BBC Resurrects WWII-era Shortwave Broadcasts as Russia Blocks News of Ukraine Invasion (theverge.com) 105
The BBC is resorting to broadcasting news bulletins over shortwave radio in Russia after the country blocked access to BBC websites, The Guardian reports. The Verge: The BBC announced it was bringing back the WWII-era broadcasting technology in the region just hours before its sites were banned. News of the ban was also reported by Russian state news agency RIA. Shortwave radio uses frequencies that carry over long-distances and are accessible on portable sets. The BBC says its shortwave broadcasts will be available on frequencies of 15735 kHz from 6pm to 8pm and 5875 kHz from midnight to 2am, Ukraine time. News will be read in English, which the BBC says will be available in Kyiv as well as "parts of Russia." Shortwave radio has a long history of wartime broadcasts. The Guardian reports that its usage peaked during the Cold War, but that it was also used throughout WWII to broadcast propaganda. The BBC World Service ended its use of the technology in Europe in 2008 after 76 years.
Radio Free Europe (Score:5, Interesting)
Russian desinformation. (Score:3)
Yep. Russian desinformation seems to be extremely extensive today.
A shame for Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And so the West has long waged war. Preemptive strikes, whether in the form of bullets and bombs, or now in the virtual world of shutting down access to global banking networks, is something we do after the other side has already started the invasion. In part, it's the nature of democracies that they don't tend to like to wage wars. Sure, they'll do it, and sometimes they will attack preemptively, but dictators don't have a free press and meaningful legislative or judicial checks on their power. It's why US
Re: (Score:2)
And for all intents and purposes, we basically let Putin have Crimea and Donbas. Ukraine, like Czechoslovakia, had no strong security guarantees from the West. Poland was another story. The British and French did draw a firm line in the sand that any attack on Poland would lead to war, and when Germany invaded Poland, that's the official kickoff of WWII.
Re: Russian desinformation. (Score:5, Informative)
Neville Chamberlain did negotiate, he wasn't really "appeasing" and he had a signed agreement from Hitler. He's faulted for being naive, but that's in hindsight. There's not else that could have been done beyond a pre-emptive strike; but a pre-emptive strike in the same manner really is only justifiable in hindsight. We pre-emptively went into Iraq for WMDs that weren't there and created a horrible mess.
There was also Russia going into Georgia before the Crimea part. And for the same reason, to "rescure" some breakaway regions (which may or may not have been fully pro-Russian). There was a signed ceasefire agreement, but Russia immediately broke it (Medvedev was pres then, but Putin still in effective control). So the groundwork was laid then; the Russian leadership was sure that it could invade and steal parts of other nations without any repercussions from the west except for sweaty hang wringing. So the, Crimea and quickly after parts of Donbass.
Note, for those still laboring under the delusion that the Donbass region wants to be a part of Russia, or that Russian speakers want to be Russian. In the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine, including Donbass, Russian speaking Ukrainians are fighting against Russian soldiers, with acts of sabotage or by assisting Ukrainian regulars. The people most likely to have welcomed Russian soldier with open arms are opposed to them. The only "civil war" going on is with the separatists that hold only about 1/3 of Donbass, and who are only a self-proclaimed republic with no support of the people, and who only kept up the fight because they had help from regular Russian solders from the very first day.
Remember also that Putin lied outrageously that there were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine. And then later he admitted that they were there and that he had lied. "Sorry I lied, you should see look on your face, so funny!" Which is why you cannot believe Putin about the Donbass or that the Russian troops there are only there on their own vacation time and not sent by him. And why no one believed him when he said soldiers were only doing excercises next to the Ukraine border, or that he's only trying to clean out nazis, or that Ukraine is really just a part of Russia. You probably should not even believe Putin when he says what he ate for lunch.
Right now Russian troops are shelling civlian areas that are nowhere near military installations. These are clear war crimes. Which is redundant since any war is a crime to someone. But every day Putin looks more and more like Hitler.
