• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:

ARTCC Freqs Here, Which Current??

Not open for further replies.


Jul 4, 2003
The database here at RR has very complete ARTCC lists, but there seem to be two lists for each center.

Which one is the more up to date? The "top" one or the bottom one for each center?



Wiki Admin Emeritus
Jul 22, 2002
Bowie, Md.
I refer you to the ATA100 data discussion in the military forum, as well as earlier editions of the MT milcom blog. To summarize, the top data comes from the FAA and is not necessarily the most accurate of data dumps; however, they do list several discrete and 'do not publish' freqs not found elsewhere.

Your best bet is probably to merge the 2; take the discrete and do not publish freqs (don't expect to hear a lot of traffic on them...) and use the bottom lists as your main source of information.

As mentioned in the discussion, there seems to be a number of shifts going on at the moment - partly because of the 380 Mhz TRS situation, other reasons are unknown right now. The ZDC and ZNY regions have had 5 or 6 new freqs, and more are expected; and it can be reasonably expected other regions will also be shifting. The only way to know exactly which new freq is being used by what sector is 2 words careful listening

73s Mike
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.