FCC search by entity, where are the mobile freqs?

[georgew0819]

Deleted

[seligman]

Originally Posted by mtindor

The easiest way to identify a repeater is the FB2 status if you are pulling FCC data. It's actually fairly difficult to identify repeaters via just mobile data. In fact, in the FCC records it's often fairly difficult to determine _which_ mobile frequency is the correct mobile side of a repeater pair when there is more than one repeater pair - depending on how it was submitted to the FCC to begin with.

I know about this...my point is that you can't begin to look for repeaters because the location and/or the frequency of the *mobile* units is often missing.

Originally Posted by mtindor

There are many ways to get the data you want... you just so happen to want that data in one particular way not currently supported in full and so it's an omission? Worse case scenario I may call it an "oversight."

Besides the FCC website, what other ways are you talking about?

And yes, when frequencies (or their locations) are left out, I do consider that an omission. I've said previously that I understand it's a complex problem to fix. I have a lot of respect for the people who run this website. If I didn't care about helping them out, I wouldn't bother saying anything.

Back to the original topic, I discovered another (possibly related?) problem with the mobile frequencies, this time using FCC Search by Frequency.

Check this out: RadioReference 161.535 search in California

Note that license WXP305 shows 161.535 at Crestline, Ludlow, and Barstow (all locations in California). Click on the license in RR and then the FCC license...161.535 is used at "Location 9" which is a 40 km radius from a point in New Mexico about 700 miles from those California sites. I don't know how or why, but the RR database (at least the FCC Search by Frequency db) is making up erroneus locations...

[georgew0819]

Originally Posted by seligman

I know about this...my point is that you can't begin to look for repeaters because the location and/or the frequency of the *mobile* units is often missing.



Besides the FCC website, what other ways are you talking about?

And yes, when frequencies (or their locations) are left out, I do consider that an omission. I've said previously that I understand it's a complex problem to fix. I have a lot of respect for the people who run this website. If I didn't care about helping them out, I wouldn't bother saying anything.

Back to the original topic, I discovered another (possibly related?) problem with the mobile frequencies, this time using FCC Search by Frequency.

Check this out: RadioReference 161.535 search in California

Note that license WXP305 shows 161.535 at Crestline, Ludlow, and Barstow (all locations in California). Click on the license in RR and then the FCC license...161.535 is used at "Location 9" which is a 40 km radius from a point in New Mexico about 700 miles from those California sites. I don't know how or why, but the RR database (at least the FCC Search by Frequency db) is making up erroneus locations...

I'm not sure this error is related to the RR Database. See FCC ULS page ULS License - Industrial/Business Pool, Conventional License - WXP305 - BNSF Railway Co - Locations Summary and it lists locations in NM and KS for that license. These problems may rest with the way the FCC manages the information and not necessarily in the way RR pulls the FCC data. I'm sure this doesn't help, although it may explain why things are occuring this way.

[seligman]

Originally Posted by loumaag

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of how the RR Database works. The Lat/Lon information will eventually get into the RR DB, as it is entered by the DB Admins; but that information will be based on service area and be based on either user submission or DB Admin experience.

No offense, but I'm more confused than ever. <g>

Unless I said otherwise in this thread, the database I've been referring to is the FCC license database, not the identified frequencies database. I'm not sure why the DB admin experience, service area, or user submissions, would be needed for the FCC database.

Originally Posted by loumaag

The entity FCC search you are using has absolutely nothing to do with the RR Database. The FCC database that you are searching on is the same database available at fcc.gov.

Perhaps I'm reading into this too literally, but if true, why are the results different? I was under the impression that RR downloads the FCC files every so often and assembles their own database. So even though the source files are theoretically the same, the database might not be. Yes / no?

Originally Posted by loumaag

While I agree that mobile data on licenses that can be identified by location should be included on the return from that search, most mobile information does not have a location at all and hence will probably never appear as a return.

I don't follow you where you said, "most mobile information does not have a location at all." Do you mean a location written out in words (i.e. CHICAGO RADIO TOWER in CHICAGO, IL)? Nearly every mobile frequency I've seen has a location within a specified radius of a fixed site, or a set of fixed coordinates.

Thanks for answering my questions.

[mtindor]

Originally Posted by seligman

I don't know how or why, but the RR database (at least the FCC Search by Frequency db) is making up erroneus locations...

Erroneous location?

