www.rhci-online.net/radiogram/radiogram.htm
██╗ ██╗ ██████╗ █████╗ ██████╗ █████╗ ██████╗ ██╗ ██████╗ ██████╗ ██████╗ █████╗ ███╗ ███╗ ██║ ██║██╔═══██╗██╔══██╗ ██╔══██╗██╔══██╗██╔══██╗██║██╔═══██╗██╔════╝ ██╔══██╗██╔══██╗████╗ ████║ ██║ ██║██║ ██║███████║ ██████╔╝███████║██║ ██║██║██║ ██║██║ ███╗██████╔╝███████║██╔████╔██║ ╚██╗ ██╔╝██║ ██║██╔══██║ ██╔══██╗██╔══██║██║ ██║██║██║ ██║██║ ██║██╔══██╗██╔══██║██║╚██╔╝██║ ╚████╔╝ ╚██████╔╝██║ ██║ ██║ ██║██║ ██║██████╔╝██║╚██████╔╝╚██████╔╝██║ ██║██║ ██║██║ ╚═╝ ██║ ╚═══╝ ╚═════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═════╝ ╚═════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═╝
RSID: <<2014-01-25T16:01Z
MFSK-32 @ 17860000+1500>>
<STX>
Welcome to program 43 of VOA Radiogram from the Voice of America.
I'm Kim Andrew Elliott in Washington.
Here is the lineup for today's program (all centered on 1500 Hz
except where indicated):
1:38 MFSK32: Program preview (now)
3:52 MFSK16: IMF 2014 world economic outlook
9:32 MFSK16 at 700 and 2000 Hz: Same VOA News story
13:22 MSFK64/Flmsg: Global effects of net neutrality debate,
with image
20:09 MFSK64: China Internet outage, with image
23:52 MFSK64: Image of Kim shoveling snow
25:42 MFSK32: Closing announcements
MFSK16 is a robust mode, but slow at 55 words per minute. On
today's VOA Radiogram, we will transmit a VOA News story in
MFSK16. Then we will transmit the same story as two simultaneous
MFSK16 transmissions, the first half centered on 700 Hz, the
second half centered on 2000 Hz. The RSID will be transmitted on
700 Hz but not on 2000 Hz.
You can decode the two transmissions from your recording, or you
can run two instances of Fldigi. On the first instance of Fldigi,
turn the RxID on. On the second, turn the RxID off. Use the
20-second tone to set the second instance of Fldigi to the
correct center audio frequency near 2000 Hz.
Please send reception reports to radiogram@voanews.com.
VOA Radiogram now changes to MFSK16 centered on 1500 Hz...
<EOT>
RSID: <<2014-01-25T16:03Z
MFSK-16
@ 17860000+1500>>
<STX>
This is VOA Radiogram in MFSK16...
IMF Predicts Stronger 2014 Global Economic Growth
VOA News
January 21, 2014
The International Monetary Fund is predicting the world economy
will advance at a faster pace this year.
IMF economic counselor Olivier Blanchard said Tuesday in
Washington that the global economy will grow by 3.7 percent in
2014, up from last year's 3 percent rise. He said the world's
advanced economies will grow by 2.2 percent this year, with
emerging market and developing economies moving ahead by 5.1
percent.
Blanchard said economic constraints from government austerity
programs in some Western countries are diminishing. He also said
the world's financial systems are "slowly healing" as uncertainty
decreases.
"The basic reason behind the stronger recovery is that the brakes
to the recovery are progressively being loosened. The drag from
fiscal consolidation is diminishing, the financial system is
slowly healing, and uncertainty in various dimensions, is
decreasing."
Still, Blanchard said global recovery is "weak and uneven." He
said economic improvement is stronger in the United States than
in Europe. He said the core northern countries in the 18-nation
euro currency bloc and Great Britain are advancing faster than in
southern Europe, which he described as a "worrisome part of the
world economy."
The IMF predicted 2.8 percent growth in the U.S. this year,
although many economists think the figure will top 3 percent.
Blanchard said the rate of Japan's economic growth will be 1.7
percent for the second year in a row.
http://www.voanews.com/content/imf-predicts-2014-global-economic-advance/1834461.html
VOA Radiogram continues with two simultaneous MFSK16
transmissions, one centered on
700 Hz
and the other on
2000 Hz...
<EOT>
RSID: <<2014-01-25T16:10Z MFSK-16
@ 17860000+0700>> |
|
<STX> |
<STX>
<EOT> |
<STX>
VOA Radiogram now changes to MFSK64 centered on 1500 Hz...
