We seek to understand and document all radio transmissions, legal and otherwise, as part of the radio listening hobby. We do not encourage any radio operations contrary to regulations. Always consult with the appropriate authorities if you have questions concerning what is permissible in your locale.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - skeezix

Pages: 1 ... 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 [196] 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 ... 218
2926
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/2014/april/am_broadcasters_and_radio_hams_have_common_interest.htm

Southgate ARC
April 29, 2014      


The ARRL report radio amateurs and AM broadcasters have some common ground in cleaning up a worsening RF noise environment in the AM broadcast band, according to recent comments filed with the FCC by the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) on the issue of revitalizing AM broadcasting.

ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, who is also general counsel for the SBE, drafted the remarks.

There are numerous complaints from Amateur Radio operators of severe interference from power line noise annually, said the SBE comments, filed earlier this year. Power line radiation in the HF and MF Amateur allocations will in most cases directly translate to preclusive noise in the AM broadcast band. The Commission has relied completely on the good faith efforts of electric utilities to resolve these.

Read the full ARRL story at
http://www.arrl.org/news/am-broadcasters-hams-have-common-interest-in-cleaning-up-noise-sources

Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) comments
http://www.sbe.org/sections/documents/CommentsFINALAMImprovementDocket13-249.pdf

2927
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/antennas-for-us-all-how-aereo-wound-up-at-the-supreme-court/

In the year before Aereo launched, chief executive Chet Kanojia held meetings with executives from the broadcasters who would later sue his company. He explained the idea behind the company: renting a tiny antenna to each customer would keep it within the bounds of copyright law while allowing users to have a host of features usually only available to cable subscribers.

The idea was to use the Internet and cheap cloud storage to give new life to a way of watching TV that was fading: free, over-the-air broadcasts. Put the antenna in the cloud, add the kind of recording and storage abilities that consumers came to expect with television, and offer it at a fraction of the price of a typical cable subscription.

“Their reaction was no reaction,” Kanojia recalled in an interview with Ars. “It was, hmm, interesting.”

By February 2012 with the service promoting its imminent launch in New York City, the silence from the TV stations seemed ominous. When Aereo’s launch was covered in the New York Times, broadcasters declined to comment.

“We understand that when you try to take something meaningful on, you have to be prepared for challenges,” Kanojia said then.

The next month, the first lawsuit was filed. It wouldn’t be the last. A flurry of litigation, from Boston to Salt Lake City, has pushed the copyright fight to the US Supreme Court, where it will be argued on Tuesday.

Aereo has been mostly winning the court battles so far, and it won a major victory at the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, the only appeals court to consider the case. In Utah, however, a federal judge banned Aereo from six states, including two markets in which it was already operating.

The Supreme Court is going to decide things one way or the other, which makes the Aereo case the highest-profile copyright battle since the 2008 Cablevision case that legalized remote DVRs. The stakes are higher than the Cablevision case as well, even if one ignores some of the wilder rhetoric around the case. (Executives at Fox and CBS suggested they might stop broadcasting over the air if they lose.)

The Aereo argument on Tuesday is the broadcasters’ last and best chance to dismantle the Cablevision precedent, which they loathe. For Aereo, it’s a life or death case; textbook “bet the company” litigation. Kanojia says he doesn't know what the company's future will look like if they don't win. "Frankly, I don't think about it," he said.

In one way, the Aereo fight is the latest incarnation in a battle over consumers’ right to record and make copies, a tension that has existed at least since the rise of videotape.

Aereo will be missing a few political advantages that Sony had when it won its seminal legal victory 30 years ago. By the time the Betamax case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1984, millions of consumers had video recorders. A gadget-crazed nation found its new favorite; the households that didn’t have one, for the most part, wanted one. Aereo, by contrast, is still largely unknown to the US public. It's available in just 11 cities.

1976: Different views

In their briefs, Aereo and the broadcasters present competing versions of the history that led up to this case.

What they agree on is surprising. Legal challenges to the concept of a “remote antenna” aren’t new. In a 1968 court case, Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, copyright holders said their “public performance” rights were infringed by “community antennas,” which received signals from five televisions stations, converted them to different frequencies, and re-broadcast them. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that re-broadcasting of a signal wasn’t a performance at all.

In 1974, the high court considered another case, Teleprompter Corp v. Columbia Broadcast System, involving a cable system that transmitted TV signals from faraway markets. The court applied a similar framework: carrying the signal wasn’t a public performance at all, and the cable company didn’t have to pay.

