[EAS] {Spam?} RE: IP transmission of CAP Authority to form StateEmerg. Comm. Committees

Fri Mar 4 10:24:32 CST 2011

Yea, but it can be resold and warehoused. (See Congressman's
King's proposal to force everything up to 700 mhz & cancel
the lower VHF/UHF licenses for re-auction).

----- Original Message -----
From: "k7cr" <k7cr at blarg.net>
To: "Allen Sklar" <ajsklar at w7as.com>, <eas at radiolists.net>
Cc: Richard Rudman <rar01 at me.com>, Barry Mishkind
<BDR-Editor at thebdr.net>
Subject: Re: [EAS] {Spam?} RE: IP transmission of CAP
Authority to form StateEmerg. Comm. Committees
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:09:39 -0800

> Low band is not Broadband - Therefore, It's old, outdated,
> bad and useless.
> 
> PERFECT!
> 
> This means its spectrum that others can use that don't
> subscribe to today's line of thinking.
> 
> Clay
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Allen Sklar 
>   To: eas at radiolists.net 
>   Cc: Clay Freinwald ; Richard Rudman ; Barry Mishkind 
>   Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:47 PM
>   Subject: RE: [EAS] {Spam?} RE: IP transmission of CAP
> Authority to form StateEmerg. Comm. Committees
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   We tried to use low-band VHF in Idaho for state relay
> years ago.
>   Do keep in mind that public safety gave these
> frequencies back when moving 
>   to trunking systems. State of Idaho sank this plan. Said
> low-band VHF
>   was ancient technology !!!!  
> 
>   Allen Sklar
>   Tempe AZ USA
> 
> 
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Re: [EAS] {Spam?} RE: IP transmission of CAP
> Authority to form
>     StateEmerg. Comm. Committees
>     From: "k7cr" <k7cr at blarg.net>
>     Date: Thu, March 03, 2011 9:19 pm
>     To: "The EAS Forum - accurate & up-to-date EAS
> information"
>     <eas at radiolists.net>
> 
>     We use some Part 74 Frequencies for EAS in Washington
> State. The Local 
>     Relay Network system in the Seattle area uses a
> RPU/UHF Pair. Reasons for 
>     this were mainly it was next to impossible to get
> anyone in a 
>     multi-jurisdictional area to step forward with some
> spectrum that everone 
>     could use.
> 
>     BTW = Our legacy/Analog SRN uses a VHF Law Enforcement
> Frequency. Same 
>     frequency, statewide, feed via a statewide
> mountain-top microwave system. 
>     Not sure what we will do with this system. It's OK for
> passing SAME and 
>     voice messages, but not designed for extensive data
> transport. We have 
>     looked at other frequencies, but there is no longer an
> money available. 6 
>     meters would be a good place.
> 
>     Clay
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>     From: "Richard Rudman" <rar01 at me.com>
>     To: "The EAS Forum - accurate & up-to-date EAS
> information" 
>     <eas at radiolists.net>
>     Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 8:02 PM
>     Subject: Re: [EAS] {Spam?} RE: IP transmission of CAP
> Authority to form 
>     StateEmerg. Comm. Committees
> 
> 
>     > Hi, Ira and everyone -
>     >
>     > SBE and another group I am part of are in the
> process of sending letters 
>     > to the sponsor of H R 607 to explain that the
> 450-451 and 455-456 UHF band 
>     > segments are vital to broadcasters and should be
> excluded should the bill 
>     > get enacted.
>     >
>     > Having said that, use of RPU frequencies is to me a
> broadcaster good deed 
>     > that lets local government off the hook in a some
> operational areas. If 
>     > you buy into the fact that warnings are a function
> of government, and that 
>     > broadcasters are in reality conduits to the public
> for those EAS warnings, 
>     > then government should be the source of EAS local
> relay radio channels.
>     >
>     > I am not familiar with the amount of 450 RPU
> activity in Keene, NH so you 
>     > may have channels to spare. Other areas are not
> nearly so lucky.
>     >
>     > Thoughts on this, anyone?
>     >
>     > Richard
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Mar 3, 2011, at 7:36 PM, k7cr wrote:
>     >
>     >> Ira -
>     >>
>     >> Is that EAS backbone distributing Analog/SAME info
> ...or is it 
>     >> distributing
>     >> CAP.
>     >> If it is analog - Is it going to be changed to
> handle digital/CAP info?
>     >>
>     >> Sure would like to hear more about your system and
> what your plans are 
>     >> for
>     >> the
>     >> future.
>     >>
>     >> Thanks
>     >>
>     >> Clay
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> ----- Original Message ----- 
>     >> From: "Ira Wilner"
> <iwilner at monadnockradiogroup.com>
>     >> To: "'The EAS Forum - accurate & up-to-date EAS
> information'"
>     >> <eas at radiolists.net>
>     >> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 1:12 PM
>     >> Subject: [EAS] {Spam?} RE: IP transmission of CAP
> Authority to form
>     >> StateEmerg. Comm. Committees
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>> Hi Richard,
>     >>>
>     >>> UHF, at least in New Hampshire, is part of the EAS
> backbone from NHSEM 
>     >>> to
>     >>> the LP-1's. And our frequencies are in the BAS
> service band which the 
>     >>> FCC
>     >>> wants to give away to others. So, that may go
> away!
>     >>>
>     >>> --Ira Wilner, CE Monadnock Radio Group, Keene NH.
>     >>>
>     >>>
> **********************************************************
> ****************
>     >>>
>     >>> -----Original Message-----
>     >>> From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net
> [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On
>     >>> Behalf Of Richard Rudman
>     >>> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:47 PM
>     >>> To: The EAS Forum - accurate & up-to-date EAS
> information
>     >>> Subject: Re: [EAS] IP transmission of CAP
> Authority to form State Emerg.
>     >>> Comm. Committees
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> And finally, one more plug for my idea that the
> FCC and FEMA ask local
>     >>> governments and states to allow CAP overrides for
> existing UHF low
>     >>> priority
>     >>> repeater systems to backup, reinforce and be last
> ditch ways for CAP-EAS
>     >>> messages to get to broadcast and cable entry
> points.
>     >>>
>     >>> IP delivery from public or private sources via the
> internet is not 
>     >>> enough,
>     >>> and a fall back to "Classic EAS" is to me not a
> sound long term strategy
>     >>> for
>     >>> warnings that are supposed to save lives and
> property.
>     >>>
>     >>> Yea or Nay on that?
>     >>>
>     >>> Richard Rudman
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>     >>>
>     >>> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
>     >>> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>     >>>
>     >>> And, remember the main page:
> http://eas.radiolists.net
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>     >>
>     >> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
>     >> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>     >>
>     >> And, remember the main page:
> http://eas.radiolists.net
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>     >
>     > Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
>     > http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>     >
>     > And, remember the main page:
> http://eas.radiolists.net
>     >
>     >
>     > 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
> 
>     Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
>     http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
> 
>     And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
> 
> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
> 
> And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
> 
> 