[sudo-discuss] Radio: Internet radio is about to get borked; just say CONELRAD.

[Steve Berl]

Like the image. The messenger one seems appropriate.

Steve

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Hol Gaskill wrote:

> I like the cut of your jib, steve.  we can make our own set of roles and
> insignia:
>
>
> http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_08_2011/post-1726-1312487480.jpg
>
>
> on Nov 05, 2013, *Steve Berl* <steveberl at gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'steveberl at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> Re. CONELRAD:
>
> 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).
>
> Sounds like a scam to sell lots of replacement power tubes for
> transmitters.
>
> I like the idea of "Civil Disobedience IS Civil Defense!" and adopting
> the symbol..
>
> 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.
>
> -steve
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:48 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01 at att.net>wrote:
>
>
> Re. Steve:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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...
>
> What I'm thinking is:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Re. CONELRAD:
>
> 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.
>
> But either scenario might be adaptable to "modern conditions."  "Civil
> Disobedience IS Civil Defense!"  Heh, may as well adopt the CO
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org');>
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>


-- 
-steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20131105/333e2269/attachment.html>