<EOT> |
|
RSID: <<2014-01-25T16:13Z
MFSK-64
@ 17860000+1500>>
<STX>
This is VOA Radiogram in MFSK64.
The next VOA News story is in Flmsg format...
<EOT>
<STX>
... start
[WRAP:beg][WRAP:lf][WRAP:fn VOAR43_MFSK64_net_neutrality.b2s]<flmsg>1.1.33
:hdr_fm:19
VOA 20142201201133
:hdr_ed:19
VOA 20142201200855
<blankform>
:mg:5734 <svg version="1.1" width="98" height="42">
<polygon fill="#132FBE" points="22,25 29,1 43,1 30,42 15,42 0,1 15,1"/>
<polygon fill="#132FBE" points="77,17 83,42 98,42 84,1 70,1 55,42 70,42"/>
<circle fill="#FFFFFF" cx="49" cy="21" r="21"/>
<circle fill="#132FBE" cx="49" cy="21" r="9"/>
</svg>
<h1 style="color:#132FBE;font-family:sans-serif">Voice of America</h1><h2
style="color:#FF0000;font-family:sans-serif">
News / USA</h2><h2 style="font-family:sans-serif">
Net Neutrality Debate in US Could Have Global Ripple Effects</h2>
<b>Matthew Hillburn<br>January 17, 2014</b>
WASHINGTON - A decision this week by a U.S. federal appeals court to strike down
so-called net neutrality may not only have major ramifications for Internet
users
in the United States.
It could also have ripple effects overseas.
Experts say the ruling could be a boon to other countries if innovation is
hampered in the U.S.
But it could be bad news, too, for Internet users outside the U.S. because other
governments could adopt similar rules and regulations.
<a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf">The
ruling</a> by the United States Court
of Appeals in the District of Columbia struck down a Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) order from 2010, which imposed net neutrality on broadband
Internet
service providers (ISPs).
Net neutrality means that ISPs are to provide equal access to all types of
Internet content.
The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio,
television, wire, satellite and cable" in the U.S.
According to the 2010 FCC order, ISPs "shall not block lawful content,
applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network
management." It
also said ISPs "shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful
traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service."
The Washington courts ruling said net neutrality was not needed because users
"can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge
providers
or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded."
Opponents of the ruling say the decision could lead to an Internet that is
vastly different from what American surfers are used to today, particularly
because ISPs
could charge extra for certain content or slow down the content delivery of
competitors.
Verizon, one of the larger ISPs, led the challenge to the net neutrality order
and welcomed the court ruling.
"One thing is for sure: today's decision will not change consumers' ability to
access and use the Internet as they do now," wrote Verizon's General Counsel and
Executive Vice President - Public Policy, Law & Security Randal Mich in a <a
href="http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/verizon-reiterates-its-commitment-to-
the-open-internet">blog post</a>.
"The court's decision will allow more room for innovation, and consumers will
have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the
Internet," he wrote. "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open
Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access
to lawful
websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in
light of the court's decision."
The court's decision is not the final word, however.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the commission could appeal the court ruling.
Also, the FCC could adopt new rules that would reclassify broadband providers.
The U.S.
Congress could too get involved and change the 1996 telecommunications law to
give the FCC greater regulatory powers over broadband Internet.
What the outcome will mean for U.S. Internet users as well as those outside the
country is uncertain.
"This could have several impacts internationally," said Jennifer Yeh, a policy
counsel at Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group which advocates
for
an open Internet. "Content companies overseas who are trying to reach U..S
Internet users may not be able to, if an ISP decides to block them."
Still, the ruling could be a boon to startups outside the United States.
Andrew McDiarmid, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and
Technology, said the lack of net neutrality could deter American innovation as
startups
could face a tougher time getting to market as "ISPs can cut deals that distort
the competitive environment."
"If innovators or startups here are disincentivized to create new services or
applications, that may affect users abroad by limiting supply of new content and
innovations," said Yeh. "Or, we could see those same innovators and investment
dollars move for better opportunities elsewhere."
The world is watching.
Neelie Kroes, the European Union's commissioner for the digital agenda <a href="https://twitter.com/NeelieKroesEU/status/423418068161687552">tweeted</a>
"Maybe I
shd [should] invite newly disadvantaged US startups to EU, so they have a fair
chance."
