| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
6980 khz USB - 0530 UTC
"N22X" wrote in message ... "yazoo63" wrote in message news:581Xa.3888$qf.399@lakeread06... Hearing a station playing old-time country (or gospel) music mixed in with what sounds like a male announcer preaching a sermon. Receiving this fairly weak (S-5) with a lot of QRM into northern Virginia. (thank god for notch filters !!!) Anyone have any info on this station ? Barry N4IJN Fredericksburg, VA Since the FCC closed all their monitoring stations seven years ago, the number of pirates and unlicensed activity on HF has jumped by quantum leaps. No ****! I hadn't heard about that! We are observing pirates in the 6600 khz range, which is reserved for aero ops, something which was unheard of in the days of active FCC enforcement. Way cool! Guys & gals, if you're reading this, don't get caught! |
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:12:22 -0400, "N22X"
wrote: "yazoo63" wrote in message news:581Xa.3888$qf.399@lakeread06... Hearing a station playing old-time country (or gospel) music mixed in with what sounds like a male announcer preaching a sermon. Receiving this fairly weak (S-5) with a lot of QRM into northern Virginia. (thank god for notch filters !!!) Anyone have any info on this station ? Barry N4IJN Fredericksburg, VA 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. N22X Terra Haute, IN I'd guess the number of FM pirates has risen too? I haven't heard any in my city in quite awhile but we have "resident agents" so maybe thats why.... |
"N22X" wrote:
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. (snip) If the FCC has closed all their fixed monitoring stations, it was probably in favor of better and cheaper technology. In other words, I strongly suspect monitoring capability is still there - it just needs an employee interested enough to do something with it (or perhaps enough employees to do something effective with it). On the other hand, I haven't seen an increase in unlicensed activity. The only two pirates I've heard in this area have recently closed down their operations, though not as a result of FCC enforcement activities. Instead, since fewer people today scan around through available frequencies for something to listen to (scanning instead through the stations they've previously programmed into memories), many pirates are simply finding it more difficult to gain an audience today. Of those people still scanning around through available frequencies, fewer seem interested in pirate stations. Those things, perhaps more than anything else, may eventually spell the end of pirate broadcasting. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N22X" wrote in message ...
Since the FCC closed all their monitoring stations seven years ago, The FCC did *not* close all their monitoring stations. 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. N22X Terra Haute, IN w3rv |
"Rich" wrote:
If you know so much, how come you are still just a Technician Class? What does my ham radio license class have to do with pirate radio? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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 |
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 |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Rich wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ... If the FCC has //drivel snipped// Dwight Stewart (W5NET) If you know so much, how come you are still just a Technician Class? SURPRISE! It's that dastardly Morris code! It must be dastardly if you're so willing to send it poorly. |
"Uri" wrote:
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. Phil is correct. Dig around the FCC's web site and you'll find more on the subject if you look hard enough. The FCC/WTB is now using the National Automated Monitoring Network, central office in Laurel/Columbia Maryland. The Spectrum Enforcement Division in Maryland operates the new remote monitoring system, which replaced the old monitoring stations. The locations once used by those monitoring stations now appear to be used to house the new unmanned equipment. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ... What does my ham radio license class have to do with pirate radio? Many pirates are radio amateurs - they have the knowledge and skill to put together a station. :-) |
"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/ |
"Ray Neville" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "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 It's the number of a liquor store. Bwaaaahaha! As if! YOU either still can't use a touchtone pad or ya never dialed it or ya think ya can bull**** yer way outta this one. It's an FCC number alrighty, it's the Crisis Management Center of the Homeland Security Division of the FCC Enforcement Bureau. Had a nice chat with the dude, he referred me to Riley for more info. K w3rv |
The monitoring station in Columbia is still there on the map.
