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