There are a couple of frequiencies for unlicensed low power am stations. You
can see them in use by real estate folks selling houses. There are no
commercial stations on the frequency.

"Ari Silversteinn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:01:14 -0400, Fred W4JLE wrote:

In that case, simply modify the sign to "Tune to 560, it could save your
life" and use a discrete frequency low power transmitter.

I assume you mean to take up an unused local channel? Or to bargain for
time on a used one?

Both ideas make sense.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:42:16 GMT, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:

A disadvantage I see is that a waiver is going to be required in order
not to violate FCC rules. In fact, in the state of Florida, interfering
with broadcast stations is against state law, so another hurdle to be
overcome.

Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become
a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to
overcome FCC and statutory issues.

That being said, for this system to work, you have to blanket
the entire AM and FM broadcast bands. Even doing so will leave out the
motorists who use XM or Sirius, the Ipod listeners and those who are
driving with their cellphones plugged into their ears.

Do we have to blanket or only blanket each locale, that is, the
broadcasting stations of each locale?

Not only will we miss those no AM/FM listeners, we will miss those that
don't have their radios on. An aggressive, road sign campaign is planned
something like " Turn On Your Radio, It Could Save Your Life" type of thing
near each incident site.

While Florida may have laws to this effect, in fact they are
unenforcable because of federal preemption for all radio matters.
Still illegal, just the wrong enforcement entity. A state or locality
cannot for example legislate on TVI matters (though many have tried.)
When they try, the FCC will send a notice to the locals that they are
in charge and will handle enforcement. Unfortunately the FCC is
unwilling to get involved in the matter of private contracts such as
antenna exclusions in housing developments.

That said, be aware that when it comes to radio useage in the US, the
FCC is actually NOT the ultimate authority. They are responsible only
for those frequencies which a military controlled panel has ceded to
the FCC for administrative purposes. I can't remember the name right
off hand, but during my federal career, I had to work with them and we
actually were able to override an FCC allocation because it interfered
with a military application. While the FCC played ball with the DOD
outfit I worked for, the ultimate beneficiary of that allocation (a TV
station) sued and the matter wound up in Federal Court. The court
reaffirmed the DOD's ultimate sovreignity in this matter. It
ultimately got resolved by some allocation juggling when a combination
of the Court, The FCC and the DOD gave the plaintiff some "religion."

W3JT

Do we have to blanket or only blanket each locale, that is, the
broadcasting stations of each locale?

Not only will we miss those no AM/FM listeners, we will miss those that
don't have their radios on. An aggressive, road sign campaign is planned
something like " Turn On Your Radio, It Could Save Your Life" type of thing
near each incident site.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:58:40 -0400, J. Teske wrote:

While Florida may have laws to this effect, in fact they are
unenforcable because of federal preemption for all radio matters.
Still illegal, just the wrong enforcement entity. A state or locality
cannot for example legislate on TVI matters (though many have tried.)
When they try, the FCC will send a notice to the locals that they are
in charge and will handle enforcement. Unfortunately the FCC is
unwilling to get involved in the matter of private contracts such as
antenna exclusions in housing developments.

Is there a reason that the locals try to overwrite Fed law then?

That said, be aware that when it comes to radio useage in the US, the
FCC is actually NOT the ultimate authority. They are responsible only
for those frequencies which a military controlled panel has ceded to
the FCC for administrative purposes. I can't remember the name right
off hand, but during my federal career, I had to work with them and we
actually were able to override an FCC allocation because it interfered
with a military application. While the FCC played ball with the DOD
outfit I worked for, the ultimate beneficiary of that allocation (a TV
station) sued and the matter wound up in Federal Court. The court
reaffirmed the DOD's ultimate sovreignity in this matter. It
ultimately got resolved by some allocation juggling when a combination
of the Court, The FCC and the DOD gave the plaintiff some "religion."

W3JT

Excellent point, in my research I saw this handoff or spectrum management
authority of the DoD and it makes sense. This is a serious, additional
consideration and is all the more reason to get the DHS' blessings.

Thanks.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Ari Silversteinn wrote:

Do we have to blanket or only blanket each locale, that is, the
broadcasting stations of each locale?

Not only will we miss those no AM/FM listeners, we will miss those that
don't have their radios on. An aggressive, road sign campaign is planned
something like " Turn On Your Radio, It Could Save Your Life" type of thing
near each incident site.


On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:58:40 -0400, J. Teske wrote:


While Florida may have laws to this effect, in fact they are
unenforcable because of federal preemption for all radio matters.
Still illegal, just the wrong enforcement entity. A state or locality
cannot for example legislate on TVI matters (though many have tried.)
When they try, the FCC will send a notice to the locals that they are
in charge and will handle enforcement. Unfortunately the FCC is
unwilling to get involved in the matter of private contracts such as
antenna exclusions in housing developments.


