|
"Uri" wrote in message ...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:16:30 -0400, Rich wrote: So says you, but according to www.fcc.gov they ARE all closed. Read it again....they are UNMANNED and therefore closed to the public. They are all operated by remote control from Laurel/Columbia, MD. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Hey stupid ass, I did read it. THEY ARE ALL CLOSED, KAPUT, DISMANTLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you comprehend the standard English that the web is written in ??????????????? Remote Control? Geeeee, does the remote control use a standard 9 volt battery??? Take your petty ham disputes to 14313. Hey stupid ass, dial 202-418-1122 and ask if they have FCC monitoring facilities up and running and tuning for pirates. Right now. Toodles. Uri w3rv |
"Uri" wrote in message ...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On 4 Aug 2003 07:38:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: "N22X" wrote in message ... Since the FCC closed all their monitoring stations seven years ago, The FCC did *not* close all their monitoring stations. In fact when the monitoring stations were remoted, an additional one was added. The station at Canandaigua, NY was brought back on line after being closed for a number of years (it was used as the test bed for developing the remote control system). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Canadaigua is listed as having been turned over to the FAA as an back-up air control site!!!!! Yeah, yeah, and some farmer raises corn on the New York Center site. All the monitoring stations have been dismantled. No, no Sweetums, you don't know what you're talking about. Which doesn't come as much of a shock. In most cases the station personnel got "dismantled" when the stations were automated and placed under remote control, that's all. Laurel is still staffed because it's the biggest & baddest of the bunch. So yes indeedy Sweetums, the FCC is definitely still listening, listening, listening . . I can't urge you too strongly get a grip on the facts before you spout off in USENET Sweetums else you make a complete ass of yourself again like you just did. Do you understand standard English????????????? Of course he can't. He's ONLY a multi-degreed EE/comms lawyer whod did something like 30 with the FCC. Busted his share of pirates too by golly. Uri w3rv |
"Ray Neville" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote: "Ray Neville" wrote: The FCC no longer has any monitoring or locational capability. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ Ray, can you explain to me why 47 CFR Part 0 Section 121 lists 14 locations for "protected" FCC field offices, including the .... Additionally, from http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Inspector_General/Reports/sar997.txt we have the following assessment (as of late 1997): The reorganization entailed the closure of nine attended frequency monitoring stations and three additional monitoring sites located at FCC field offices. In place of these ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ previously manned stations, a national automated monitoring ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ network is now controlled from an existing facility in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ Columbia, Maryland. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Read this link. It tells how the land the monitoring stations sat on was disposed of by GAO and how FCC employees ran up millions of dollars in fraudulent cell phone bills while they were closing the monitoring stations and selling off the land. www.fcc.gov/bureaus/inspector_general/sar996.txt Learn something about 1) citing links in a manner that make the accessable 2) reading what you cite *before* you cite it 3) making your summary *accurate* if you do summarize You've failed on all of the above. The actual link is, http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Inspector...rts/sar996.txt It says *nothing* about land disposal by the the GAO, nor does it say a thing about cell phone usage related to the closing of monitoring stations. What it does say contradicts your position and repeats *precisely* what I had said above: ... "the closure of nine attended frequency monitoring stations and three additional monitoring sites located at FCC field offices. This streamlining initiative has been implemented during this reporting period. In place of these previously manned stations, a national automated monitoring network has been established and will be controlled from an existing facility in Columbia, Maryland." As you can see, claims that "The FCC no longer has any monitoring or locational capability" is absolutely refuted by the two cited references to FCC semi-annual reports. Both of them, the one I originally cited and the one you attempted to cite, say the exact same thing: The FCC now has a "national automated monitoring network" in place. They just as clearly have at least 14 locations, listed in the cite that I gave and deleted here as redundant, where these remotely operated monitoring stations exist. The cite you attempted to make does say: "This report includes the major accomplishments and general activities of the OIG during the period April 1, 1996, through September 30, 1996...", where OIG is the Office of the Inspector General. The OIG accomplishments and activities reported in that particular semi-annual review were one Special Review Report and three Audit Reports that were issued during the reporting period. The Special Review Report was related to support for frequency spectrum auctions. The Audit Reports were 1) Audit of Employee Use of American Express Government Credit Cards, issued August 14, 1996 2) Report on Cellular Telephone Utilization, issued August 15, 1996 3) Report on Audit of Proposal for Initial Pricing Under RFP No. 96-37, issued September 30, 1996. Clearly you were not referring to items 1 and 3, which are not related to either monitoring stations, GAO sales or cell phones. Item 2 is indeed related to cell phones, but has no particular connection to any GAO sales, as none are mentioned, and since it reports on cell phone usage between 1993 and 1995, it cannot be said to apply specifically to the deactivation of manned monitoring stations. In particular, it does not mention *any* specific locations or activities or offices within the Commission as being singled out for either proper or inproper usage. It does say that proper managerial control was not in place and that abuses were found. However, none of the abuses found could possibly be related to the activities you claimed, because all we A sample of judgementally selected phone bills for FCC employees whose cellular phone bills consistently exceeded $100 per month over a six month period from January through July 1995, was reviewed by the auditors. So, one just has to ask why you would post such a claim and then try to back it up with a cite that supports exactly the opposite of what you have said? Did you even read it, or did you just expect that I wouldn't be able to find it? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Ray Neville" wrote:
