Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Eastern Shore Microwave sites (more)

Expand Messages
  • David Lesher
    FINALLY {how DOES Albert find stuff in the FCC database so easily?} found FCC file #2052521 talking about WAD25, 26, and more... They are bing tranferred from
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      FINALLY {how DOES Albert find stuff in the FCC database so easily?}
      found FCC file #2052521 talking about WAD25, 26, and more...

      They are bing tranferred from AT&T Communications of Maryland
      to SBC...

      Huh?



      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
      & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
      Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
      is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
    • David Lesher
      OK, here s a rundown ARNOLD WAD25 39-02-08.3 N , 076-29-17.8 W to: Wye Mills FEDERALSBURG WAD27 38-44-24.4 N , 075-45-36.7 W to: Salisbury Wye Mills
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        OK, here's a rundown


        ARNOLD WAD25 39-02-08.3 N , 076-29-17.8 W
        to:
        Wye Mills


        FEDERALSBURG WAD27 38-44-24.4 N , 075-45-36.7 W
        to:
        Salisbury
        Wye Mills

        SALISBURY WAD28 38-22-47.4 N , 075-35-17.7 W
        to:
        Wye Mills


        WYE MILLS WAD26 38-57-22.4 N , 076-04-30.7 W
        to:
        Arnold
        Federalsburg


        Note there is no sign of the other site I saw.





        --
        A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
        & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
        Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
        is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
      • David Lesher
        These are the licenses shown as being transferred from ATT to SBC. WAD25 WAD26 WAD27 WAD28 WIV26 WIV27 WLA669 WLA670 WLA671 WLA672 WLA674 WLC729 Re: searching
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          These are the licenses shown as being transferred from ATT to SBC.


          WAD25
          WAD26
          WAD27
          WAD28
          WIV26
          WIV27
          WLA669
          WLA670
          WLA671
          WLA672
          WLA674
          WLC729


          Re: searching at the FCC..

          There must be some magic. My attempts to search by license name,
          including "AT&T" failed. I donno why...



          --
          A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
          & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
          Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
          is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
        • Paul Zawada
          ... This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling interest in an
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On 7/4/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
            > FINALLY {how DOES Albert find stuff in the FCC database so easily?}
            > found FCC file #2052521 talking about WAD25, 26, and more...
            >
            > They are bing tranferred from AT&T Communications of Maryland
            > to SBC...
            >
            > Huh?
            >

            This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
            by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
            interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
            apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
            license. If such an acquisition takes place before the FCC gives
            their nod, the licensee can find themselves in a lot of (expensive)
            trouble. A lot of utilities seem have been tripped up by this in the
            last few years. See:

            http://www.fcc.gov/eb/factsheets/sec310d.html
            http://www.fcc.gov/eb/unauthtctl/

            Incidentally, after the transaction takes place, these licenses will
            (at least for near-term) remain in their respective AT&T affiliate
            names. The licensee is not changing; such an action would require an
            application for an "Assignment of Authorization," not a "Transfer of
            Control" such as this.

            --zawada
          • David Lesher
            ... Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running... Learn something every day.
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:

              > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
              > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
              > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
              > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
              > license.

              Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
              buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...

              Learn something every day.




              --
              A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
              & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
              Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
              is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
            • James Browne
              But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities? ... -- Jim Browne
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities?

                On 7/5/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
                > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
                >
                > > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
                > > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
                > > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
                > > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
                > > license.
                >
                > Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
                > buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...
                >
                > Learn something every day.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > A host is a host from coast to
                > coast.................wb8foz@...
                > & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
                > Unless the host (that isn't
                > close).........................pob 1433
                > is busy, hung or
                > dead....................................20915-1433
                >
                >
                > SPONSORED LINKS
                > Cold war Military Politics
                > ________________________________
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                >
                > Visit your group "coldwarcomms" on the web.
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                > ________________________________
                >


                --
                Jim Browne
              • Paul Zawada
                The FCC doesn t want someone quitely buying companies to acquire licenses in an undetectable manner. They want to know who ultimately has control of a
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The FCC doesn't want someone quitely buying companies to acquire
                  licenses in an undetectable manner. They want to know who ultimately
                  has control of a license.

                  --zawada


                  On 7/5/05, James Browne <jamesm.browne@...> wrote:
                  > But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities?
                  >
                  > On 7/5/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
                  > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
                  > >
                  > > > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
                  > > > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
                  > > > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
                  > > > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
                  > > > license.
                  > >
                  > > Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
                  > > buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...
                  > >
                • James Browne
                  That would make sense. Comm facilities are of far more concern than a donut shop. ... -- Jim Browne
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That would make sense. Comm facilities are of far more concern than a
                    donut shop.

                    On 7/6/05, Paul Zawada <EngineerZ@...> wrote:
                    > The FCC doesn't want someone quitely buying companies to acquire
                    > licenses in an undetectable manner. They want to know who ultimately
                    > has control of a license.
                    >
                    > --zawada
                    >
                    >
                    > On 7/5/05, James Browne <jamesm.browne@...> wrote:
                    > > But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities?
                    > >
                    > > On 7/5/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
                    > > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
                    > > >
                    > > > > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
                    > > > > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
                    > > > > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
                    > > > > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
                    > > > > license.
                    > > >
                    > > > Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
                    > > > buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...
                    > > >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                    >
                    > Visit your group "coldwarcomms" on the web.
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    > ________________________________
                    >


                    --
                    Jim Browne
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.