All,

I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer
is Homeland Secrity.

What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital
packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area
between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city.

They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and
they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be
able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such
as Radio Shack.

That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX
using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me
the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using
5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges.

Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF
gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the
NGOs.

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

Suggestions?

The Eternal Squire

The CB band is close enough to the 10m amateur band ,such that when the
test
is done within the amateur band it would also be valid for the CB band .
Although you might have to do the test in the 10m amateur band with 300
baud ,whereas in the CB band you could use 1200 Baud.
Unless the 300 Baud limit in amateur allocated HF bands has been / can
be lifted.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

===============================================

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

Suggestions?

The Eternal Squire

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer
is Homeland Secrity.

What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital
packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area
between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city.

I can't believe they would be asking a company with such a lack of knowledge
that you have to post a message to a newsgroup!
I think you're telling a bit of a fairy tale. They wouldn't be using CB as
there is a vast array of communications equipment already in use - or did
your brother forget to tell you that.
What's the name of his company so we can all avoid what appears to be bunch
of amateurs.

In article .com,
wrote:

What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital
packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area
between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city.

They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and
they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be
able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such
as Radio Shack.

E.S.-

With all due respect to your brother, this is an extremely unlikely
scenario. While a common AM CB radio might be modified to perform the
task, you aren't going to commandeer one from Radio Shack that a Guardsman
can adapt for such data transmission.

Just how heavy do you think a data radio would be? A unit as small as the
smallest CB could be designed to perform the function (and may be
off-the-shelf). In other words, such a data system MUST be carried in to
ensure it is going to work, and it won't be so "heavy" that each unit
can't have spares handy.

Fred

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer
is Homeland Security.

Please supply me this consulting firm name.

Is this former FEMA director Mike Brown's consulting firm by chance?

In article .com,
wrote:

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

I think you're correct. Part 95, section 631 (c) and (e) and (f)
make it quite clear that data transmission over CB is a no-no.

In addition, the simple act of hooking up a data transmission circuit
to a CB radio's modulator might be considered to be enough of a
modification to void the transmitter's certification.

Applying for an STA certainly seems to be the safe thing to do. And,
if you get one yourself, the end-user agency should probably also get
one, so they can run periodic tests and drills without breaking the
rules.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article ,
(Dave Platt) wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

I think you're correct. Part 95, section 631 (c) and (e) and (f)
make it quite clear that data transmission over CB is a no-no.

In addition, the simple act of hooking up a data transmission circuit
to a CB radio's modulator might be considered to be enough of a
modification to void the transmitter's certification.

Applying for an STA certainly seems to be the safe thing to do. And,
if you get one yourself, the end-user agency should probably also get
one, so they can run periodic tests and drills without breaking the
rules.


First of all: The Federal Government (ie Homeland Security, USCG, US
Army, ectg) doesn't need, or require anything from the FCC, as the FCC
has no jurasdiction over US Federal Government Radio Operatrions. It only
regulates, non-Federal Government Communications. The Office of
Telecommunications Policy, or whatever they changed the name to recently,
is the Clearing House for ALL Federal Communications Operations.

Second of all: Even if you did apply for an STA, the FCC wouldn't grant
it for 27Mhz, as that would specifically go against a Standing FCC
Regulation, and set a very bad policy statement for the future.

Last of all: AM Modulation is the worst type for trying to get error
free communications, and not likely to succeed without spending a pile
of money in the R & D Phase of the modem part of the project.

Me an ex-FCC Field Resident Agent who knows better than
to go down this kind of path.........

Me wrote:

First of all: The Federal Government (ie Homeland Security, USCG, US
Army, ectg) doesn't need, or require anything from the FCC, as the FCC
has no jurasdiction over US Federal Government Radio Operatrions. It only
regulates, non-Federal Government Communications. The Office of
Telecommunications Policy, or whatever they changed the name to recently,
is the Clearing House for ALL Federal Communications Operations.