A. If you claim to know so much, why do you post using an incorrect path and headers? What incorrect path and headers would those be? B. You are confusing the issue with misquotes and half truths. Precise quotes and the full truth. If you think it was otherwise, why don't you show where any quote I gave was wrong in any way. And, show us a single quote from the cite you made that in any way supported any claim you've made. C. You really need to get a grip on reality! Such as that your posts are not credible. D. Akabar Naazar Land Sales Conglomerate handled all the land sales and disposal of the property which the monitoring stations sat on. Did you not read his post? No, I forgot, you cannot comprehend standard English. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. If you can comprehend standard English, maybe you'll tell us why the FCC continues to make semi annual reports that claim they are operating a national network of monitoring stations? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Herb" wrote:
There there my boy. Hold out another 24 hours and you can get back on 14313 and jam your buddies, talk about imaginary "monitoring" stations, or anything else that you fruity hams do. In the mean time, there is always CB. Yes, why don't you get on channel 11 and make noises, such fun, as you well know. Herb Are those the same "imaginary" monitoring stations that Hollingsworth goes around the country talking about. He claimed some three years ago that computer upgrades allowed them to do about 1000 times as many Lines of Bearing samples as had been previously done. Of course, those _were_ imaginary back in 1995 when the ARRL announced the soon to be built new remote monitoring system, and quoted the FCC saying they would be an improvement, The plan would close nine separate attended high frequency monitoring stations, and three additional monitoring sites within FCC field offices. Technological advances permit the replacement of these monitoring stations with a national automated monitoring network by the summer of 1996, the FCC said, and "overall, monitoring capacities will be enhanced." One facility in Laurel/Columbia, Maryland, will remain as the network central station. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/1995-arlb096.html -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Since the FCC closed all their monitoring stations seven years ago, the number of pirates and unlicensed activity on HF has jumped by quantum leaps. We are observing pirates in the 6600 khz range, which is reserved for aero ops, something which was unheard of in the days of active FCC enforcement. I don't even understand the motivation of pirate broadcast radio. If you have a message or original music you want people to hear, you can reach a lot more people with a web site on the 'net than you ever could with radio. Either you pirate on SW, which few people are equipped to listen to, or FM, where your range is quite limited, and few people will be able to hear you. And then there is the schedule limitation. The web site would be avaliable 24/7 for anyone so inclined to read or download from. |
Many pirates are radio amateurs - they have the knowledge and skill to put together a station. :-) We did that back in college back in the 1970's. One of us bought a homebrew transmitter, did some repairs to clean it up some, threw together some turntables and a crude mixer board, used a mic from a cassette recorder, and went on the air Friday night. We knew that the nearest FCC office was about 150 miles away, and was closed for the weekend. We played records mostly. Some jocks from a local licensed station found us, and did a few shifts of our air time! (Guess they wanted the opportunity to play their own selections instead of a mandated playlist). I commented on our crude equipment, and they said that they had seen worse at licensed stations. We shut down Sunday night and dismantled the setup. Later on someone else at our college did a pirate TV station! That made the New York Times! This was when the VCR was first comming out on the market. It was said that someone built that transmitter out of an old guitar amp. Sounds ludercutis, but if it was a tube amp, could actually be done. Use the VCR's channel modulator as the exciter, and that feeds the "guitar" amp. |
it again....they are UNMANNED and therefore closed to the public. They are all operated by remote control from Laurel/Columbia, MD. Hey stupid ass, I did read it. THEY ARE ALL CLOSED, KAPUT, DISMANTLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think it's any big deal to set up a remote controlled via phone lines or even a secure internet connection set of radio receivers and spectrum analyzers and antenna rotators at various listening sites? Though not every town is so equipped, but if a pirate pops up, the local licensed stations complain and the FCC sends the white vans to check it out. The FCC doesn't monitor every station in every town; they respond to complaints. Did you get busted that one time you transmitted with the wrong mode in a ham subband? Likely not, if you only did it once by accident and then corrected it. You have to constantly violate some rule in an annoying fashion before the FCC comes. |
"Radio Truth" wrote:
Read my reply to the other stupid ass that has difficulty comprehending standard English. There are NO MORE MONITORING STATIONS!!!!!!!! Okay, I get where you're going - there are no more monitoring stations in the classic sense. Satisfied now? However, as several of us have stated, those stations have been replaced with a new automated monitoring system. In other words, the FCC is still monitoring. And when are you going to FINALLY upgrade from that no code tech license you have? Since I happen to like my existing license, not anytime soon. Thanks for asking, though. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com