Re: Russian desinformation. (Score:4, Informative)
Chamberlain knew full well that Hitler was bullshitting. Chamberlain's "appeasement" was actually a strategy to try to hold off going to war as long as possible as Britain frantically tried to rearm and France started preparing (as it turned out, inadequately) for war. Chamberlain gets a bad name, but Churchill, despite public criticism of the man in the lead up to war, in his history of the Second World War made it clear that Chamberlain had a nearly impossible task of trying to ready Britain for an inevitable conflict while trying to give Hitler every opportunity to back away from the brink. By the time of the Munich Agreement, I don't think there was anyone in the British Government who seriously thought that war could be averted, but Britain, being the relatively decent world citizen, had abided by the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, now had to get itself up to sufficient strength to be able to lend a hand to France when the attacks began, not to mention guaranteeing Britain's own safety. So dire was Britain's situation in 1938 that they were actually building fake airplanes to put on airfields to try to fool German spy planes that the RAF was stronger than it actually was.
In other words, Chamberlain was under no illusions, and his "peace in our time" speech, much derided later, wasn't really meant for Western ears, but as an attempt to convince Hitler that Britain believed the Munich Agreement meant anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
A large defensive buildup would have checked Hitler's entire blitzkrieg strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
WWI (one, not two) and this book is much closer parallel to what and why Russia is invading the Ukraine today, and is a scary parallel.
"July 1914: Countdown to War" by Sean MCKeekin
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0... [nytimes.com]
https://www.military-history.u... [military-history.us]
Key takeway from July 1914:
Another interesting fact that has gotten short shrift in the literature thus far is the sequence of events and timelines surrounding Russian mobilization. It is widely known that Russia began mobilization before any other power, what is n
Re: Russian desinformation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BBC is trustworthy; Voice of America is far from it and probably still has Trump people messing it up who'd be praising Putin in between empty criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Not perfect 100% trust but generally worthy of trust... better than most. Certainly not as good as in the past.
If you think the BBC is bad then just go back to eating horse dewormer and drinking your own urine and STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you're comparing them to.
Re: (Score:2)
VOA is gone excelt for english news to Africa and south sudan. Loooong gone from shortwave in America.
Re: Russian desinformation. (Score:5, Informative)
The Trump appointee to lead Voice of America did tremendous harm to it. The goal of the Trump administration at all levels as to prove that "government does not work", and this salting of the earth occured even at agencies normally seen favorably by conservatives. So try tried to undermine everything in government, and what they could not tear down they instead made inefficient, and what they could not control they would disparage and insult and spread propaganda against.
So at Voice of America, and the higher up US Agency for Global Media (also parent of Radio Free Europe, etc), was being lead by a bozo, Michael Pack. Even Republicans did not want to nominate Pack to CEO, since he was a partner with Steve Bannon and thus unsuitable for a "non-partisan" media group when his background was with the fake-news industry. Pack did not trust any of the staff, he treated everyone as disloyal, and he wanted to "drain the swamp". Which meant removing any and all anti-Trump sentiment (loyalty to the person is more important to Trump than loyalty to the country), and he did a lot of firing. Including people who had been at Voice of America for USAGM for several decades under both Republican and Democratic presidents, even conservatives. Slash and burn. Using tax dollars he investigated many of the staffers he had suspended rather than fired to root out disloyalty, so add lots of paranoia to his flaws (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/former-head-of-voice-of-americas-parent-hired-two-law-firms-to-no-bid-contracts-price-tag-4-million/2021/01/25/87a35e7a-5d0c-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html). Foreign staffers, necessary for foreign language broadcasts, did not have their visas renewed and thus subsequently fired-by-default.
Now it's been recovering, as Pack resigned two hours after Biden was sworn in and several of the fired staffers and execs were re-instated as acting heads. But it's taken a severe beating.
Re: your dIsinformation. (Score:1)
Re: Russian desinformation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Story in BBC about how people being shelled by Russian troops are not being believed by their own parents who live in Russia. They stubbornly claim that it must be Ukrainians instead who are shelling them and that Russians only are shelling military targets, and the children can't get them to change their minds. So there's a total control of the media in Russia and it is controlling the thoughts of the people. This is outright Orwellian. This is why a free press is necessary for a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly.