See ADC's Howard County, MD map, page 20, grid squares B1, C1, B2, C2, D2 and C3 (upper left corner). Shown in gov't gray. |
Hams have nothing better to do than jam each other on
14313. But 20 meters has been closed the last few days, so these idiots are on here teasing and trolling. Don't fall for their crap. Everyone knows it is an established fact that all the FCC monitoring stations were closed and the land sold over seven years ago. The FCC has long been out of the monitoring & enforcement business, especially now that they have nothing to monitor with. Tomorrow 20 meters will open back up and all these idiots will be back on 14313 jamming each other. Too bad these trolls can't get a life. Please drive to Farm House Lane in Howard County, MD and key up a couple of K's. I'd love to read the resulting story in the paper. |
Try these links from Google that came up when I searched that number:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/csle.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/rfse.html You must have misdialed. Those links don't work. They work here. Your PC is f*cked and so is your phone. You have just been vitually PLONKed, troll. .:\:/:. +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS! | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | f*ck you, | ( (_) ) | rec.radio.* NG | /`-vvv-'\ ---Herb +-------------------+ / TROLL \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | (______Y______) jgs /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ |
Why do so many of you folks get so excited about denying that
the FCC has a rather sophisticated national spectrum monitoring system? When you're a netjammerqrm on 14313, you tend to get a little worried about the vans in white. |
(Cross-posting link to alt.radio.pirate dropped)
On 05 Aug 2003 19:24:17 -0800, Floyd Davidson wrote: 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. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/1995-arlb096.html Actually the three field offices were moved from "downtown" locations (Anchorage, Honolulu, and San Juan, PR) to the monitoring stations several years before, but why quibble ?? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Cross-posting to alt.radio.pirate broken.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:56:22 -0400, Radio Truth wrote: Read my reply to the other stupid ass that has difficulty comprehending standard English. There are NO MORE MONITORING STATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The land was sold off by GAO to developers. What you are confused about are the satellite systems run by other agencies. It is explained very clearly on the FCC web page. And when are you going to FINALLY upgrade from that no code tech license you have? Dwight -- why do we waste time on these ignoramuses? For the record - yesterday I had a good conversation with a former colleague of mine who is one of the folks at Columbia/Laurel. The remote-controlled HF monitoring system is up and running and used on a daily basis for investigation of complaints, controlled from there or from Washington as need be. As has been the case for many decades, the vast majority of those are non-amateur service related. Some of the property around each site (mostly the old rhombic fields) has been sold for uses that will not interfere with the accuracy of the newer log-periodic DF systems, but enough of each site is left to do the job properly. There is no need for the old buildings, many of which date to the WW-II era, and they have been dismantled. Enough of this crap. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
(Cross-posting link to alt.radio.pirate dropped) On 05 Aug 2003 19:24:17 -0800, Floyd Davidson wrote: 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. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/1995-arlb096.html Actually the three field offices were moved from "downtown" locations (Anchorage, Honolulu, and San Juan, PR) to the monitoring stations several years before, but why quibble ?? As you mentioned once before, the *wording* being used here is what seems to allow the confusion that a number of people are hanging on to. When they remoted a monitoring station and say it was "closed" but mean "unmanned", it leaves those who can't read well with a quote: "The station was closed." They just ignore or don't see the next sentence that says the functionality was transfered to a remotely controlled facility. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
Dwight -- why do we waste time on these ignoramuses? (snip) It's very hard to tell the difference in a single message or two between the person who just doesn't have all the facts and the person who just doesn't want to hear the facts. I guess I should have known when I saw the cross-posted newsgroup. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
(snip) The remote-controlled HF monitoring system is up and running and used on a daily basis for investigation of complaints, controlled from there or from Washington as need be. As has been the case for many decades, the vast majority of those are non-amateur service related. Hey, Phil. Do they (the FCC) ever let anyone visit their monitoring facilities? I realize they probably don't want the extent of their capabilities to become public knowledge, and they certainly don't want to turn their facilities into a tourist attraction, but I would love an opportunity to see one of those places? If it is ever done, whom would I write to check into it? An email response is okay (remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:00:38 GMT, Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote: (snip) The remote-controlled HF monitoring system is up and running and used on a daily basis for investigation of complaints, controlled from there or from Washington as need be. As has been the case for many decades, the vast majority of those are non-amateur service related. Hey, Phil. Do they (the FCC) ever let anyone visit their monitoring facilities? I realize they probably don't want the extent of their capabilities to become public knowledge, and they certainly don't want to turn their facilities into a tourist attraction, but I would love an opportunity to see one of those places? If it is ever done, whom would I write to check into it? An email response is okay (remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address). An open reply is fine. Even in the days when the stations were manned, a lot of what they did was classified stuff for "others" and public visits were very rare, usually limited to small groups who were somehow connected to the technology or operations. Now, they are unmanned - all you will see is an antenna and a box. Additionally, the monitoring/df network is now under the Homeland Security Division, so access is that much more limited. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Scott Unit 69 wrote in message ...