Two years later, Congress passed a major overhaul of copyright law. Aereo and the broadcasters have differing views of what Congress intended in this sprawling law. The 1976 law includes the “transmit clause,” which makes clear that re-transmitting a signal is definitely a public performance. In that sense, it overturns the framework the Supreme Court used in both the Fortnightly and Teleprompter cases. The law established rules under which copyright holders could charge royalties for carrying signals to a “distant” audience. However, it also allowed for free re-transmission within a local market. Aereo’s brief argues that with all the tweaks to copyright law throughout the years, Congress has maintained that balance.

The broadcasters argue that Congress intended to overturn both Fortnightly and Teleprompter. Under the new regime, the “antenna entrepreneur” in Fortnightly was a bandit, just as much as the non-paying cable system in Teleprompter. The transmit clause was deliberately “purposefully broad and technology-neutral,” the broadcasters write in their brief.

In 1992, Congress passed the rules around “retransmission fees” that are in effect today. Aereo notes that those rules give broadcasters the right to withhold content but “not a general property right in those signals.” Again, the company notes that local broadcasts were exempted.

Keeping it local may end up being the key to Aereo’s legal success. One strategy it’s not pursuing is trying to get itself branded as a cable company. That was tried by a Seattle company called ivi TV, which was shut off when broadcasters won a preliminary injunction in their copyright lawsuit—the exact remedy they weren’t able to get against Aereo.

The idea that Congress intended in 1976 to require payment for every type retransmission is “absolutely a false narrative,” says Kanojia. It’s an attempt to conflate to regulatory regimes: copyright, and the retransmission scheme passed in 1992. “Retransmission consent is not a copyright regime, and it came in a decade and a half after the Copyright Act,” he said. “Aereo doesn’t retransmit. It allows the consumer to tune their antenna.”

The broadcasters' case against Aereo is nothing less than an attempt “to extend the idea of copyright to equipment,” says Kanojia. But Congress has rejected that approach, he adds. When they lost the Sony Betamax case, copyright owners tried to get a tax on blank media like videocassettes. At that time, copyright owners were rejected.

Broad ideas of "public performance"

A single person watching video in her own home seems like a quintessentially private viewing. But copyright owners have a substantial history of being able to wield the exclusive right to control “public performances” in surprising ways.

In 1984, a movie studio was able to shut down a video store’s plan to offer private viewing booths in Columbia Pictures v. Redd Horne, also known as the Maxwell Video case. Even one individual watching one movie in a private booth was a “public performance,” the court ruled, since Maxwell was open to the general public.

In another case, On Command Video v. Columbia Pictures, hotel videos being distributed to individual rooms were found to be a “public performance,” even though this was nothing more than a bank of videotape players. Each tape could only be transmitted to one room at one time.

That precedent has survived into the Internet age. The federal judge who shut down DVD-over-Internet startup Zediva, which played only one rented DVD to one customer at a time, cited On Command Video.

How could a case like On Command Video be reconciled with Cablevision? Well, it probably can’t be. The US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit simply said that On Command Video, which came from a district court judge in another circuit, was wrongly decided.

The broadcasters’ view on public performance has support from other copyright holders—songwriters’ group ASCAP and record companies and those who work in related industries like the Screen Actors Guild and other Hollywood unions. The National Football League and Major League Baseball, afraid they might have segments of their licensing business chipped away, also support the TV networks.

The broadcast view's most significant support comes from the US Solicitor General, which represents the Obama Administration before the Supreme Court.

Kanojia downplays the importance of that, noting that it’s essentially the brief of the US Copyright Office alone, “which has a very maximalist view.” If the FCC and other agencies weighed in, things might look different. “It’s disappointing that the government is taking a very narrow, highly lobbied perspective,” he said.

Aereo has plenty of support in its corner: from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represents gadget-makers and Internet companies alike; from satellite TV providers DISH and EchoStar; from small and medium sized cable businesses; and from two non-profit groups concerned with home recording rights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Consumer Federation of America.

"Efficiency is a dangerous word"

Aereo exists because of a confluence of law and technology. The Cablevision case was decided at a time when storage costs were dropping dramatically. The legal backbone for cloud computing came along at a time when the cloud got really cheap and, for many, really exciting.

