 1240 to make
the CONELRAD broadcasts easy to find. <br>
<br>
The signal interference issues Anthony and others brought
up, must have been addressed during the design of the
CONELRAD system. If nothing else, AM reception is more
directional, and the lower frequencies (kilohertz rather
than megahertz) would reduce the problems of signal
synchronization, including during times when official
announcements were being broadcast simultaneously over all
the stations in a region. <br>
<br>
If this is the case, then blanket coverage by low-power AM
transmitters might be technically feasible.<br>
<br>
-G<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-11-04-Mon 2:17 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">There
would be a moire pattern of regions of roughly the
dimensions of a wavelength (~3 meters) within
which interference would be mainly constructive or
mainly destructive. Reception would suck or not
exist in all the regions where interference was
not constructive. Then the usual multi-path
interference issues. Complicated and a good reason
to keep transmitters well spaced-out. To do this
right you are pretty much building a phased-array
antenna which uses the interference intentionally
to aim the beam by varying the synchronization
among the signals from the different antennas and
that is way too complicated for this - you have to
track the location of the receivers somehow for
one thing, and that's just the beginning.<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:01
PM, David Keenan <span dir="ltr"><<a>dkeenan44@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Also - this is a really
dumb question but in terms of interference, I
actually have no idea what sort of interference
results when two coverage-adjacent radios are
broadcasting the exact same signal? Does it make
any difference if they'd both be broadcasting
the same signal? I should remember this, since I
actually took one of those AARL tests wayyy back
when (and I think I am technically FCC licensed,
at least for certain spectrums like SSB? Can't
exactly remember..i should have a certificate
somewhere)</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
<a>sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
-steve<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>-steve
</div>