DTV Boondoggle

[JeffM]

Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:
OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable

Add one more to your figures.

this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward,
not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

You are too susceptible to hype.

This wasn't about *better* (as we see, for many it will be WORSE);
DTV is all about **more profitable**.

UCLAN wrote:

This entire "DTV thing" was a way for the government (via the FCC)
to raise money by selling off more of the broadcast spectrum.

Bingo!

I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of
DTVs, antennas, and other video equipment,
and cable, fiber, and satellite content providers!

Now you're on the beam.

Those commercial interests lobbied hard for DTV:

There's the subscription-based distribution industry
-- Rural viewers who could previously get by with a snowy picture
may now need satellite dishes to get anything
and folks who weren't too bothered by multipath (with analog)
may now need cable/sat.

....then there's content providers -- Digital == ***DRM-capable***
http://www.google.com/search?q=gladiators+medium+nbc+drm&num=100

Of course, guys in the electronics services industries
can also cash in on DTV boondoggle
by getting savvy in exactly the theme of this thread:
What do I, Joe Consumer, need to watch terrestrial DTV reliably?

My feeling is that (very local) CATV is about to see an upswing.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/24/1421211&threshold=4&mode=nested#25138447

The analog shutdown in Wilmington, NC will be a useful boilerplate.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/24/1421211&threshold=4&mode=nested#25137579

The coastal plain of NC with its dearth of tall urban structures
won't translate to all areas, of course.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/24/1421211&threshold=4&mode=nested#25137331

I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned.
That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:g5m1f4toj793g5raf9q5bhp65nv22kokii@4ax.com:

On 10 Oct 2008 08:52:50 -0400, sam@seas.upenn.edu (Samuel M.
Goldwasser) wrote:

So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas
(loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified
(though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly).

This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I
believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away.

If that's true, then it's likely that your house is RF shielded either
by chicken wire in the walls (stucco) or aluminum foil backed
fiberglass insulation. If so, there's no hope for an indoor antenna.

Try a cheap and simple experiment. Take a length of RG-6/u CATV coax.
Strip back about 20" of the outer jacked and shield. Shove it out the
window, hopefully on the side of the house that faces the TV xmitters.
Crimp an F connector on the other end and connect it to the TV sets
antenna connector. This is a truly attrocious TV antenna but should
work in a strong signal area by moving the antenna outside of your
shielded house. If it works noticably better, you might consider a
better outside antenna, which should improve reception even more.

If you live in an apartment complex, you might consider inspiring the
landlord to resurrect the rooftop community TV antenna system, and
distribute the signal to the entire building. Most CATV coax
distribution system come together in some manner of utility room. It's
easy enough to disconnect your coax cable from the cable company and
reconnect it to a community antenna system.

he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna
farm,IF he has one facing that way.

Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas.
They don't get anything for it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:28:16 -0700 (PDT), JeffM <jeffm_@email.com>
wrote:

I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned.
That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks.

There are plenty of other things in the home that block RF besides
chicken wire under the stucco and foil backed insulation. Some
decorative wallpaper has a sheet of thin foil inside. Aluminized
mylar energy efficient windows are an effective RF block. Metal
window and door screens block RF. If you live in a poured concrete
structure, where the inside walls are also concrete, the water in the
concrete will form an RF barrier. Antennas in the attic work
usually well, but if the roofing material is metalized (i.e.
reflective), no RF will pass.

I run into such things all the time with Wi-Fi, where barriers to
2.4GHz is more pronounced than at TV frequencies. A really good way
to test for a problem is to check for indoor cellular coverage. If
cellular works well outside or close to an open window, but the signal
drops severely elsewhere inside, then there's metal in the walls.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Samuel M. Goldwasser]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:28:16 -0700 (PDT), JeffM <jeffm_@email.com
wrote:

I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned.
That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks.

There are plenty of other things in the home that block RF besides
chicken wire under the stucco and foil backed insulation. Some
decorative wallpaper has a sheet of thin foil inside. Aluminized
mylar energy efficient windows are an effective RF block. Metal
window and door screens block RF. If you live in a poured concrete
structure, where the inside walls are also concrete, the water in the
concrete will form an RF barrier. Antennas in the attic work
usually well, but if the roofing material is metalized (i.e.
reflective), no RF will pass.