“In 2002, I bought a terabyte of storage and spent $1.2 million,” notes Kanojia. “Today we buy that amount for about $70.”

When Aereo launched, some commentators saw its arrays of thousands of antennas as a metaphor for everything that’s wrong with copyright. It seemed so obviously inefficient. You don’t have to be a technical genius to see that it would be cheaper and easier to use one master antenna to serve all users instead of renting an individual one to each user.

Aereo can’t use some of the strategies that other cloud computing companies use to make more money. For instance, one big saver in cloud computing can be re-using identical data, or "deduplication." For instance, Dropbox uses deduplication of files to save space; in other words, if two users save the same file in their respective accounts, Dropbox just keeps one copy of the file.

From a technical standpoint, Aereo could use that to even greater effect—but it doesn’t. Instead, Aereo uses its current setup in order to make it crystal clear that everything happening on its system is done by the direction of the user. If one thousand Aereo customers record the latest episode of New Girl, Aereo keeps one thousand separate copies.

To Kanojia, though, these are small hiccups that are vastly outweighed by the overall efficiency of using cloud technology. The company pays about $50 per customer in capital outlays. That’s far cheaper than a set-top box in every home.

“Efficiency is a dangerous word,” he said. “The other side should be careful on this point, because the current regime we live in is the absolute worst regime, in terms of efficiency.”

Moving TV into the cloud will be a massive net gain in efficiency compared to the current system of having a DVR in every home. Could it be done more efficiently with a master antenna and sharing content? “Of course you could,” says Kanojia. “But we are a company that’s obsessed with compliance, and that’s not the law of the land.”

2928
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/20/5634132/us-regulators-approve-powdered-alcohol

Putting a can of beer in a brown paper bag is about to look like child's play. A new product that's somehow been approved by US regulators makes booze as discreet as a packet of sugar. It's called Palcohol, and it transforms a shot of vodka or rum into a pocketable pouch of powder. Tear it open, add some water, mix, and you've got hard liquor. Considering the age group that Palcohol is going to appeal to, however, the sweet, pre-mixed powders are probably going to be far more popular. To start off, the company plans to make margarita, mojito, cosmopolitan, and lemon drop flavors.

It's not hard to come up with ways kids are going to get in trouble with this one, but Palcohol offers a few suggestions on its website (cached) ranging from sneaking booze into places like movie theaters and college sporting events (where alcohol is banned) to sprinkling it directly onto food so teens don't even have to stomach the bitter alcohol flavor. Just in case you don't get the idea, the product's motto is "Take your Pal wherever you go!" The original site, which has now been replaced with a more responsible, updated version, even offered this gem:

Quote
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room… snorting Palcohol. Yes, you can snort it. And you’ll get drunk almost instantly because the alcohol will be absorbed so quickly in your nose. Good idea? No. It will mess you up. Use Palcohol responsibly.

The updated site now says that the powder is cut with enough filler to make snorting inefficient. Nevertheless, you may soon be able to give it a try for yourself. According to government documents dug up by beverage industry blog Bevlog, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has approved the powdered alcohol. However, there are still some hurdles for Palcohol to overcome before it goes on sale. Robert C. Lehrman, the attorney behind Bevlog, points out that the numerous industries that have a vested interest in keeping powdered alcohol off shelves will stand in the way. There are also state regulations, and even if the government provided its full approval, retailers and wholesalers would still have to get on board. Nevertheless, Palcohol's founder says that he plans the product to hit liquor store shelves this fall.

Update April 21st, 12:48AM ET: This article has been updated with comments from Robert C. Lehrman, an attorney who specializes in beverage law and writes the Bevlog blog.


2929
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/37153/wireless-power-is-close-40-smartphones-powered-simultaneously-at-5m/index.html

Quote
Wireless power is something I simply can't live without, but I can only charge one or two devices at once. But, over in Daejeon, Republic of Korea, scientists have used something they call the Dipole Coil Resonant System to charge 40 smartphones simultaneously, even if the power source is up to 5m away.

We already know about MIT's Coupled Magnetic Resonance System (CMRS) which was unveiled in 2007, which used a magnetic field in order to charge devices - but it had an envelope of 2.1m. CMRS had some major technical limitations for commercialization, most of which haven't been solved: "a rather complicated coil structure (composed of four coils for input, transmission, reception, and load); bulky-size resonant coils; high frequency (in a range of 10 MHz) required to resonate the transmitter and receiver coils, which results in low transfer efficiency; and a high Q factor of 2,000 that makes the resonant coils very sensitive to surroundings such as temperature, humidity, and human proximity".
 
