"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)