Second of all: Even if you did apply for an STA, the FCC wouldn't grant
it for 27Mhz, as that would specifically go against a Standing FCC
Regulation, and set a very bad policy statement for the future.

Last of all: AM Modulation is the worst type for trying to get error
free communications, and not likely to succeed without spending a pile
of money in the R & D Phase of the modem part of the project.

Me an ex-FCC Field Resident Agent who knows better than
to go down this kind of path.........


The US ARMY radio & TV station I worked at had FCC licenses hanging
on the walls at Ft. Greely, back in the early '70s but they were
considered "Courtesy Licenses" so the FCC knew to keep track of them
when other stations were built. They had no expiration dates, now power
limits, and no operating hours. They were marked "Until no longer
needed", and "As deemed necessary" and at that time were issued to any
long term US Government RF installation.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Me wrote:
In article ,
(Dave Platt) wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

I think you're correct. Part 95, section 631 (c) and (e) and (f)
make it quite clear that data transmission over CB is a no-no.

In addition, the simple act of hooking up a data transmission circuit
to a CB radio's modulator might be considered to be enough of a
modification to void the transmitter's certification.

Applying for an STA certainly seems to be the safe thing to do. And,
if you get one yourself, the end-user agency should probably also get
one, so they can run periodic tests and drills without breaking the
rules.


First of all: The Federal Government (ie Homeland Security, USCG, US
Army, ectg) doesn't need, or require anything from the FCC, as the FCC
has no jurasdiction over US Federal Government Radio Operatrions. It only
regulates, non-Federal Government Communications. The Office of
Telecommunications Policy, or whatever they changed the name to recently,
is the Clearing House for ALL Federal Communications Operations.

Then I guess if the consulting firm can get the necessary authority to
waive the need for an STA, I won't complain.

Second of all: Even if you did apply for an STA, the FCC wouldn't grant
it for 27Mhz,

If the FCC was trying to prove itself modern for digital commo by
trying to kill amateur HF using BPL, then with this they have a chance
to let CB'ers enter the digital age. Maybe the FCC will go for it..

as that would specifically go against a Standing FCC
Regulation, and set a very bad policy statement for the future.

In other words, an Act of Congress would be necessary?


Last of all: AM Modulation is the worst type for trying to get error
free communications, and not likely to succeed without spending a pile
of money in the R & D Phase of the modem part of the project.

Using SSB CB radios.

Me an ex-FCC Field Resident Agent who knows better than
to go down this kind of path.........

On 18 Jun 2006 10:41:25 -0700, wrote:

All,

I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer
is Homeland Secrity.

What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital
packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area
between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city.

They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and
they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be
able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such
as Radio Shack.

That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX
using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me
the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using
5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges.

Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF
gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the
NGOs.

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

Suggestions?

The Eternal Squire

I for one think this is a bit hairbrained. But here goes...

Actually you can break the task down two several larger problems.

Is AM modulation suitable?

What connectors? The average CB uses one of ten different mic
connectors and of those the same type none are wired the same!

Forget internal mods, they are very different from unit and
some are surface mount construction. Also type acceptance
and operating rules) prohibit most data, image and modifications.

How will they power the CB radio? A 5W radio under full TX
modulation want about 15-20W of power (1.5-2A) SSB versions are
far more power hungry (2-4A on TX for legal radios and the import
illegals can run far higher.).

Radios vary widely from real junk to near decent so you need to find
examples of the worst to be sure your not encouraging an interference
generator.

At this time RS is closing stores and I think at most they carry only
a few (if any instock) different CB sets. You'd have better luck at a
truck stop!

What do thy expect to use for an antenna? The average CB set will
fry the finals if the antenna isn't tuned reasonably well.

You can test the basics using dummy loads before you get into
the STA.

FYI: GMRS radios present a better choice and are more widely sold.
GMRS being higher power thn FRS and often better radios for short
range (UHF FM) ops.



Allison