Chun T. Rim, a Professor of Nuclear & Quantum Engineering at KAIST, along with his team, developed the "Dipole Coil Resonant System" or DCRS. This system is for an extended range of inductive power transfer, at up to 5 meters between transmitter and receiver coils. Professor Rim's solution to CMRS' problems are all but solved with DCRS.
 
The technology is capable of powering "a large LED TV as well as three 40 W-fans can be powered from a 5-meter distance" according to to Professor Rim. He continues: "Our technology proved the possibility of a new remote power delivery mechanism that has never been tried at such a long distance. Although the long-range wireless power transfer is still in an early stage of commercialization and quite costly to implement, we believe that this is the right direction for electric power to be supplied in the future. Just like we see Wi-Fi zones everywhere today, we will eventually have many Wi-Power zones at such places as restaurants and streets that provide electric power wirelessly to electronic devices. We will use all the devices anywhere without tangled wires attached and anytime without worrying about charging their batteries".

2930
General Radio Discussion / Radio Caroline news clip from 1965
« on: April 20, 2014, 1512 UTC »

2931
General Radio Discussion / 1931 Radio Hat
« on: April 20, 2014, 1502 UTC »
British Pathe' released ~85,000 of old videos recently.

This one is from 1931 of a radio hat.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/radio-hat-aka-radlo-hat/query/radio

2932
MW Loggings / UNID 1710 kHz AM 6 April 2014 0330 UTC
« on: April 07, 2014, 0401 UTC »
Heard music & an OM talking. Too weak to identify.

Saw several carriers,
1710+00 Hz
+7 Hz
+16 Hz
+29 Hz

And on occasion -23 Hz.

The audio faded in & out with the carrier at +16 Hz.



Perseus SDR with Wellbrook ALA1530S+ loop

2933
http://www.thelocal.de/20140113/east-german-wins-cold-war-era-radio-competition

An East German teenager who was listening illicitly to a West German radio station and sent a postcard across the Iron Curtain to try to win a record will receive the prize on Tuesday, 44 years later.

Günter Zettl was still at school in 1969 when he decided to enter the write-in competition being staged by the West German Saarlandische Rundfunk radio station.

Then 18, he had been listening to the radio from his home in Waren an der Müritz, in what is now Mecklenburg Western Pomerania.

The show "Hallo Twen" was staging a competition to win a record by the band The Creation.

"I thought: you know that group," said Zettl.

But he did not hear anything from the radio station, and figured he had just not got lucky.

Now it turns out, his postcard had been intercepted and confiscated by the East German secret service, the Stasi.

Zettl eventually left East Germany for the West, and in 2010 decided to look at his Stasi file. His aim was to learn more about why he was forbidden to work as a teacher in the East - a ban which led to his leaving.

He had always assumed it was because he had failed to vote in a parliamentary election.

But he was stunned to find, among the papers the Stasi held on him, a photocopy of his radio competition postcard.

"I didn't have it in my mind at all," he said, but called in the original from his file.

"I sent it, 44 years later, to the Saarländische Rundfunk."

Even though the "Hallo Twen" show was cancelled 40 years ago, the radio staff hunted down a copy of the prize record, and will present it to Zettl.

2934
0408Z 35423 S7 Very nice signal tonight for them tonight. News & propaganda in English.



Kenwood TS-690S with 102' G5RV at 25'

2935
MW Loggings / Trans-Atlantic MW 18 March 2014 0227Z
« on: March 18, 2014, 0330 UTC »
1206 kHz 0227Z 15411 S- About 30 seconds of music on 1206. Pink Panther theme. Confirmed that by also listening to the Twente WebSDR.

1215 kHz Also faded in & out. Heard music, but unable to ID it.
1089 kHz at 0313A Could hear a male & female talking. Same as via WebSDR.
A lot of other scattered hets around MW tonight. Some strong ones, but too close to domestic stations to hear anything useful.


First time hearing MW TA here.