Try these links from Google that came up when I searched that number: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/csle.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/rfse.html You must have misdialed. Those links don't work. They work here. Your PC is f*cked and so is your phone. You have just been vitually PLONKed, troll. .:\:/:. +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS! | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | f*ck you, | ( (_) ) | rec.radio.* NG | /`-vvv-'\ ---Herb +-------------------+ / TROLL \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | (______Y______) jgs /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ He isn't even a respectable troll . . Just a jerk. Typical pirate nerd. w3rv |
Herb wrote:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/csle.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/rfse.html You must have misdialed. Those links don't work. Herb Both links worked fine. -- BIAS COMMS Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning! |
Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Herb" wrote: FAA is NOT FCC, now you get it? Herb Herbie, I understood right to begin with that you've gotten off your meds again. Why do so many of you folks get so excited about denying that the FCC has a rather sophisticated national spectrum monitoring system? Actually when you think about it the FCC is only one player in the monitoring loop Floyd. NSA, the DoD and the CIA have and have had monitoring capabilities which make the FCC's look quite lame in comparison. They have massive spook sites globally plus who knows how many satellites snooping everywhere. Lookit how they've even tuned in terrorist cell phones recently. Whizzy scary! These guys historically could have cared less about digging up the bull****-level SW & FM pirates, they have bigger fish to fry. But then along comes this Homeland Security drill. One of if not the primary thrust of the Homeland Security Dept. is to stitch together assets which have not been working with each other in the past. Including the various monitoring assets of course. And the networking technology is in place. It's obvious that if they gave a rat's patooie about pirates the FCC can probably tap into the spook monitoring assets at will in addition to using their own. Thus it is that the monitoring threat to pirates has ratcheted up enormously vs. the bull**** posted around here about the FCC going out of the monitoring biz. w3rv |
I once went to the 1.2 GHz Ham band -- operated simplex reduced power --
across town to a buddy in a "Private QSO" Yep you guessed it -- another ham called me on the phone and read me the riot act about something I had sed. No place to (hide) transmit! "Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... (Brian Kelly) wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote in message ... Why do so many of you folks get so excited about denying that the FCC has a rather sophisticated national spectrum monitoring system? Actually when you think about it the FCC is only one player in the monitoring loop Floyd. NSA, the DoD and the CIA have and have had monitoring capabilities which make the FCC's look quite lame in Very few people seem to realize the extent of that, or even begin to consider how it relates to specifically to themselves on a very personal basis. I am retired from the telecommunication industry. I've been trying for literally decades to convince people that they should *never* say anything on a telephone if they can't live with seeing it published the next day on the front page of the local newspaper. That applies to *anything* communicated via a radio transmission. If someone thinks they and the person they are talking to are the only ones listening, they are *wrong*. comparison. They have massive spook sites globally plus who knows how many satellites snooping everywhere. Lookit how they've even tuned in terrorist cell phones recently. Whizzy scary! These guys historically could have cared less about digging up the bull****-level SW & FM pirates, they have bigger fish to fry. But then along comes this Homeland Security drill. One of if not the primary thrust of the Homeland Security Dept. is to stitch together assets which have not been working with each other in the past. Including the various monitoring assets of course. And the networking technology is in place. It's obvious that if they gave a rat's patooie about pirates the FCC can probably tap into the spook monitoring assets at will in addition to using their own. Thus it is that the monitoring threat to pirates has ratcheted up enormously vs. the bull**** posted around here about the FCC going out of the monitoring biz. Exactly! The FCC is out of the monitoring business about as far as politicians are out of the lying business. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
That applies to *anything* communicated via a radio
transmission. If someone thinks they and the person they are talking to are the only ones listening, they are *wrong*. That's something I've been telling others for years. |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
Even in the days when the stations were manned, a lot of what they did was classified stuff for "others" and public visits were very rare, usually limited to small groups who were somehow connected to the technology or operations. I suspected it was nearly impossible. But, who knows, there might have been some little known visitor program or something. One never knows for sure until one asks, right? Now, they are unmanned - all you will see is an antenna and a box. Of course, I was interested in the main facility in Maryland, not the unmanned facilities. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Scott Unit 69" wrote in message ... That applies to *anything* communicated via a radio transmission. If someone thinks they and the person they are talking to are the only ones listening, they are *wrong*. That's something I've been telling others for years. You are a regular brain surgeon Snottie. |
Scott Unit 69 wrote:
That applies to *anything* communicated via a radio transmission. If someone thinks they and the person they are talking to are the only ones listening, they are *wrong*. That's something I've been telling others for years. Consider that it means cell phones and just your plain old telephone in the kitchen too. I know of one instance where a fellow admitted to having committed a murder while talking on a cell phone. The local newspaper had a scanner tuned to it, with a tape recorder running. It did in fact get printed on the front page, in a word for word transcript, and he is now in jail. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Robert Casey wrote in message ...
Herb wrote: Your confusing that with a FAA project. Check your "sources" more closely. And how can you build anything on land that the FCC no longer has? The FAA has constructed remote air control facilities on some of the old FCC monitoring station sites, and this is how you are getting so confused. FAA is NOT FCC, now you get it? If true, it doesn't mean that the FAA doesn't let the FCC borrow their equipment from time to time. It's been explained elsewhere in detail. The FCC usta need serious real estate for their old monster rhombic antenna farms. They also needed office & lab spaces for the operators and administrative staffs at their monitoring stations. Technology has marched on. The rhombics have been replaced by much newer and far more compact types of high-performance antennas which has in turn has freed up most of the former FCC real estate for other gummint users like the FAA. The current realities are (1) There are no more FCC monitoring station onsite staffs and labs in most cases, those have been replaced by high-speed digital gummint networks. (2)It appears that, based on highly knowledgeable other's inputs on the topic, that the FCC monitoring equipment space requirements have been boiled down to something akin to a rack of radios and computers in a gummint spec Sears back yard tool shed and maybe a tower or two. How many acres does THAT take?? The fact that the FAA now shares some chunks of real estate with the FAA means squat, has nothing to do with nothing. What the hell, for all we actually know the Social Security Administration has moved one of their field offices into the former FCC monitoring station buildings and the EPA has planted an unmanned networked air sampling monitoring station on the roofs. That would be typical of the way the feds have managed their real estate holdings going back to post-colonial days. w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com