I run into such things all the time with Wi-Fi, where barriers to
2.4GHz is more pronounced than at TV frequencies. A really good way
to test for a problem is to check for indoor cellular coverage. If
cellular works well outside or close to an open window, but the signal
drops severely elsewhere inside, then there's metal in the walls.

OK, some more info:

House is about 90 years old without many modern upgrades. First floor
stucco, second floor redwood siding. I doubt there is any sigificant
insulation (that's for another group and another thread!) or anything
metallic in the walls.

All TVs get excellent analog reception.

TV/DTV convertor box on second floor on side facing antenna farm gets decent
digital reception with only old UHF loop.

TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now
seems passable but not gerat.

Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room.

New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem.
(But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think
it is a DTV signal on most channels.)

I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to
see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective.

Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large
antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space
that is empty.

--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:46:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

If the wiring is owned by them, they can. Most of the apartments we
served were wired by our cable company, and the contract with the owner
stated they had to buy it from us, if it was to be used for anything
else.

Good point but varies with cable company. The legal details are in
the TOS at:
<http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber/>
under:
6. Maintenance And Ownership Of Equipment -> c. Inside Wiring
which proclaims:
"Regardless of who installed it, we consider the Inside Wiring
your property or the property of whomever owns the Premises."
So it is written, so it must be.

The apartment buildings that I'm familiar own their own wiring, which
was installed when they were built or remodeled, usually by an
independent wiring contractor. Locally, the cable companies (Comcast
and Charter) hire such contractors to do their major inside wiring,
who bill the owner directly. The owner also supplies his own
distribution amp and splitter/couplers. Comcast may have inspected
the system before connecting, but I don't think so.

The few that had existing wiring were done with either 300 twin
lead, or single copper braided shield RG-59, neither of which would pass
the FCC leakage requirements.

Yep. RG-59/u sucks. Many apartment systems use "smurf tube" (Carlton
Flex-Plus Blue ENT) which offer the ability to add additiona coax,
fiber, CAT5, alarm, or whatever later:
<http://www.carlon.com/Flexible%20Raceway/FlexPlus_Intro.html>

Some mid band channels could interfere
with aircraft communications, and others would wipe out two meter
Amateur radio, or high band VHF communications.

Yep. We have a local repeater output on 145.25Mhz, which is dead on
the CH18 CATV video carrier. The local system leaks somewhat and I
can barely hear anything. Worse, the various subcarriers are landing
on other repeaters. I've complained, but haven't pushed the issue.
Driving around listening to 145.25 shows that there are at least a
dozen leaks along our 1 mile long branch (most caused by falling
branches and trees).

Since the cable
company would have to opay the fines, they simply didn't use owner
supplied wiring, if it didn't consist of new, approzed materials.

I checked the recent FCC rulings. One fine for CATV leakage found in
2002:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-228170A1.html>
Otherwise, I couldn't find any fines:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/Welcome.html>
I know of plenty of complaints laundered through the FCC, but no
fines.

Most of the buildings had locked wiring cabinets, as well.

Since when is a lock suppose to stop me? Around here, the pedestal
has a cheap lock, that's easily picked, but not much additional
security.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 11 Oct 2008 22:48:34 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna
farm,IF he has one facing that way.

True. However, if there's metal window screening, aluminized mylar on
the glass, or metal famed panes, the RF is not going to get through.
That's why I wanted Sam to run the test with the antenna outside the
window. The idea is not to test the effectiveness of an admittedly
lousy antenna. It's to test if there's anything in the walls or
windows that is preventing his existing DTV antenna from working.

Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas.
They don't get anything for it.

It depends on how it's packaged. These days, CATV wiring usually gets
snuck in after a few bad experiences installing satellite dishes.
Also, as part of a shared internet system, where the labor involved
far exceeds the cost of the additional wiring. Some landlords don't
want to spend a penny on anything that can't be immediately passed on
to the tenants. Others want to use the wiring as an inducement to
attract tech savvy tenants. It varies.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[bq340]

Jim Yanik wrote:

CATV antennas.

Maybe MATV antenna? or is this something new?

MikeB

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:46:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

If the wiring is owned by them, they can. Most of the apartments we
served were wired by our cable company, and the contract with the owner
stated they had to buy it from us, if it was to be used for anything
else.