Re: (Score:1)
I've got several. Guess I need to break one out.
We used it for years when camping and sailing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I miss shortwave, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
My brother-in-law runs a node on a shortwave-to-IP network. You can talk to other people using digital mode, or send data, or whatever. It can bounce over the internet to other exit nodes to hit people in other states or countries with no internet connection. It's pretty slick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much.
The slowest modes are things like PSK31. The '31' stands for '31 bits per second.' That's just enough to keep up with someone typing, which is all you need for a conversation. But it'll get through even on the weakest, barely-detectable signal.
For long range data communications, you often find 300bps or up to 1200bps. The reason for the slow speed is just that you want to get an intercontinental signal at tiny power levels.
Short range though,you start getting decent speed. Anything from a few megab
Re: (Score:2)
Last count I have over a dozen dating back to the 90s, newest one I bought last year. I'm one of those hardcore radio types you mention though.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was growing up in Iran, my dad had a Sony CF-950S [duckduckgo.com]. I found a really clean one in working condition which sits 4 feet from my desk at home. When I visited back in early 90s, he had graduated to a Sony CRF-330K [duckduckgo.com]. I've been eyeing eBay for one for many years at a reasonable price, but can't get a really clean one for less than $1500.
As for other SW radios, besides the 950S, I have a hand-held Sony and 2 tube ones (1 functioning).
Re: (Score:2)
RF isn’t my area of expertise, at what frequency does a tuned RF receiver stop working? I’m talking about an LC circuit with a diode detector or the classic crystal set.
Re: (Score:2)
The lower frequencies are easier to receive, the higher might have more reach, something around 5-17 mHz is most versatile.
Re: (Score:2)
MHz, not mHz.
1 MHz = 1,000,000 cycles per second
1 mHz = 1/1,000 cycles per second (= 1,000 seconds per cycle)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The receiver isn't the issue - it's propagation. The cutoff is around 30MHz, varying depending on conditions. Below that frequency you can bounce your signal off the ionosphere,then off the ground, then off the ionosphere again, and so on - bouncing it and going half-way around the world. Above that frequency the radio doesn't bounce - it goes straight through and off into space, so you are mostly limited to line-of-sight communications. You can extend that line if you build a really tall tower.
Shortwave is easy (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone (outside of perhaps the hardest of the hardcore survivalists) actually have a shortwave radio anymore? Pretty sure I got rid of my last one about 20 years ago...
Shortwave receivers are trivial to build. A tuned circuit, a diode, and a pair of headphones or earphones is all you need. For example: [netzener.net]
The simplest radio is the [Tuned Radio Frequency] receiver which can usually be constructed with only five components and requires no batteries or AC power. A TRF radio is the easiest to build but it is not very sensitive to weak signals and has difficulty distinguishing radio stations broadcasting on channels that are close together. A good antenna and ground connection is required to receive anything other than nearby high-power radio stations. A "crystal radio" is the most common TRF radio that experimenters will build.
There are also a ton of 1-transistor and 2-transistor circuits available on the net. Ham Radio was popular precisely because as a teenager you could build a receiver using 2 transistors and a handful of components and listen to broadcasts on the other side of the world in another language.
Also many older radios receive the shortwave band, such as the big wooden tube radio in grandma's house. There are still a ton of these around - even today in the US they still occasionally come up on craigslist in the Boston area.
I saw one of those "survivalist" challenges where some really smart people were dropped off "somewhere in the world" (!) and given several challenges, one of which was to determine where they were. On an abandoned island they built a shortwave receiver using things they had on them and some available junk - they cut an old cooking pot in half and crudely mounted it so the halves would nest together, and using the handle they could rotate one side while the other one was fixed. That was the capacitor for a tank circuit, and they managed to pick up a shortwave broadcast and determined that they were on an island off the coast of Italy.
You probably can't do that in the jungle, but it goes to show how easy it is to build a shortwave receiver in normal circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
To be pedantic, shortwave technically just refers to the frequency of the carrier wave, NOT how it's modulated by the signal. Though I'd be willing to believe that AM is usually implied. It's inefficient, bandwidth hungry, but incredibly reliable and simple to send, and even simpler to receive.
