Yep...Yet one more DUMB proposal.
An excerpt:
"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."
First, their suggestion to do away with CB beam antennas is the height of stupidity. How can they distinguish a 10 meter beam from a 11 meter beam? What are they going to do - shinny up the tower and measure the elements and the spacing? HA - best of luck with that.
Next, they also assert that a CBer is more likely to use a linear amp with a beam. Not so. They are just as likely to use a linear with whatever that have. Who does the FCC think CBers are - Hams?
What; they want CBers to stop talking skip? Are they still that stupid?!? They really MUST be.
Hey FCC guys; these are the days of the internet, computers, and cellular phones - most CB operators know that skip works for Hams much as it does for the CBer. We can't stop it; and we sure cannot start skip propagation. Are they going to fine me after I have a QSO with someone in another state when they are hitting my station better than locals are? I talk all over this country, South America, and Australia with a vertical antenna and NO LINEAR. Maybe they should arrest the laws of physics or try to fine that. Get a grip.
So; what is their REAL motive here? Could it be that they are trying to pave the way for legislation to BAN CB use altogether? Could well be - as they can sell the bandwidth to some commercial application. DON'T put it past them to do just that; they are trying to make money where they think they can find it. They may well try to run over a few radio operators in the process in order for a few paltry commercial interests dollars. Maybe its because there aren't enough CBers to constitute a voter block to any possible legislation?
Notice that it is a proposal. They don't vote in these laws; they just suggest them. It is still up to the voters to pass or fail any said bill. Your state representative should be contacted and tell them that these laws need to be changed - but not anything close to what the FCC is proposing.
"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?
As mentioned above, eliminating beam antennas WILL NOT alleviate long range communications. Nor should they seek to continue this archaic and stupid rule nor continue to perpetuate such a stupid myth as this with another taxpayer dollar.
Should we consider power reductions for the CB Service?
Again; Hams are allowed to use as much power to make a communication - up to 1,500 watts. They MIGHT consider letting CBers using such power levels - so long as they do not interfere with anyone and the amp is type accepted. Nothing wrong with using a clean linear for either the Ham or CBer. Any radio less that 100 watts should be permitted so long as it has certification - such as a modified Ham rig. At least it would have clean specs, and won't interfere with Ham traffic.
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?
No harm done whatsoever, and it in no way implies that they AUTOMATICALLY use a linear amp. Utter poppycock.
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."
Thank You for asking Uncle Charlie. If you need more suggestions, just give me a jingle anytime and I would be glad to discuss any particular question that you obviously need answers for. I'm certainly not sayng that what I wrote is completely correct; but it surely isn't any worse than their proposal.
No problemmo...