Proposed part 95 rule changes

[dudmuck]

This weekend Docket 10-119 was released.
It discusses proposed rule changes to part 95, which includes GMRS, FRS and CB.

For FRS, they discuss banning radios with FRS with capability for other services.
For GRMS, they consider going unlicensed. GPS data, and text allowed on GMRS.
For CB, they discuss 5 minute limit rule, 250km limit rule.

"Amplifiers for CB stations are already illegal, but should we consider prohibiting directional antennas for CB operations in order to facilitate its intended use for short range communications? Should we consider power reductions for the CB Service? Is there harm in allowing CB operators to communicate in sky wave mode, or would such an allowance tempt the use of illegal amplifiers which cause interference? We seek comment on how best to deal with section 95.413(a)(9) and other challenges in permitting a “commons” band regulatory structure in the HF band."

Its a long read:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-106A1.doc

 

[mackmobile43]

lol I won't bother to read that.

 

[AudioShockwav]

Anyone that uses FRS, GMRS and CB should read it.
This will effect you.
Some of it is good stuff, some of it is not.
They are asking the public (you) to comment on proposed rule changes that will effect you.
If you enjoy CB you should read the proposed rule making.
Should they prohibit directional antennas?
Should they allow Sky-wave use?
If you ever wanted to have a voice about something the FCC is doing, here is your chance.
How many guys want to pull down there Shooting star beam?
Or your 3 Element flat side?
The words
"Therefore, we seek comment"
You can bet the guys that would Love to see Cb go away, or get even more restricted will be commenting.
Don`t miss your chance, find a reason, and tell them why it would serve the public's interest to continue to allow directional antennas or Sky-wave, or why the should NOT reduce the power output of Cb radios, point out how TV has changed and is Less prone to interference, or that most users have gone to cable, instead of reducing power, make a rule change to use a low pass filter instead of banning directional antennas ....
Think and voice your opinion, or things will change with out you being heard.

73
Jeff

 

[AudioShockwav]

Just a few clips from the text:

Nevertheless, this ability to communicate over long distances has tempted some to use illegal linear amplifiers and directional antennas to see how far they can communicate. Such operations can result in harmful interference to television operations, as well as other services in the HF band. Therefore, we seek comment on how best to deal with this natural phenomenon. Amplifiers for CB stations are already illegal, but should we consider prohibiting directional antennas for CB operations in order to facilitate its intended use for short range communications? Should we consider power reductions for the CB Service? Is there harm in allowing CB operators to communicate in sky wave mode, or would such an allowance tempt the use of illegal amplifiers which cause interference? We seek comment on how best to deal with section 95.413(a)(9) and other challenges in permitting a “commons” band regulatory structure in the HF band.

While CB radio was extensively used in prior decades, the widespread introduction of wireless telephony and other forms of communication in the 1990s have resulted in a sharp decline in the number of CB users. In view of this marked decline, we question whether the rules adopted to ensure a reasonable spectrum sharing environment in the CB Service are still timely and appropriate. Below we will review various rules for the CB Service and seek comment on whether the rules are needed, effective, enforceable, and make sense for this Personal Radio Service.

We seek comment on whether the current power limits for each Part 95 service continue to be appropriate, and if not, on how they should be changed. If commenting parties support higher powers for certain applications, they should explain the technical basis for the higher power and provide an analysis for the associated impact on interference potential.

In 2003, the Commission, at the request of Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin), a designer and manufacturer of electronic devices, amended Part 95 to permit the transmission of Global Positioning System (GPS) location information and user-generated text messages on certain FRS channels. On July 22, 2003, Garmin filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission amend Part 95 to permit such transmissions on the 462 MHz GMRS channels. Garmin requests that we amend sections 95.29(f)(1), 95.119(a)(1), 95.181, 95.183(a)(4), 95.631(a), (e), and (f), and 95.633(a) to authorize the transmission of GPS location information and text messaging using emission type F2D in a digital data burst of not more than one second. The digital transmissions (data or text) would have basically the same limitations as those applicable to the transmission of GPS data and text messaging in the FRS.

1. CB Hands-Free Microphones
On December 17, 2003, Omnitronics, L.L.C. (Omnitronics), a manufacturer of communications equipment, filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that we amend Part 95 to authorize the manufacture, sale, and use of wireless microphones to permit hands-free operation of CB transmitters. Specifically, Omnitronics proposes that we amend the rules “to (i) provide that authorized wireless microphones in the Citizens Band Radio Service (‘CB Hands-Free Microphones’) may be used with authorized CB transmitters, (ii) allow manufacturers to obtain stand-alone equipment authorizations for CB Hands-Free Microphones designed and marketed as after market add-ons, and (iii) set forth technical standards for CB Hands-Free Microphones.” Omnitronics also requests that we amend section 95.419 to provide that use of CB hands-free microphones does not constitute remote control.

 

[mackmobile43]

all they need to do is to get rid of AM and go strictly FM and 99% of these issues will heal themselves. Right Bob?

 

[Wire Weasel]

Rules shmules

They've had rules in place all along but with the past deregulation there's been no enforcement and there's no reason to believe they're going to get back into enforcement.

They mostly don't work enforcement on hams unless something outrageously egregious is going on. Look how long it took to do anything about k1man.

this is sheeple fluff

 

[Shioda]

What are these guys thinking? Reducing CB power will just drive more people to use Amateur equipment on CB. Raise the power for CB, less people will buy Amateur and less will be using it out of the CB band.

 

[TonyV225]

Like any new rules are going to change anything that people are already doing now. I dont even know where they come up with this stuff. As mentioned there have been rules for years and there not followed by half the CB operators anyways so righting new rediculous rules will also result in 0 changes in anything I wouldnt worry about it but it is an opporitunity to voice your oppinions on these matters so take advantage of your rights to do so.

