Clinton County: CVTEC

[AM909]

On the page for Clinton County, under Businesses→Miscellaneous, there are:

151.99500			BM		CVTEC 1	CVTEC Security and Law Class Channel 1	FMN	Security
152.99500			BM		CVTEC 2	CVTEC Security and Law Class Channel 2	FMN	Security
153.99500			BM		CVTEC 911	CVTEC Security and Law to Clinton 911	FMN	Security
153.95000			BM		CVTEC NYS	CVTEC Security and Law to NYSP	FMN	Security

• 151.9950 is not a valid channel in the bandplan, licensed only three times in ULS, all of which are expired in 2002/2003, and likely were mistakes.
• 152.9950 is not a valid channel in the bandplan, and is not licensed at all in ULS.
• 153.9950 is a valid public safety pool channel, licensed to: KUG794 Lake Carmel FD, 200 miles away; KX9553 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (statewide mobile); and WNQK524 Alburg VFD, 200 miles away.

I doubt any of those are related to "Clinton 911".

153.9500 appears on many licenses in the state and as a fire base freq in RRDB.

There are no licenses found for CVTEC or any obvious respellings of the company, which appears to be a trade school. Note the appearance of the word "class" in the descriptions of the first two channels. Are these perhaps fictional and used for training on (simulated) radio use, and someone entered them in RRDB to demo downloading to a scanner?

 

[nozzlenut83]

CVTEC is a Clinton-Essex-Warren-Washington Counties BOCES program. Their licenses can be found under FRN #0003439023, although looking quickly I didn't see any VHF frequencies similar to the ones listed in your post. There may be other FRNs or licenses associated but I didn't dig deeper. There's a UHF frequency on the Clinton County main page under BOCES as well.

My guess is those frequencies were in use as part of the security and law enforcement training program and the only way to confirm if they are accurate or still being used is to somehow get hands on the radios or be in the area when they are being used in class or for any special details they may be part of.

 

[radionerd13669]

Would not be the first time a shop programmed radios that with freqs that are not licencensed and are not licensable. Just because they aren't valid doesn't mean they aren't in use. Pretty common in Northern NY

 

[AM909]

CVTEC is a Clinton-Essex-Warren-Washington Counties BOCES program. Their licenses can be found under FRN #0003439023, although looking quickly I didn't see any VHF frequencies similar to the ones listed in your post. There may be other FRNs or licenses associated but I didn't dig deeper. There's a UHF frequency on the Clinton County main page under BOCES as well.

Good info – nothing in the company contact web page led me there.

My guess is those frequencies were in use as part of the security and law enforcement training program and the only way to confirm if they are accurate or still being used is to somehow get hands on the radios or be in the area when they are being used in class or for any special details they may be part of.

Just what I was thinking, which is why I brought it here to the local board.

I don't dispute that radios get set up with unlicensed channels for various reasons, but an ongoing course in law enforcement by an apparently government-involved program seems like an unlikely candidate. Can a DBA comment on whether the origin of the entries yields any useful clues? My guess is that they came from course material and were meant to be example frequencies, and didn't come from actual OTA monitoring.

Is there a policy/procedure in place for challenging these types of entries in the database, like "accurate until proven inaccurate" (which is pretty hard to do)? I've got a few dozen of these as a result of spending a couple weeks trying to create a reasonably good picture of the highband channel plan, and have already submitted around 20 that are obvious typos that are getting fixed. The rest are more like these, where my (somewhat aged) gut says they are likely wrong, but are more complicated. Posting to the local forums doesn't always attract the type of attention needed, which is "ears on the ground". Is this the right approach?

 

[GTR8000]

It's a moot point, as I've removed the entries already.

As much as it would be nice to clean up some of the junk in the database, unless it's verified by someone local, there's no guarantee that what looks wrong actually is wrong. Plenty of agencies and businesses disregard licensing altogether, or disregard the licensing parameters, or simply program the wrong frequencies from time to time and continue to use them rather than reprogram.

Database submissions are supposed to be personally verified by over the air listening. That's a long standing policy. I believe I explained that in a note on one of your submissions.

 

[AM909]

Database submissions are supposed to be personally verified by over the air listening. That's a long standing policy. I believe I explained that in a note on one of your submissions.

I'm aware. So bringing suspicious ones to the local forums is the right approach?

 

[GTR8000]

By all rights, since you haven't personally monitored all of the instances for which you've already submitted, they should all be left up to locals to determine. The admins have granted you some leeway thus far as most of what you have submitted seems reasonable. From this point forward, I would reach out to locals if you feel that some listings don't seem right.