Good point but varies with cable company. The legal details are in
the TOS at:
http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber/
under:
6. Maintenance And Ownership Of Equipment -> c. Inside Wiring
which proclaims:
"Regardless of who installed it, we consider the Inside Wiring
your property or the property of whomever owns the Premises."
So it is written, so it must be.

For that one company. That is Comcast's way of not having to pay for
any repairs.

The apartment buildings that I'm familiar own their own wiring, which
was installed when they were built or remodeled, usually by an
independent wiring contractor. Locally, the cable companies (Comcast
and Charter) hire such contractors to do their major inside wiring,
who bill the owner directly. The owner also supplies his own
distribution amp and splitter/couplers. Comcast may have inspected
the system before connecting, but I don't think so.

The few that had existing wiring were done with either 300 twin
lead, or single copper braided shield RG-59, neither of which would pass
the FCC leakage requirements.

Yep. RG-59/u sucks. Many apartment systems use "smurf tube" (Carlton
Flex-Plus Blue ENT) which offer the ability to add additiona coax,
fiber, CAT5, alarm, or whatever later:
http://www.carlon.com/Flexible%20Raceway/FlexPlus_Intro.html

That may be true in new buildings, but some were wired in the '70s,
when single shield RG-6 was the best available.

Some mid band channels could interfere
with aircraft communications, and others would wipe out two meter
Amateur radio, or high band VHF communications.

Yep. We have a local repeater output on 145.25Mhz, which is dead on
the CH18 CATV video carrier. The local system leaks somewhat and I
can barely hear anything. Worse, the various subcarriers are landing
on other repeaters. I've complained, but haven't pushed the issue.
Driving around listening to 145.25 shows that there are at least a
dozen leaks along our 1 mile long branch (most caused by falling
branches and trees).

Tell them were the leaks are, and suggest they fix them before the
FCC gets a written notice about interference to licensed radio users.
We had 'sniffer' receivers in our service trucks, and the techs were
required to report any radiation to their supervisor so he could
investigate the cause with the spectrum analyzer & bucket truck.

Since the cable
company would have to opay the fines, they simply didn't use owner
supplied wiring, if it didn't consist of new, approzed materials.

I checked the recent FCC rulings. One fine for CATV leakage found in
2002:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-228170A1.html
Otherwise, I couldn't find any fines:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/Welcome.html
I know of plenty of complaints laundered through the FCC, but no
fines.

That is because they get a simple warning, and if the problem is
corrected, they aren't written up & fined.

Most of the buildings had locked wiring cabinets, as well.

Since when is a lock suppose to stop me? Around here, the pedestal
has a cheap lock, that's easily picked, but not much additional
security.

The wall cabinets we used were steel, and you would have to drill the
lock, or use a cutting torch to get inside. Any physical damage could
result in termination of servixce to the entire building, or even all
apartment buildings belonging to the same company or individual.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On 11 Oct 2008 22:48:34 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna
farm,IF he has one facing that way.

True. However, if there's metal window screening, aluminized mylar on
the glass, or metal famed panes, the RF is not going to get through.

Metal screning isn't common in Florida. Most is fiberglass.

That's why I wanted Sam to run the test with the antenna outside the
window. The idea is not to test the effectiveness of an admittedly
lousy antenna. It's to test if there's anything in the walls or
windows that is preventing his existing DTV antenna from working.

Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas.
They don't get anything for it.

It depends on how it's packaged. These days, CATV wiring usually gets
snuck in after a few bad experiences installing satellite dishes.
Also, as part of a shared internet system, where the labor involved
far exceeds the cost of the additional wiring. Some landlords don't
want to spend a penny on anything that can't be immediately passed on
to the tenants. Others want to use the wiring as an inducement to
attract tech savvy tenants. It varies.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 11 Oct 2008 21:09:54 -0400, sam@seas.upenn.edu (Samuel M.
Goldwasser) wrote:

First floor stucco, second floor redwood siding.

Bingo. Under the stucco is probably chicken wire or galvanized metal
screen. These will block RF quite nicely.

TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now
seems passable but not gerat.

That's because the chicken wire is in the way. See if you can move
the antenna up over the edge of the stucco. Put a little coax
extension on whatever indoor antenna you're using and try moving the
antenna upstairs, where it doesn't have to go through the chicken
wire.

Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room.

Is that above the chicken wire line?

New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem.
(But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think
it is a DTV signal on most channels.)

Is the Toshiblah on the ground floor? If so, it has the same issue as
the other TV. Move the antenna above the chicken wire layer.