 

[jazzsinger]

What are these guys thinking? Reducing CB power will just drive more people to use Amateur equipment on CB. Raise the power for CB, less people will buy Amateur and less will be using it out of the CB band.

Have to agree,also banning high gain directional antennas would just be compensated for by running more power into omnidirectional vertical antennas.

as for the 250km rule,thats the stupidist government ruling i ever saw in my life (although i don't doubt there will be even more stupid rules i ain't seen),why legalise cb on a band that was well known for skywave propagation,then tell people they are not allowed to use it,dearie f@cking me,even the uk government weren't that dumb,and they were some major dumbasses at the time cb was legalised here.

then they assume legalising skip talking will promote amplifier use,hmmmm,guess they don't realise most amplifiers in the USA are used to talk to the guy down the street,

fact of the matter is is ego that increases the need for power,not radio performance,and nothing you can do to legislate will ever change peoples egotistical desires.

As for mack's suggestion of changing to fm,dearie me thats one thing you don't want to be doing,fm is the noisiest crappiest mode of transmission ever invented,sure it might reduce tv interference,but equally so would banning shite quality imported tellies from far east sweat houses.


As for increasing power for use on cb bands,all i can say to that is they let complete morons loose on the adjacent ham 10 metre band with more power after sitting a test a chimpanzee could easily pass.which i find ironic as huge numbers of them wouldn't know how to cure rfi if a tvi filter came up and slapped them in the face.

before you hams start ranting about me being anti ham,thats just not the case,i'm anti the dumbing down of the technical requirements for amateur radio which was once a hobby full of technically proficient people (and should have also been a requirement for cb use too) but is now largely made up of nuggets with all the gear and no f@cking idea !!!! which i personally think is a sad state of affairs which has reduced ham radio to the shambles that cb is/was and will always be.

one trawl through any radio forum be it ham or cb will show what i've said to be sadly true,whether you like it or not the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

 

[Carl]

dont matter to me, make everyone use a verticle, thats fine. reduced power? who cares, they cant enforce the 4 watt rule now.

they should allow texy messaging on cb, i cant understand a single person on channel 6. way to much echo and yelling.

i do wish they would switch to fm, fm is sooooooo much clearer. your signal may degrade a little but you get quieter, you dont get quieter and fight air noise. they will never do it because fm would increase the usable range. 4 watts fm groundwave will talk a hell of a lot farther than am will.

 

[jazzsinger]

dont matter to me, make everyone use a verticle, thats fine. reduced power? who cares, they cant enforce the 4 watt rule now.

they should allow texy messaging on cb, i cant understand a single person on channel 6. way to much echo and yelling.

i do wish they would switch to fm, fm is sooooooo much clearer. your signal may degrade a little but you get quieter, you dont get quieter and fight air noise. they will never do it because fm would increase the usable range. 4 watts fm groundwave will talk a hell of a lot farther than am will.

fm may well be clearer when theres a signal being received,but should that signal disappear the noise from the radio is enough to awaken the dead,if you use the squelch to get rid of it then you have the catch 22 situation of losing your bottom end sensitivity.i ain't so sure FM will talk further than AM,not to an ear trained for picking out low level signals anyway.Bottom line is both are pretty shit when compared to ssb,especially for long distance.


As for text messaging,feck they can be harder to decipher than any echo,i have a 14 year old son who texts me and i can assure you the experts at bletchley park cracked the enigma code faster than i can read his texts.

 

[Wire Weasel]

Screw FM, the low quality of the FM circuits makes export rigs kind of poor performers.

Heard a story a few years ago regarding an FCC engineer at a seminar at a ham fest. He said that if they could do it all over again CB probably would have been 50 watts and Sideband only.

 

[hookedon6]

...This will effect you...most users have gone to cable,... make a rule change to use a low pass filter...

yep, thats somethin that will cause a major cb revolt!!

lp filters today, ........ hp filters tomorrow!:blink::blink:

 

[Shockwave]

In my opinion the new rules will change nothing. Does the FCC really think they even have the option of removing tens of thousands of CB directional antennas? They can't even begin to stop people from running more power then a commercial radio station on 27.025. I find it absolutely hilarious that they consider making more rules with no effort on enforcement. It's obvious they have no ability to use the existing rules on 11 meters so why not make more rules that no one will follow? At this rate they are already on the verge of complete loss of control over the ham bands. If they put ALL of their effort into this, they will do what they always do. Find a few people to nail and make an example of and hope everyone else will follow. It didn't work 25 years ago and it sure won't now with the weak staff they have.

 

[Shockwave]

Additionally, studies have been conducted that show today's consumer electronics devices can be adversely affected in an RF environment with power levels at the legal 4 watts. You can blame the FCC for dropping the ball on this one too. There was a time when the major problem with interference was all harmonically related and seemed to effect only TV channels 2 and 5.

Then the FCC began to allow manufacturers to make use of a loophole. Did anyone else notice that just about every piece of consumer electronics made in the last 20 years has an inconspicuous label attached that states " This device must accept interference including interference that causes undesired operation"?

Rather then require manufacturers to install pennies worth of RF bypassing caps in critical areas, they allowed them to place this label in such a way that no one would notice until it was too late. Did the FCC assume that no electronics devices would be used near any transmitters or were they painfully ineffective at serving the public yet again?

Over 90% of interference problems can not be corrected at the transmitter end. Over 90% of consumer electronics are deficient in design that allows RF energy to enter the circuit an become rectified at some point in the circuit. The only effective way to control interference is to require the manufacturers of electronic devices to spend the extra dollar on bypassing caps and eliminate the stupid label that caused the problems in the first place.