Is there a reason that the locals try to overwrite Fed law then?


That said, be aware that when it comes to radio useage in the US, the
FCC is actually NOT the ultimate authority. They are responsible only
for those frequencies which a military controlled panel has ceded to
the FCC for administrative purposes. I can't remember the name right
off hand, but during my federal career, I had to work with them and we
actually were able to override an FCC allocation because it interfered
with a military application. While the FCC played ball with the DOD
outfit I worked for, the ultimate beneficiary of that allocation (a TV
station) sued and the matter wound up in Federal Court. The court
reaffirmed the DOD's ultimate sovreignity in this matter. It
ultimately got resolved by some allocation juggling when a combination
of the Court, The FCC and the DOD gave the plaintiff some "religion."

W3JT


Excellent point, in my research I saw this handoff or spectrum management
authority of the DoD and it makes sense. This is a serious, additional
consideration and is all the more reason to get the DHS' blessings.

Thanks.
Actually the DOD does not have any authority over radio spectrum. There
are two federal agencies that do. One is the FCC, which we all know and
love, the other is NTIA, the National Telecomunications Information
Agency. NITA controls all federal radio frequencies. Since the DOD is a
Federal Agency their frequencies are controled by NTIA the same as the
FBI, CIA Secret Service, Dept of Homeland Security and any other federal
alphabet soup agency.

Dave N
a FCC and a NTIA user

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become
a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to
overcome FCC and statutory issues.

Hi Ari,

The various pieces of this jigsaw puzzle is beginning to reveal a
picture here. With the introduction of two governmental
organizations, and their regulations, your "plan" has all the
appearances of being suitably crafted to work on paper. It responds
to the individual issues that any squinty-eyed bureaucrat would demand
be satisfied for his postage sized turf, but in the overall it would
fail miserably, or drive costs so high as to be tainted with the plea
that "aren't people's lives worth the price?"

Let's see, the original spec calls for a disaster situation that is
confined to within 1 mile; that demands the local population be
informed; that over-rides their usual paths of communication; that
reaches them even when they are not engaged in listening.

As already pointed out, big sound trucks do wonders, and have worked
well since the beginning of the last century for this purpose. That
kids inside their home can hear the ice-cream truck a mile away is a
testimony to this simplicity.

Knocking on the door of the local broadcasters and commandeering their
air-time has a time honored tradition of working quite well too. This
involves no more time than getting that expensive mobile power plant
rigged with wide band transmitters working into hugely lossy antenna
systems into the same danger area. After-all, you could as easily
call the first most obvious radio station as them, and you could be
calling the others before they even got on the road.

The solution demanded is that all radio stations respond to a disaster
network alert and citizens tune to the Civil Defense frequency when so
warned by them. Is this another administration cut-back that was
shelved as one of those unnecessary "entitlements?" Have they clipped
all the wires to those old Air Raid sirens? When did the lights go
out in FEMA?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become
a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to
overcome FCC and statutory issues.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:27:09 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Ari,

The various pieces of this jigsaw puzzle is beginning to reveal a
picture here. With the introduction of two governmental
organizations, and their regulations, your "plan" has all the
appearances of being suitably crafted to work on paper. It responds
to the individual issues that any squinty-eyed bureaucrat would demand
be satisfied for his postage sized turf, but in the overall it would
fail miserably, or drive costs so high as to be tainted with the plea
that "aren't people's lives worth the price?"

No one, in the end, will care about that, Richard, it's buzz words. The
economic hooks are in lessened liabilities and coordinating better
emergency evac and site control plans. Money talks here.

Let's see, the original spec calls for a disaster situation that is
confined to within 1 mile; that demands the local population be
informed; that over-rides their usual paths of communication; that
reaches them even when they are not engaged in listening.

As already pointed out, big sound trucks do wonders, and have worked
well since the beginning of the last century for this purpose. That
kids inside their home can hear the ice-cream truck a mile away is a
testimony to this simplicity.

That piece is a given, no argument there, the AM/FM piece is just one more
way to insure commo.

Knocking on the door of the local broadcasters and commandeering their
air-time has a time honored tradition of working quite well too. This
involves no more time than getting that expensive mobile power plant
rigged with wide band transmitters working into hugely lossy antenna
systems into the same danger area. After-all, you could as easily
call the first most obvious radio station as them, and you could be
calling the others before they even got on the road.

Yes, but as we recently saw, things left to the "if come" often don't
"come" ask FEMA. The plan needs to be in place and the control out of the
hands of anyone except local/reg/national authority.

The solution demanded is that all radio stations respond to a disaster
network alert and citizens tune to the Civil Defense frequency when so
warned by them.

Nothing wrong with that if you know where to tune. I don't, come to think
of it.