Such a simple tuned-frequency receiver is only suitable for receiving the simplest AM (amplitude modulated) shortwave signals, where the transmitter basically uses an audio signal as an "envelope" filled with a much
Re: (Score:2)
But does this help Russian listeners? Theyr'e not going to go down to the store and say "I would like a shortwave radio so that I can listen to broadcasts that may disagree with our Dear Leader". They'd either have to have old sets, or ability to build their own. And above all that, they must first be led to believe that official state media is lying, and that's a problem.
Broadcasts receivable by normal commercial radios would work better to reach people, but those have limited range and would have be be
Re: (Score:3)
But does this help Russian listeners?
I'm going to say yes. You would be surprised how many people behind the "iron curtain" had shortwave radios during the cold war. During that time they where very illegal, hard to get, and expensive. Given that, I would be surprise that if many of these old timer didn't have a shortwave squirreled away, just in case.
Hell, I still have a shortwave radio in storage from the '80s. It should still work, I should get it out and test it.
Benefits (Score:2)
It also helps in that an individual might hear some information, and then pass that information along to others.
It puts people at risk as well; Russia's already been jailing people who object to the war publicly.
Re: (Score:2)
During that time they where very illegal, hard to get, and expensive.
What? I have a radio made in the USSR in 1964 and it has two shortwave bands. I really doubt that it was illegal at the time, since, well, it was made in a factory and sold to people.
Re: (Score:1)
Lots of phones?
https://bestradios.co.uk/which-samsung-phones-have-fm-radio/
Re: (Score:2)
Not FM radio but SW, no phone has AM/SW AFAIK
Re: (Score:1)
Nevermind, this is not "regular FM" (87-108MHz).
Re: (Score:2)
You can get AM to go hundreds of miles at night with the right wattage and no interference. The 'clear channel' stations in the US are proof of that. I assume there are similar agreements in Europe for clear channel frequencies. Perhaps they could be reused in neighboring countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial AM radio is pretty close to the sweet spot (roughly 0.5MHz - 2MHz), so yeah, when conditions are good you can get some decent range. But the cuttof is just where transmission range is getting good - presumably because you don't want every radio station on Earth to be competing for the same bandwidth.
The shortwave ranges though can refract off the upper atmosphere indefinitely - when the conditions are good you can get signals all the way from the other side of the planet. In theory you could eve
"Clear channel" is dead Re:I miss shortwave (Score:1)
In America, the concept of a "clear channel" went away decades ago. Now "Clear Channel" is a brand-name.
In the days of yore, if you had a "clear channel" AM broadcast radio station east of the Rocky Mountains, the government would not issue licenses to any other station on that frequency east of the Rockies, giving you a "clear channel." Those days are gone.
That doesn't invalidate your point though.
Re: (Score:2)
A good skip can go thousands of miles.
Broadcast FM range Re:I miss shortwave, but... (Score:1)
Broadcast FM is usally line-of-sight. If you are on the top of a tall mountain, you can go much further than 100 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
And those 'old phones' are rapidly being forced into obsolescence, both with 3 G services shutting down, and old browsers no longer able to properly process modern websites. Otherwise, they could maybe load up a WebSDR and become SW 'radios'.
Old phones Re:I miss shortwave, but... (Score:1)
First off, I've never seen a mass-marketed cell phone with shortwave radio.
Broadcast FM radio receivers in cell phones were a thing in the 2010s and maybe before that, and a few modern Android phones still have them.
I'm not saying there aren't any shortwave receivers integrated into phones, I'm just that they weren't anything but a niche market in the United States if they existed at all.