Perseus SDR with Wellbrook ALA1530S+ loop

2936
Longwave Loggings / Trans-Atlantic LW 18 March 2014 0323 UTC
« on: March 18, 2014, 0325 UTC »
171 kHz 0323Z 25422 S5 Hearing what sounds like Arabic music. Pretty decent signal.  Unable to confirm who it is.
183 kHz 0335Z 35433 S5 Guys talking in French(?). // to the Twente WebSDR.
198 kHz 0337Z 25432 S5 BBC Male talking. // to the Twente WebSDR
252 kHz 0351Z 25432 S3 Ireland. ( A DX'ers St Patrick's Celebration!   :o )   // to the Twente WebSDR
216 kHz 0401Z 15431 S1 OM in French // to the Twente WebSDR
153 kHz 0424Z 15431 S- Just above the noise. Music. Romania? Not Germany.
162 kHz 0433Z 35333 S7 OM in French. Music.  // to the Twente WebSDR

First time ever hearing TA LW.



Perseus SDR with Wellbrook ALA1530S+ loop

2937
0000Z 45444 S9+ The Mighty KBC has a mighty great signal tonight.




Yaesu FT-847 with 100' wire

2938
General Radio Discussion / Shortwave Committee Request For Comment
« on: March 01, 2014, 2013 UTC »
http://www.bbg.gov/blog/2014/02/28/shortwave-committee-request-for-comment/

FEBRUARY 28, 2014

Shortwave radio has been a mainstay of U.S. international media since the 1940s.  Over time, however, the number of countries in which shortwave is the medium of choice for audiences overseas has been shrinking.  In many places, people are increasingly turning to other means to get news and information – including but not limited to FM radio, satellite television, web sites, social media, and their mobile phones.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the independent federal government agency that oversees U.S. civilian international media, has been adjusting to these changes over the years and now delivers news and information programs on a wider variety of platforms in more languages than any other media organization.  To support its commitment of reaching audiences on their preferred media, the Board recently established a Special Committee on the Future of Shortwave Radio Broadcasting, which has been conducting a thorough review of the agency’s use of shortwave radio as a distribution platform, the associated costs, and the likely reliance on it by next-generation audiences.

This Committee is now seeking feedback from external experts and stakeholders on their perspectives on the role of shortwave radio broadcasting as a BBG distribution platform. We are particularly interested to hear views that consider the evolving media consumption of target audiences, changing access to shortwave and other platforms, and the need to prioritize in an austere federal budget environment.

The BBG is committed to sustaining shortwave broadcasting to regions where a critical need for the platform remains.

The Shortwave Committee has held two meetings focused on the shortwave audience’s listening experience, the BBG networks’ success in reaching target audiences, the role of shortwave in the networks’ engagement strategies in various markets, the cost of operating shortwave transmitting facilities, and the BBG’s research into how shortwave is being used and its impact on audiences.

Your input will better inform the Committee’s recommendations and could help shape its comprehensive report to the plenary Board.

Please contribute questions, comments or suggestions via e-mail to ShortwaveCommittee@bbg.gov by March 14, 2014.  To facilitate the review process, please limit your submission to 1200 words or fewer.  All comments may be reprinted as part of the Committee’s proceedings and may be made public.

The news and information provided by our networks helps bring the light of truth to some of the darkest corners of the world.  By supporting the free flow of news and information, including combatting Internet censorship and providing news and information tailored for specific audiences, developing local media, and creating access to global media, we purposefully support the freedom to speak, the freedom to listen, and the freedom of expression.

If you are aware of anyone with special interest in this topic, I encourage you to share this request with them.

Thank you for your interest in taking part in this process to help the BBG become more efficient and effective in supporting U.S. national security and foreign policy.


Sincerely,

Matthew C Armstrong
Chairman
BBG Special Committee on the Future of Shortwave Broadcasting

2939
General Radio Discussion / The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom
« on: February 21, 2014, 0025 UTC »
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom
Why is the agency studying 'perceived station bias' and asking about coverage choices?

By AJIT PAI
Feb. 10, 2014 7:26 p.m. ET
News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.


Copyright 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

2940
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bdxcuk/diary.html

Friday 21 February 2014: Annual SW broadcast of Radio Öömrang from Amrum Island, German North Frisian Islands. 1600-1659 UTC on 15215 kHz via Nauen in Frisian dialect, German and English. QSLs via transmitter operator Media Broadcast: qsl-shortwave [at] media-broadcast.com

Pages: 1 ... 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 [196] 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 ... 218
HFUnderground T-Shirt
HFUnderground T-Shirt
by MitchellTimeDesigns