|From:||Pam Tietze <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Sent time:||Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:59:02 AM|
|To:||Global Revolution Media <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||SPAM-MED: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Re: Proposal from radio team|
Cool! Ideally I think we get both options working so most people can
be included (radio or phone) Once one is set-up the other can be done
easily as well.
On Oct 25, 11:41 am, White Hat <whitehatoccupywal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> as far as i know, the restriction is on a PA system or megaphone. people are free to have a radio in the park.
> white hat.
> From: Pam Tietze <pam.tie...@gmail.com>
> To: Global Revolution Media <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:25 AM
> Subject: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Re: Proposal from radio team
> Ah I see. Are radios allowed in the park? I guess I've been sort of
> confused on the details of the amplification restriction. Does anyone
> have that information?
> On Oct 25, 1:26 am, White Hat <whitehatoccupywal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > i was initially a fan of the conference call route and did some work on it with ian, but i think radio is "lower tech" and more reliable and scalable (phones calls can eat minutes and speaker phone are ineffective in the din of zuccotti). teleconference is more suited for people in disparate locations (e.g. among occupies).
> > white hat
> > ________________________________
> > From: Pam Tietze <pam.tie...@gmail.com>
> > To: Global Revolution Media <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 11:08 PM
> > Subject: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Re: Proposal from radio team
> > Hey guys have you already thought about free conference calls? We have
> > been looking into all these options as well for the film screenings.
> > The conference calls seem plausible...you don't need a device with an
> > fm receiver, people just dial a number and put in a pin and they are
> > connected the person who started the conference (and is speaking into
> > their phone). You can make it so that everyone else is silent (so
> > their noise doesn't interfere with the person who started the call.
> > That phone can be passed around to whoever wants to speak.
> > The drawback is...limited number of callers. Some sites have 100, some
> > less. The one we are looking at is called rondee.com and has a max of
> > 50. But if 50 people called into the line, they could put their phones
> > on speakerphone and I think that can help with distributing
> > information. The ones that have a larger number of callers allowed
> > (upwards of 250) cost money (although not much I think). If we did the
> > larger number of callers one, people from anywhere theoretically can
> > listen (you can even listen with google phones)
> > Anyhow, something to consider since most everyone has a phone (rather
> > than a computer or something that receives an FM signal)
> > I'm going to be testing this with a bunch of phones in the park
> > tomorrow around 4pm. Please find me if you'd like to help.
> > Thanks,
> > Pam
> > 254-681-8061
> > On Oct 24, 5:01 pm, micah anderson <mi...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > Thanks for your reply and comments on the proposal!
> > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT), White Hat <whitehatoccupywal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > that said, i would not support a $2,000 budget initially. i think
> > > > better to demonstrably "solve" the open mic problem using minimal cost
> > > > equipment and after that is working ask for funds to stream, archive,
> > > > etc. specifically get it working in the square without sound boards,
> > > > laptops, streaming, space, storage, etc.
> > > We have actually done this a couple of times, with some people from
> > > media, using the PART-15 transmitters, USB audio devices, cables and
> > > adapters that we have purchased ourselves ahead of time in order to do
> > > this demonstration.
> > > None of these have been widely announced because the transmission range,
> > > money and space concerns have kept us from being able to reliably
> > > provide something that would work as a demonstration for a larger
> > > group.
> > > The proposal as written is intended for the first phase to be
> > > accomplished in much the same way as you describe, using minimal cost
> > > equipment to just do the FM broadcasting, not doing the streaming,
> > > archiving, etc.
> > > > have you looked at these transmitters:
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/0-5-Fail-Safe-Long-Range-Transmitter/dp/B003FO4...)
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/Fail-Safe-Long-Range-FM-Transmitter/dp/B003VZU4...)
> > > Yes, as far as we can tell from the minimal descriptions there, these
> > > are *not* FCC PART-15 compliant, especially with over 3 miles of
> > > transmission capability. This is O.5 W, which is over the limit for
> > > PART-15. This would require a LPFM license, which is not trivial to get.
> > > > my suggestion would be to get one transmitter, one wired mic, one
> > > > shotgun mic (to pick up audience comments), and ask people to bring
> > > > radios.
> > > We have two wired microphones (SM58s) donated, but they require phantom
> > > power (ie. mixer board, which can be obtained for ~$120, we heard there
> > > might have been one that was put in a green bin at SIS about 3 weeks
> > > ago, we'd like to find that and use it if possible). We also have a
> > > shotgun mic that takes a battery, but it is suboptimal for the purpose
> > > as the cable lengths are poor, and the pickup very bad, it would not
> > > work for a GA (we've tried). We have already two transmitters, cables,
> > > adapters, etc. which is over $200 already out of pocket. We can't go
> > > any further without support from an official working group. We need
> > > space, recognition and some resources to take this to
> > > completion. Several of us are hauling a ton of equipment on our bikes on
> > > a regular basis down to the square that I would really like to put
> > > somewhere other than my already bad back. We've been making callouts to
> > > the local community asking for equipment donations and support, but have
> > > thus far only received one offer that did not come through. The amount
> > > requested is for the full project, but we could easily do phase one at a
> > > lower amount, which I think would be sufficient to provide
> > > demonstrations, but to do that, we are going to need some money to do
> > > it. If I could front the money, I would.
> > > micah
> > > application_pgp-signature_part
> > > < 1KViewDownload
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|