Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MURS / FRS / GMRS' started by AudioShockwav, Jun 16, 2010.
Yep...Yet one more DUMB proposal.
"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.
cb radio should have never been close to 27mhz, the gov't f'd up on that one
should have been in the VHF or UHF time zones...none of this would matter and it would have done what it was set out to do
From what I see they need to work on south of the border!
I hear them all over 10 meters outlaw 10 meter rigs. Yes
we have them state side too but most of the problem is
South of the border! The other day I saw 3 guys on
28.495mhz. Most state side cbers don't do this.
Make all the CB'ers go ham. Do they give out 'Handle's' to people to use on 10 meters? op:
10 meters?? try 75....... listen to 3980 during the daytime,.... you hear "CACTUS", "WATERMETER", ect, all day long:blink:
Actually I'd prefer a longer wavelength than 11 meters or I could get my ham ticket.
That thread is more than three years old. I do not think that they would be able to enforce it even if they did pass it.
Once the cat is out of the bag you never get it back in.
Maybe you should stop getting upset over the FCC rules and either follow them or upgrade to Ham radio where you can legally do most all of the things you want to do on CB, only it will work far better and you will find far more things that you can do on Ham radio.
On second thought, I think you should stay on CB, you do have to follow rules on Ham.
Rules are why there are different services. If you want to do more, you have to take some responsibility and go to a radio service that legally allows you to do most of the things that you want to do.
CB was never intended to be anything more than short distance communication. If you get skip, ignore it. Yes, 27 Mhz was not the best place to put CB, but that's where it is and rules are made for a reason.
My car will do 140 MPH, but just because it will does not mean that I should drive that fast.
Don't like the rules, get out of the water, they are there for a reason.
73's John KF7VXA
I do have a ham license.
I do not like a few of their rules, as some are without real practical sense. A few rules can and should be opposed and changed.
I do also use a CB radio.
I do not use an amp; never needed or wanted it.
I do get more skip on CB/SSB than 10m/SSB - even though 10m is open as often as 11m is. Now we know that is because it is the 11m range that allows for skip to open as it does for 12m or 10m. So, do they want to make us criminals for placing it there on 11m and entrap? Now, if they wanted to keep CBers from talking skip, then they should have not made it 11m. Whose fault was that? Since it was the FCC fault and they made that decision, is it really such a stretch to see that other mistakes may have been made?
methinks dksac2 might be a very new ham or a very old ham. LOL
either way dk, you might want to check the dates of posts before you respond to them.
to respond to something someone said three years ago does not make you seem like a very intelligent individual.
note that i said "seem", i do not know you, and you may be a NASA engineer, but your post makes it "seem" like you dont know where you are, have a stick up your butt about CB radio, and dont really understand how this whole "internet" thing works.
you did give me a laugh though!
And that was out the window 40 years ago.
It is no longer a 'short distance communication" radio service, it has become a hobby radio service and the rules need to be tossed out the window and start over.
The FCC simply needs to open there eyes and get with the program.
Yes I also have my ticket, and yes I still use both bands at times as the needed.
Anyone that still thinks that CB is a short distance communication radio service has had their head stuck in the sand for the last 40 years.
During that 40 years, many laws have changed to reflect our changing world, FCC needs to do the same with the rules concerning CB.
Oh, wait, maybe we should just let them keep spending taxpayer money on rules that are so poorly written they are confusing to the people that have to enforce them.
A great example is the US taxpayers having to foot court costs to Ranger for a totally screwed up action against them.
Another thing is that the "people" have become complacent about government actions that they will not even make an effort to change the rules.
I started this thread back in 2010 in an effort to get people that use these radio services,to write the FCC and tell them what they think during the open comment window.