"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

"Ray Neville" wrote:
"Bob" wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote:
"N22X" wrote:

unheard of! Plain truth is the FCC is out of the monitoring
& enforcement business! Permanently!

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).

The FCC closed down all monitoring stations in 1996,
and turned over the land they sat on to GAO for disposal.
The FCC no longer has any monitoring or locational
capability. Today's FCC is only a paper pushing
bureaucracy, without any technical expertise.
Sorry if you can't deal with the facts, but that is your
problem and doesn't change the truth.

Ray, can you explain to me why 47 CFR Part 0 Section 121 lists
14 locations for "protected" FCC field offices, including the
Canadaigua location mentioned above and the Laurel, Maryland
station mentioned in another post? The locations are protected
from RF emissions by licensed radio services *because* they are
FCC monitoring stations. Section 121 was updated in 1998, 1999, and
2002, so how can it be that these locations are still listed and
still protected if the monitoring functions there were discontinued
and the physical facilities disposed of in 1996?

Here is the list, coordinates included:

Allegan, Michigan
42[deg]36[min]20.1[sec] N. Latitude
85[deg]57[min]20.1[sec] W. Longitude

Anchorage, Alaska
61[deg]09[min]41.[sec] N. Latitude
150[deg]00[min]03.0[sec] W. Longitude

Belfast, Maine
44[deg]26[min]42.3[sec] N. Latitude
69[deg]04[min]56.1[sec] W. Longitude

Canandaigua, New York
42[deg]54[min]48.2[sec] N. Latitude
77[deg]15[min]57.9[sec] W. Longitude

Douglas, Arizona
31[deg]30[min]02.3[sec] N. Latitude
109[deg]39[min]14.3[sec] W. Longitude

Ferndale, Washington
48[deg]57[min]20.4[sec] N. Latitude
122[deg]33[min]17.6[sec] W. Longitude

Grand Island, Nebraska
40[deg]55[min]21.0[sec] N. Latitude
98[deg]25[min]43.2[sec] W. Longitude

Kingsville, Texas
27[deg]26[min]30.1[sec] N. Latitude
97[deg]53[min]01.0[sec] W. Longitude

Laurel, Maryland
39[deg]09[min]54.4[sec] N. Latitude
76[deg]49[min]15.9[sec] W. Longitude

Livermore, California
37[deg]43[min]29.7[sec] N. Latitude
121[deg]45[min]15.8[sec] W. Longitude

Powder Springs, Georgia
33[deg]51[min]44.4[sec] N. Latitude
84[deg]43[min]25.8[sec] W. Longitude

Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico
18[deg]00[min]18.9[sec] N. Latitude
66[deg]22[min]30.6[sec] W. Longitude

Vero Beach, Florida
27[deg]36[min]22.1[sec] N. Latitude
80[deg]38[min]05.2[sec] W. Longitude

Waipahu, Hawaii
21[deg]22[min]33.6[sec] N. Latitude
157[deg]59[min]44.1[sec] W. Longitude


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. Nine of the 25 existing field offices as
well as three of the six regional offices were closed. Two
technical staff members continue to be assigned as Resident
Agents in the nine locations in which field offices were
closed.

So lets see, of 25 field offices 9 were close, leaving 14. And
an automated monitoring network is in use, for which there are
14 protected locations. Does this add up to anything like

"out of the monitoring & enforcement business! Permanently!"

or

"the FCC closed all their monitoring stations seven years ago"

or

"The FCC closed down all monitoring stations in 1996"

or

"and turned over the land they sat on to GAO for disposal"

or

"The FCC no longer has any monitoring or locational capability"

or is there by any chance a large amount of disinformation being
relayed here as if it were fact?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"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/