Many experts believe the biggest effect of the lack of net neutrality in the
U.S. to non-Americans would be the example it sets.
"Other countries may be watching to see how this plays out and may decide to
follow suit, which could mean fewer protections for Internet users abroad," said
Yeh.
McDiarmid said the ruling will likely ripple across the globe.
"I think it's a case that the U.S. remains a model for Internet policy for the
world," he said. "Not having it here may make it less likely to have it in other
places."
<a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/net-neutrality-debate-in-us-could-have-global-ripple-effects/1832561.html">www.voanews.com/content/net-neutrality-debate-i
n-us-could-have-global-ripple-effects/1832561.html</a>
[WRAP:chksum 4BAB][WRAP:end]
... end
<EOT>
Voice of AmericaNews / USANet Neutrality Debate in US Could Have Global Ripple EffectsMatthew Hillburn January 17, 2014 WASHINGTON - A decision this week by a U.S. federal appeals court to strike down so-called net neutrality may not only have major ramifications for Internet users in the United States. It could also have ripple effects overseas. Experts say the ruling could be a boon to other countries if innovation is hampered in the U.S. But it could be bad news, too, for Internet users outside the U.S. because other governments could adopt similar rules and regulations. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia struck down a Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) order from 2010, which imposed net neutrality on broadband Internet service providers (ISPs). Net neutrality means that ISPs are to provide equal access to all types of Internet content. The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable" in the U.S. According to the 2010 FCC order, ISPs "shall not block lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management." It also said ISPs "shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service." The Washington courts ruling said net neutrality was not needed because users "can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded." Opponents of the ruling say the decision could lead to an Internet that is vastly different from what American surfers are used to today, particularly because ISPs could charge extra for certain content or slow down the content delivery of competitors. Verizon, one of the larger ISPs, led the challenge to the net neutrality order and welcomed the court ruling. "One thing is for sure: today's decision will not change consumers' ability to access and use the Internet as they do now," wrote Verizon's General Counsel and Executive Vice President - Public Policy, Law & Security Randal Mich in a blog post. "The court's decision will allow more room for innovation, and consumers will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the Internet," he wrote. "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in light of the court's decision." The court's decision is not the final word, however. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the commission could appeal the court ruling. Also, the FCC could adopt new rules that would reclassify broadband providers. The U.S. Congress could too get involved and change the 1996 telecommunications law to give the FCC greater regulatory powers over broadband Internet. What the outcome will mean for U.S. Internet users as well as those outside the country is uncertain. "This could have several impacts internationally," said Jennifer Yeh, a policy counsel at Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group which advocates for an open Internet. "Content companies overseas who are trying to reach U..S Internet users may not be able to, if an ISP decides to block them." Still, the ruling could be a boon to startups outside the United States. Andrew McDiarmid, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said the lack of net neutrality could deter American innovation as startups could face a tougher time getting to market as "ISPs can cut deals that distort the competitive environment." "If innovators or startups here are disincentivized to create new services or applications, that may affect users abroad by limiting supply of new content and innovations," said Yeh. "Or, we could see those same innovators and investment dollars move for better opportunities elsewhere." The world is watching. Neelie Kroes, the European Union's commissioner for the digital agenda tweeted "Maybe I shd [should] invite newly disadvantaged US startups to EU, so they have a fair chance." Many experts believe the biggest effect of the lack of net neutrality in the U.S. to non-Americans would be the example it sets. "Other countries may be watching to see how this plays out and may decide to follow suit, which could mean fewer protections for Internet users abroad," said Yeh. McDiarmid said the ruling will likely ripple across the globe. "I think it's a case that the U.S. remains a model for Internet policy for the world," he said. "Not having it here may make it less likely to have it in other places." www.voanews.com/content/net-neutrality-debate-in-us-could-have-global-ripple-effects/1832561.html
|
<STX>
MFSK64 image follows: Visual from the Free Press website...
<EOT>
<STX>
Sending Pic:242x153C;
<EOT>
<STX>
VOA NEWS
More Questions than Answers About China Internet Outage
Matthew Hilburn
January 22, 2014
Chinese Internet users are now able to access numerous websites
including Baidu and Sina Weibo after the country once again
experienced massive outages Tuesday.
According to the China Internet Network Information Center
(CNNIC), which "operates and administers country code top level
domain of .cn and Chinese domain name system," the cause was due
to malfunctions with the servers that manage the .cn name system.