A much more practical thing would be an shortwave receiver that connected to your phone via either a dongle or a short-ra
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe there is a lot of stations, you can also receive them from Africa etc. But in Canada where I am, well... except some american christians stations, there is nothing, or you need a 300' antenna :-/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just a bunch of religious nuts spreading their delusions
They are easy to skip over. I tune my SW receiver in CW (continuous wave) mode. So I can hear the carrier beat frequency and tune it to zero before switching to AM. As a result, I can't actually hear the content before I switch modulation. It turns out that the speech cadence (linguists call it prosody) of the religious nuts is all wrong. And it can easily be detected even though their CW modulated voice sounds like Donald Duck.
Re: I miss shortwave, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone (outside of perhaps the hardest of the hardcore survivalists) actually have a shortwave radio anymore?
Yes, they're called "nerds" and supposedly this is a site designed to feed them news so there may be a few here.
Re: (Score:1)
I certainly have an excellent working Sangean digital World band receiver. Though most short-wave radio stations that I used to receive earlier are gone.
Of course (Score:2)
Sure. I have several, plus some SDRs (software defined radios.)
I'm certainly not a survivalist. I'm just interested in news and information beyond what the US media imagines I should be listening to. Then there's the whole fun of atmospheric propagation and what that brings (or doesn't bring) to the pursuit.
Each to their own, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I have two solid state shortwave radios that are working, and another 3 tube shortwave radios. I'm also trying to get a 3rd solid state working again because it has a nice magnetic bar antenna used for direction finding.
Sadly, there's still really nothing on the west coast of North America to listen to.
Re: (Score:2)
Still got em and still use em after 50 years ( ballpark ) in the hobby . they're great. Im no survivalist .. but i know my tubes will survive. One is ac/dc battery operated .. so i'm always fine in power outages :)
Also provides a Youtube tutorial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on how to listen to shortwave.
But can Russians watch Youtube? There's quite a lot of information on Youtube, and the Russian government would certainly want to prevent users from seeing anything other than their "we're just acting in self defense" fairy tale for their invasion of another country.
Putin's attack on Ukraine seems to follow the playbook of the German dictator's attack on Sudetenland [wikipedia.org] - a part of Czechoslovakia with some inhabitants of German descent, and which resulted in Hitler invading the rest as well.
Another parallel is
I can receive 15735 now (Score:2)
Effing brilliant! (Score:2)
People in Russia deserve to know the truth instead of state sponsored brainwashing crap like N. Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and it's hardly limited to Russians. Plenty of Americans still believe we invaded Iraq because we believed they had nuclear weapons.
I think it's a cognitive dissonance thing - if you subscribe to any degree of nationalism (and most do, we're seemingly wired for tribalism) then you probably think that your nation is basically "the good guys", especially if that's the propaganda being pushed by your government (and it usually is)
Admitting that your government is engaged in a despicable activity, and is
Re: Effing brilliant! (Score:2)
You can jump between them and try to figure out what is actual news and what is propaganda, but it's tiring.
Re: (Score:2)
The moment a person picks up a story and writes it down, bias is introduced which means there are actually no sources of news in the whole world that are without bias.
The real question which you touched on is determining what news sources are intentionally distorting stories or introducing bias to push a narrative.
The only thing we can do is to find news outlets that at least try to report the news faithfully and not just look for outlets that say things you like. And that leads to the conclusion that any o
Re: (Score:2)
It think there's another (even more?) dangerous trend in recent years - introducing bias in order to increase engagement.
If you're pushing a narrative, at least you're trying to accomplish something - if you succeed then the results are going to at least be constructive to someone. If you're introducing bias just to suck in viewers though, then you're generate a completely chaotic narrative that can have extremely destructive effects on or through the people who believe it.
It seems in recent years far too
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, manufacturing "outrage" to drive engagement is one the top shitty and possibly dangerous things that are happening - because it has real world consequence and none of them good. Especially if you also throw in some bias for good measure..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except we didn't think that. All the best intelligence at the time said that it was *incredibly* unlikely anything was going on. It was only by presenting briefing quotes taken entirely out of context that they were able to manufacture a story that made it look like we suspected such a thing.
The WMD story was never anything more than part of a propaganda campaign to get the populace on board with going to war. Right alongside the nonsense about spreading democracy. I don't know that the genuine motives
Lordly (Score:2)
Re: Lordly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's how lord haw-haw got his name, speaking in a contrived english accent during his WW2 broadcasts
Ok, I see. It's something British that I have no idea what you're talking about.