Is this another administration cut-back that was
shelved as one of those unnecessary "entitlements?" Have they clipped
all the wires to those old Air Raid sirens? When did the lights go
out in FEMA?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

MOF, it's an idea that came up over dinner during FEMA/NOLA, don't know
about the sirens, all I do know is once FEMA got there, they shutdown most
commo inc police in some cases. They want total control so this p[iece has
more play at the immediate response (local/state) levels.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:29:13 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

Crossposted to:

rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.misc, rec,radio.amateur.equipment

Novitiate he

Clearly,

I am learning AM broadcast basics in particular the issues regarding the
geo-targeted broadcasting of alert messages from moving vehicles. Would
most appreciate any assistance.

Nice idea but......

Due to Katrina/Rita, the company I work for has been given the opportunity
to demonstrate a messaging system that would reach out approximately 1 mile
+/- in transmission deliverance. This would be an "overbroadcast" (my term)
in that it would override local AM radio broadcasting to reach into cars,
trucks etc. In particular, we are working with a stationary site (a
chemical spill for instance) and an emergency vehicle that would move back
and forth at and through the site, at up to 70 mph, broadcasting an alert,
voice and tone message.

And what makes you think anyone is going to be listening on AM. I
think the vast majority of radio listenings in urban areas listen to
FM except possibly for drive time shows, 24 hour news stations and the
comparatively few people enamored of talk or religious radio. FM of
course is subject to the capture effect wherein the strongest signal
prevails to the exclusion of others (at least that is the theory).

AM, particularly at night is subject to strong skywaves.

Reading about LPAM, this looks technically possible but one concern I have
is antennae size. A fire truck, for instance, could have an antenna mounted
on its front, and up to 4 feet over the top of its roof, so we might look
at as much as 20 feet of length. I realize this places us over the 3 meter
max so one of the ???? is whether LFAM is realistic.

Am I way off base here, can any antennae, fractal or other, or any AM
antennae technology, be utilized to design an antenna and propagate this
type of signal?

I think the problem here is not the technology, but a fundamental
misconception of what it is you are trying to prove and who is likely
to be your audience. At this point you do not need an engineer, you
need a sociologist.

W3JT

All comments appreciated.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:49:50 -0400, J. Teske wrote:

Due to Katrina/Rita, the company I work for has been given the opportunity
to demonstrate a messaging system that would reach out approximately 1 mile
+/- in transmission deliverance. This would be an "overbroadcast" (my term)
in that it would override local AM radio broadcasting to reach into cars,
trucks etc. In particular, we are working with a stationary site (a
chemical spill for instance) and an emergency vehicle that would move back
and forth at and through the site, at up to 70 mph, broadcasting an alert,
voice and tone message.

And what makes you think anyone is going to be listening on AM. I
think the vast majority of radio listenings in urban areas listen to
FM except possibly for drive time shows, 24 hour news stations and the
comparatively few people enamored of talk or religious radio. FM of
course is subject to the capture effect wherein the strongest signal
prevails to the exclusion of others (at least that is the theory).

AM, particularly at night is subject to strong skywaves.

We are making no preference as to AM or FM as in that we will be attempting
to overbroadcast on each. The AM skywave issue is exactly that but the
system need not be perfect, only as perfect as possible.

Reading about LPAM, this looks technically possible but one concern I have
is antennae size. A fire truck, for instance, could have an antenna mounted
on its front, and up to 4 feet over the top of its roof, so we might look
at as much as 20 feet of length. I realize this places us over the 3 meter
max so one of the ???? is whether LFAM is realistic.

The 3 meter limitation is clearly is a problem here, we haven't modeled a 3
meter yet. I also wonder what, if anything, LFAM gets us in terms of FCC
approvals and state regulations.

Am I way off base here, can any antennae, fractal or other, or any AM
antennae technology, be utilized to design an antenna and propagate this
type of signal?

I think the problem here is not the technology, but a fundamental
misconception of what it is you are trying to prove and who is likely
to be your audience. At this point you do not need an engineer, you
need a sociologist.

W3JT

A sociologist?
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:49 -0400, Ari Silversteinn


I think the problem here is not the technology, but a fundamental
misconception of what it is you are trying to prove and who is likely
to be your audience. At this point you do not need an engineer, you
need a sociologist.

W3JT

A sociologist?

Yeah, to figure out what has to be done to get the audience to listen
to you. A psychologist might also work.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:44:20 -0400, J. Teske wrote:

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:49 -0400, Ari Silversteinn


I think the problem here is not the technology, but a fundamental
misconception of what it is you are trying to prove and who is likely
to be your audience. At this point you do not need an engineer, you
need a sociologist.

W3JT

A sociologist?

Yeah, to figure out what has to be done to get the audience to listen
to you. A psychologist might also work.

Gee, are you trying to hurt my feelings?
--
Drop the alphabet for email