China's state run news service, Xinhua, hinted that the problem
could have been caused by hackers because Chinese web surfers
were rerouted to an IP address associated with Dynamic Internet
Technology (DIT), a company that provides, among other things,
software to help Chinese web surfers get around the co-called
Great Firewall.
The company was founded by Bill Xia, a practioner of Falun Gong,
a banned group in China. Xia emigrated to the United States and
started DIT. The Voice of America is a client of DIT.
The latest outage was the second major disruption in five months.
Last August, a denial-of-service attack caused large portions of
the Chinese Internet to go dark in what in what Beijing called
the "largest ever" hack attack on Chinese sites.
"China Internet Network Information Center no doubt learned some
valuable lessons as a result of the August 2013 outage, where
they found that it was internal Chinese hacking competition which
disrupted the .cn domain," said Christopher Burgess, CEO of
Prevendra, Inc., an Internet security firm.
"In this instance, speculation of a 'foreign hand' will be high,
as the outage was caused by Domain Name Service changes which
rerouted traffic to a company, Dynamic Internet Technology, well
known for their anti-censorship web services tailored to evade
the 'The Great Firewall of China'," he said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said during his
regular news briefing that he "noted" reports of Falun Gong
involvement in the hacking, but said he did not know who was
responsible.
"I don't know who did this or where it came from, but what I want
to point out is this reminds us once again that maintaining
Internet security needs strengthened international cooperation.
This again shows that China is a victim of hacking."
However some think the problem stems from the Great Firewall
itself.
"This is the result of China's DNS hijacking system," said Xia in
an email. "This system is part of China's Great Firewall."
He said the system is used to block domains the Chinese
government disapproves of.
"This time, the DNS hijacking system targeted all domains
instead, for a few hours, thus the break down," he said.
Greatfire.org, a website that monitors web censorship in China,
also said theories that DIT was behind the outage had little
merit.
Instead, the website said the outage was likely caused by what
they call "DNS poisoning," which is used to block users from
certain addresses. In essence it scrambles the numbers during the
process of converting a website name into IP numbers, sending
people to the wrong website.
"One hypothesis is that [the Great Firewall] might have intended
to block the [DIT] IP but accidentally used that IP to poison all
domains," the group wrote in a blog post.
The group said they sent a website address to a public DNS server
run by Google. The group said that outside China, the address was
converted properly, but that inside China, they were sent to a
DIT IP address.
"The bogus response," the group wrote, "could only have been
returned by [the Great Firewall]."
http://www.voanews.com/content/more-questions-than-answers-about-china-internet-outage/1835525.html
<EOT>
<STX>
MFSK64 image follows: DIT logo...
<EOT>
<STX>
Sending Pic:213x64C;
<EOT>
<STX>
MFSK64 image follows: Kim Andrew Elliott battles 12 cm of snow in
his front yard, evening of 21 January...
<EOT>
<STX>
Sending Pic:144x192C;
USB |
S - AM |
|
|
<EOT>
<STX>
VOA Radiogram now changes to MFSK32 for closing announcements...
<EOT>
RSID: <<2014-01-25T16:25Z MFSK-32 @ 17860000+1500>>
<STX>
Please send reception reports to radiogram@voanews.com
And visit voaradiogram.net
Twitter: @VOARadiogram
Thanks to colleagues at the Edward R. Murrow shortwave transmitting station in
North Carolina.
I'm Kim Elliott. Please join us for the next VOA Radiogram.
This is VOA, the Voice of America.
<EOT>
<STX>
Sending Pic:632x56C;
<EOT>
RSID: <<2014-01-25T16:28Z Feld Hell @ 17860000+1500>>
www.rhci-online.net/radiogram/radiogram.htm
QTH: |
D-06193 Petersberg (Germany/Germania) |
Ant.: |
Dipol for 40m-Band |
RX: |
ICOM IC-R75 + IF-mixer |
Software IF: |
con STUDIO1 - Software italiano per SDR in USB/S-AM |
Software AF: |
|
OS: |
German XP-SP3 with support for asian languages |
PC: |
MEDION Titanium 8008 (since 2003) [ P4 - 2,6 GHz] |
DRM-images - received via EASYPAL/DSSTV (FRG-100 / Dipol for ~12 MHz)
Here are some pictures of two radio amateurs received in the last days:
(DG2BRT from Germany - 3733 kHz /LSB and US5LOC from Ukraine - 14233 kHz /USB)
|
|
|
|
|
|