I was just curious and nobody had replied to it to explain.
Keeping it digital free (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s at times like this, that a selected shortwave frequency range should be reserved for analogue use and have phones include support for it. We shouldnâ(TM)t need it, but when shit hits the fan, weâ(TM)ll be happy for the legacy support.
Who has a radio? (Score:2)
I wonder how many people have a half decent radio, know where it is, or how to use it? If their phone doesn't do it for them, guess they'll have to find a nerd or older person?
Re: (Score:2)
Most radios won't help - Shortwave operates on different frequencies which your desk radio (and probably phone) can't pick up. Still, there's enough people with shortwave radios (truckers, pilots, HAM radio enthusiasts, etc.) that it usually doesn't take long for people to pull together and establish communications after a natural disaster.
Shortwave is also (usually?) AM modulated, while virtually all "value added" radios built into modern electronics like phones are strictly FM compatible, since they're r
Re: (Score:2)
I used to have a JVC boom box that picked up a couple of shortwave bands on a regular single rabbit ear. I got some international broadcasts on occasion.
Re: (Score:1)
Narrowband FM bandwidth is 2X the maximum frequency of the audio, same as conventional AM (5 kHz audio requires a minimum bandwidth of 10 kHz for AM and narrowband FM.) Single sideband (SSB) is half that. Wideband FM has a wider bandwidth than the unmodulated audio, and that allows improved signal-to-noise ratio for signals above a threshold. This effect has been known for about 90 years.
While construction of a simple AM receiver is easy, it won't be good. For good sensitivity and selectivity, additional am
The internet is great but... (Score:2)
The internet is great but we were way too quick to get rid of reliable technologies like shortwave that don't require working local infrastructure and thus still work when wars/natural disasters/etc take down the power/cellular/etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately we haven't gotten rid of them yet, even if they're a lot less popular than they used to be (at least as a percentage of the population - the absolute numbers might be up, I don't know).
Plenty of groups are *trying* to end it though, that "magic" long-range spectrum is a juicy plum for modern tech. Hopefully this will be a reminder that it's valuable for far more than increasing profit margins and helping save poor people from natural disasters. It's also a valuable weapon for undermining author
Re: (Score:2)
Shortwave is going strong, and even has shortwave to IP -so you can (slowly) run an internet connection over shortwave ...
Brings Back Fond Memories (Score:2)
Popup for Russian Website Visitors (Score:1)
This WP plugin relays BBC news on any domain; making it harder to block. Only appears for Russian and Belarusian visitors. You can find it on GitHub at https://github.com/goddessmokosh/stop-war-in-ukraine
BBC international news available via Tor (Score:4, Informative)
The BBC is also making its international news website available via the Tor network, in a bid to thwart censorship attempts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tec... [bbc.co.uk]
BBC News in Ukrainian: https://www.bbcweb3hytmzhn5d53... [www.bbcweb...crad.onion]
BBC News in Russian: https://www.bbcweb3hytmzhn5d53... [www.bbcweb...crad.onion]
BBC News internationally: https://www.bbcweb3hytmzhn5d53... [www.bbcweb...crad.onion]
Instead of visiting bbc.co.uk/news or bbc.com/news, users of the Tor browser can visit the new site here:
https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2in... [www.bbcnew...5uqd.onion]
Shortwave sounds a bit crap, but it works (Score:2)
You don't need an internet service provider, or fibre optic cables. You can get digital info and images across narrowband RF channels. It is slow, but it works. The worst tyranny imaginable can't forbid Maxwell's equations. What are they going to do, surround Russia with a steel shell? The iron curtain did not keep out radio waves.
Shortwave. (Score:2)
Shortwave is the way to go .. can't cut the cable or pull the plug on those. Nothing like the glow and warmth of a SW tube reciever :) 51 years of the hobby for me .. never gets old. Happy DXing :) Go BBC !
Russian language on this frequency (Score:1)
Fallout (Score:2)