I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to
see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective.

Just run a long length of coax cable temporarily across the house to
see if it helps. We're testing the house, not the antenna.

Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large
antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space
that is empty.

I spent my first 50 years accumulating the mess. I'm going to spend
the next 50 years getting rid of it.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Richard J Kinch]

Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better
phones.

 

[Samuel M. Goldwasser]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

On 11 Oct 2008 21:09:54 -0400, sam@seas.upenn.edu (Samuel M.
Goldwasser) wrote:

First floor stucco, second floor redwood siding.

Bingo. Under the stucco is probably chicken wire or galvanized metal
screen. These will block RF quite nicely.

TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now
seems passable but not gerat.

That's because the chicken wire is in the way. See if you can move
the antenna up over the edge of the stucco. Put a little coax
extension on whatever indoor antenna you're using and try moving the
antenna upstairs, where it doesn't have to go through the chicken
wire.

Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room.

Is that above the chicken wire line?

Possible. It's getting close to the top of the stucco.

New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem.
(But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think
it is a DTV signal on most channels.)

Is the Toshiblah on the ground floor? If so, it has the same issue as
the other TV. Move the antenna above the chicken wire layer.

Should have mentioned. It is on the second floor, but on the opposite
side of the house from where most of the transimtters are.

I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to
see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective.

Just run a long length of coax cable temporarily across the house to
see if it helps. We're testing the house, not the antenna.

Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large
antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space
that is empty.

I spent my first 50 years accumulating the mess. I'm going to spend
the next 50 years getting rid of it.

Me too, unfortunately.

Thanks.

--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Richard J Kinch <kinch@truetex.com> wrote in
news:Xns9B357E703A54someconundrum@216.196.97.131:

Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better
phones.

the old dial phones?? those were better?
or are you referring to the crank-style phones???

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Richard J Kinch <kinch@truetex.com> wrote in
news:Xns9B357E703A54someconundrum@216.196.97.131:

Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!
Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better
phones.


the old dial phones?? those were better?
or are you referring to the crank-style phones???

Did he not mean phones which work, keep on working,

never have an empty battery, dont need ugly ways to
pay, anybody can use their keys without a magnifying glass,
dont attract thieves, even work when the mains power is off,
etc etc etc...........

 

[Jim Yanik]

Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in
news:48f23a1f$0$27232$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Richard J Kinch <kinch@truetex.com> wrote in
news:Xns9B357E703A54someconundrum@216.196.97.131:

Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward,
not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!
Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had
better phones.


the old dial phones?? those were better?
or are you referring to the crank-style phones???

Did he not mean phones which work, keep on working,
never have an empty battery, dont need ugly ways to
pay, anybody can use their keys without a magnifying glass,
dont attract thieves, even work when the mains power is off,
etc etc etc...........

He said "GRANDparents". That's rotary-dial phone era for me.
My parents had the rotary dial phone.

I have one of the phones you describe.
same size as the old rotary-dial phone,but with a tough-tone keypad,POTS
landline.
got enough extension coilcord that I can walk around my entire apartment
with it!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[UCLAN]

Sjouke Burry wrote:

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had
better phones.


the old dial phones?? those were better? or are you referring to the
crank-style phones???

Did he not mean phones which work, keep on working,
never have an empty battery, dont need ugly ways to
pay, anybody can use their keys without a magnifying glass,
dont attract thieves, even work when the mains power is off,
etc etc etc...........

Uh...those are still available. I have one next to my bed, and one in the
kitchen. They cost me less than $10 each, new.

 

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:

OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have
cable

You and me, pal.

This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I
believe
most of the transmitters are only a few miles away.

If you can fit a big outdoor antenna into the attic, just laying it
on the
attic floor usually works quite well. Nothing small and convenient
will
work very well, especially indoors. A mast and rotor outdoors are
the
thing to have.

With DTV, computer DVRs are practical - I have 4. If the rotator moves
while a recorder is going, you lose it.

G˛

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:22:31 -0400, Rich Webb
<bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

Take a look at http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/

Cute. That should work. However, such antennas are not all that
expensive:
<http://www.antennasdirect.com/DB4_HDTV_antenna.html> $50.
The problem is that they're UHF TV (14-69) only. If you're trying to
receive the VHF channels (2-13), then you'll need a 2nd or a different
antenna.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558