1. Those FCC searches are just that - searches of the FCC database, not the RRDB. Do not mistake the two, and understand that what is in the FCC database is under the FCC's control and not RR's control. So, take your finger and point it squarely at the FCC.

2. I don't see a problem. The FCC license indicates that 161.535 is a mobile frequency used in a radius around San Mateo Mexico (location 6).

So, 161.535 mobile frequency (location 9) is paired up with the FB2 frequencies listed on location 6 (160.245 to be exact).

The FCC records are the ones indicating that there is a repeater output (160.245) in San Mateo NM with a mobile input frequency of 151.535.

Mike

[seligman]

Originally Posted by mtindor

Erroneous location?
1. Those FCC searches are just that - searches of the FCC database, not the RRDB. Do not mistake the two, and understand that what is in the FCC database is under the FCC's control and not RR's control. So, take your finger and point it squarely at the FCC.

I'm afraid you're not listening to what I'm saying.

The RR site, specifically the box labelled "Search FCC Licenses By State" is supplying erroneous locations that don't appear on the FCC license, whether viewed on the FCC website or the RR website.

I don't understand why you think it's the FCC's fault. The bottom line is that RR is contradicting itself. Mistakes happen, that's why I'm here trying to help you guys...

[mtindor]

Originally Posted by seligman

I'm afraid you're not listening to what I'm saying.

The RR site, specifically the box labelled "Search FCC Licenses By State" is supplying erroneous locations that don't appear on the FCC license, whether viewed on the FCC website or the RR website.

Ok, so in the case of the 161.535 CA search, what _you_ would _expect_ to see is no results provided for licenses such as KMA356, since the only reference to 161.535 on that that particular license is a reference to a 40 km radius around San Mateo - not in Barstow or any other location in CA within 40 km of San Mateo NM.

I get what you're saying now. I have appended some more information onto the ticket that is open.

Mike

[loumaag]

Originally Posted by seligman

...my point is that you can't begin to look for repeaters because the location and/or the frequency of the *mobile* units is often missing.

Please. The location of the repeater is set in the FCC license. The mobile frequency used as the input for a repeater is often not known and is of secondary importance to the purpose of the actual RR DB on this site. You certainly don't need to know the repeater input frequency to find a repeater.

Originally Posted by seligman

And yes, when frequencies (or their locations) are left out, I do consider that an omission. I've said previously that I understand it's a complex problem to fix. I have a lot of respect for the people who run this website. If I didn't care about helping them out, I wouldn't bother saying anything.

And we appreciate your efforts to help us get our database updated with correct information.

Originally Posted by seligman

Back to the original topic, I discovered another (possibly related?) problem with the mobile frequencies, this time using FCC Search by Frequency.

Check this out: RadioReference 161.535 search in California

Note that license WXP305 shows 161.535 at Crestline, Ludlow, and Barstow (all locations in California). Click on the license in RR and then the FCC license...161.535 is used at "Location 9" which is a 40 km radius from a point in New Mexico about 700 miles from those California sites. I don't know how or why, but the RR database (at least the FCC Search by Frequency db) is making up erroneus locations...

The problem is related but in a different way. I will explain that and then you might understand. When searching for a frequency and a state you are actually searching for licenses in a state that have that frequency on them. That is the extent of the search. When an entity applies for a license they may (and many do) include several locations for that license. Note that I said the search is fairly simple, it looks for licenses in a state that have the frequency on them. In the case of a mobile frequency, there seems to be an inconsistency, that is in this example on the initial return from the RR Frequency search 161.535 only appears once for license KMA356 but 3 times for WXP305 even though the actual FCC license has exactly the opposite data. Hopefully this will get fixed when Lindsay looks into it; however, please note that location data for mobiles is still not going to be included since I don't think the convoluted "area around a fixed point" data is imported by Lindsay.

Originally Posted by seligman

No offense, but I'm more confused than ever. <g>

Unless I said otherwise in this thread, the database I've been referring to is the FCC license database, not the identified frequencies database. I'm not sure why the DB admin experience, service area, or user submissions, would be needed for the FCC database.

Perhaps I'm reading into this too literally, but if true, why are the results different? I was under the impression that RR downloads the FCC files every so often and assembles their own database. So even though the source files are theoretically the same, the database might not be. Yes / no?

