Sonwatcher said:
FCC cannot arbitrarily say, "OK, we will just expand 20 channels up and 20 channels down.
CW,
If that is the case why was there talk originally when expanding CB to 40 of possibly going higher at the time ?
1st Jan 1977
More CB channels added - there was talk of having 99 channels up to 27.995 but it was decided not to allow a span of more than 440kHz - to prevent intermod breakthrough to any 455kHz receiver Intermediate Frequency stages. The business band lost 27.23 - 27.41, to new CB channels 24 to 40. Channels 24 and 25 filled in the reclaimed gap between 22 and 23 (which is why the order is strange), and channels 26 to 40 continued from 27.265 to 27.405 - by coincidence the first two decimal places match the channel number. The five newer model freqs are now part of an allocation from 26.96 to 27.28 . In the USA, channel 23 is still the "Blue" model channel.
Don't know. But I know for a FACT that there ARE military allocations up there (DEFINITELY below channel 1), so that in itself would have put a stop to it. Perhaps, NTIA had a hand in that as well. The public doesn't hear much about NTIA-which is why everybody thinks FCC is the ONLY communications regulator. Truth is, we will never know if that is the reason or if it was quashed internally. After all, the intermod argument, while valid, could been a cover for the real reason. Which reason would be more palatable to the public--a tecnical reason or "you can't have them channels because the government 'needs' 'em?
If anyone is good at "spin", it is the good old US gov't! :shock:
There was also talk of putting CB on 220 MHZ, which of course, caused the hams to howl. Nevermind that 220 wasn't all *that* popular. This was during the wild expansion of CB in the 70's. Looking back, I wish they HAD put it on 220 (in some ways). After all, we lost some of it anyway.
The demand for spectrum is always there. Riley H himself made a comment that is probably true if not "official". He said that 27 MHZ CB is probably best left alone because it is easier to contain it there. What if, for example, you had CBers up on VHF with huge amps, putting in "extra" channels indescriminately, and erecting huge antenna arrays? You could have taxis not able to taxi, airplanes not able to "plane", police not able to police, and so on. He (and any knowledgeable radio person) would cringe at the thought of THOUSANDS of untrained, undisciplined "reddio" operators just plopping down on "th' channel" with no idea, or care, of what the blazes they were doing. The good (and tempting) part of it would be none of that skip that is so dear to CBer's hearts--or very little of it.
There would be no need for mileage limits as the technical aspects of VHF would take care of that. More people could be on the air at the same time without bothering others. VHF also has a capture effect that causes signals to either override the other, or to cancel BOTH signals out. Good thing? Or would it cause the "I gotta be bigger" syndrome and make for bigger and bigger amps (dangerous because of the effects of RF at higher frequencies). Already there are people on other forums discussing how to install external antennas to FRS sets, and how to increase power.
Perhaps, as tempting as it would be to us that would LIKE to see CB kinda die away in favor of better options, it is better to just leave it be technically and politically. That box is already ripped wide open, but one thing is pretty certain: it AIN'T gettin' nuttin else.
...........At least, on 27 MHZ.
73
CWM