I don't follow you where you said, "most mobile information does not have a location at all." Do you mean a location written out in words (i.e. CHICAGO RADIO TOWER in CHICAGO, IL)? Nearly every mobile frequency I've seen has a location within a specified radius of a fixed site, or a set of fixed coordinates.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Yes, periodically portions of the FCC DB is imported for various reasons into the RR servers so that license information is available to the RR DB faster than linking to the FCC DB. It also allows mapping and the searches that are the subject of this thread. The location data that is imported (to the best of my knowledge) is the fixed point data that is included if you look at a license using the license link (e.g. KMA356); note on that example, locations 4, 6, 7, & 8 have no location data.

Originally Posted by seligman

I'm afraid you're not listening to what I'm saying.

The RR site, specifically the box labelled "Search FCC Licenses By State" is supplying erroneous locations that don't appear on the FCC license, whether viewed on the FCC website or the RR website.

I don't understand why you think it's the FCC's fault. The bottom line is that RR is contradicting itself. Mistakes happen, that's why I'm here trying to help you guys...

It is a mistake, but as explained above it is either you get the return because the license has the frequency on it, or you get no return on mobile frequencies at all since they have no locations associated with them. I don't think that Lindsay is going to expend the man hours to duplicate the geographical search engine that is already available on the FCC site so that the simple look-ups available now are altered to accommodate the exact return you seem to be searching for.

[seligman]

Originally Posted by loumaag

Please. The location of the repeater is set in the FCC license. The mobile frequency used as the input for a repeater is often not known and is of secondary importance to the purpose of the actual RR DB on this site. You certainly don't need to know the repeater input frequency to find a repeater.

Can I give you a real life example where this comes up? I think we're looking at this from opposite angles, so I'd like to illustrate it.

I came across radio traffic that could pass as a repeater input frequency or perhaps just simplex. All I knew for sure is that I heard only half the conversation. The signal strength came and went, suggesting the person was mobile. I tried (and failed) to locate a possible repeater output in the field.

Later, at home, I entered that frequency into this site's FCC search box. Many licenses were returned for my state. Because the location (radius area) for mobile units is usually not listed, nor is the relationship to any fixed location, I had no idea which frequencies with FB2 class might possibly be the repeater output. All licenses put together, there were probably 25 possible FB2 frequencies.

I realize that some licensees put their MO and FB2 frequencies on separate licenses, in which case, the same difficulty exists with both RR and the FCC sites. Nothing can be done about this.

Like you, I wouldn't expect Lindsay to create a full geographic search like the FCC offers. I have an idea that might (or might not?) be easy for you guys to implement. Here it goes.

On licenses with both fixed and mobile stations - where the mobile location is in relation to a fixed site - use the fixed site's location for the mobile location.

Then add two columns to the license pages. The first column could be called "Related Site Number". If, say, location 7 for mobile stations is a 40 km radius around location 1, show location 1 in this field for the location 7 frequencies. The second column "Mobile Radius" would show the radius. In this example, 40 km (or the equivalent distance in miles) would be displayed. For fixed sites, leave these fields blank, because they wouldn't apply.

It's just something to be considered. No hard feelings if it can't be done.

[loumaag]

An interesting suggestion and the "trouble" ticket that Mike submitted references this thread so Lindsay probably will see it.

My curiosity got the best of me and I did some wild guessing. Based on your story and the fact that you were concentrating on 161.535 earlier I went to to the FCC Advanced Search page and then ran a geographic search for the entire state of CA and was surprised by the result. The FCC geographic search returned only one license, WNXJ220, which, interestingly enough, happens to use that frequency in a FB situation. It apparently ignored all the mobile license use for the frequency in the state. Thinking that this was because I asked for the entire state, I re-ran the search and narrowed it down to Contra Costa Co. (where the WNXJ220 was located) and got the same single result even though at least one more license (KNBL452) is located in the county, indeed in the same town, with a mobile use of the frequency.

For those of you reading this and unfamiliar with the FCC Geographic Search, I used it because all of the BNSF license (AFAIK) are licensed out of Kansas, so searching for licenses from California (on the main search page) would return nothing.

[blantonl]

I've received the trouble ticket and I am looking into the issue.

Thanks,

[blantonl]

Folks, I'm pleased to report that this issue has been resolved. Turns out we had a small bug in the query... this same bug affected the printable FCC reports that was previously fixed.

I also tweaked some things as well with the query which should increase performance for these queries as well.

Enjoy!! And thanks for bringing this to my attention!