Part 95 Subpart D Outdated Technology

[kc8gpd]

The 27MHz CB service is outdated. Let's face it. It's 4 Watts. Uses Amplitude Modulation and Single sideband on a set of completely useless frequencies for just about any other use and is in need of a major overhaul.

But i don't believe it's a lost cause. Here are some ways to improve CB on 27 MHz.

1) Switch to some form of Narrow Band Digital Modulation. Maybe even a form of FHSS taylored to HF conditions.

2) Up the power of the service To at least 25 watts(when the narrowband digital modulation or FHSS is used).

3) Create Minimum Technical standards that force the manufactures to create quality equipment.

4) Get manufacurers to offer new features such as remote mount radios, SMS, Alpha Display, GPS enabled loaction transponder, Automatic Radio ID, I Can go on but i'll leave it to your imagination.

5) get someone knowledable to file a proposal with the FCC and get the Industry on board.

 

[Grog]

Option 5---you have waaay too much time on your hands, and must be smoking some good stuff :lol:

 

[zz0468]

The 27MHz CB service is outdated. Let's face it. It's 4 Watts. Uses Amplitude Modulation and Single sideband on a set of completely useless frequencies for just about any other use and is in need of a major overhaul.

It's outdated in terms of one of it's original purposes, which was for business use. But there are so many better alternatives for that. But other than that, I feel that if it's a completely useless piece of spectrum, leave it be for the completely useless service that occupies it. Having said that, I have some alternative suggestions below...

1) Switch to some form of Narrow Band Digital Modulation. Maybe even a form of FHSS taylored to HF conditions.

No. Use narrow band fm. The radio equipment will be cheaper. In fact, some of the manufacturers selling all mode 10 meter "ham" radios would scarecly have to modify anything at all. The communications quality would go up tremendously over am, and people could still afford the radios.

2) Up the power of the service To at least 25 watts(when the narrowband digital modulation or FHSS is used).

Too high for an unlicensed service. 10 watts. Just think, 10 watts fm on low band... that's plenty. Come to think of it, it's still an unlicensed service. 10 watts is too much. Let's make it an even 5 watts output.

3) Create Minimum Technical standards that force the manufactures to create quality equipment.

They already exist. We don't care if it's a piece of crap, so long as it meets part 15 and part 95 emissions standards. If you want better radios, show the manufacturing community that there is a demand for it, and that people would actually pay. CB'ers are notoriously cheap.

4) Get manufacurers to offer new features such as remote mount radios, SMS, Alpha Display, GPS enabled loaction transponder, Automatic Radio ID, I Can go on but i'll leave it to your imagination.

Convince the FCC to change the rules to allow the necessary emissions, and then convince the manufacturing community... er, see the paragraph above.

5) get someone knowledable to file a proposal with the FCC and get the Industry on board.

It would take a LOT of someones to file a LOT of proposals to convince anyone that changes are needed.

I have one more suggestion to add... a constructive one: If cb does not meet ones personal communications needs, and is too restrictive, get your ham license. They're easier than ever to get, even the general license. People in the past have suggested that cb be made less restrictive, and the FCC has consistently ruled that the desired service already exists in the form of amateur radio. It's not interested in expanding another hobby service, especially one that pains it so...

 

[kb2vxa]

I vote to overhaul it into something useful.

The FCC made the worst mistake in history when they used it as replacement equivalent spectrum for the reallocated Class A (UHF) band inasmuch as it's anything BUT equivalent. What IS equivalent is GMRS which is the name for what remains of Class A CB.

Overhaul it into something useful, expand the 11M shortwave broadcast band and give it to the 40M broadcasters as equivalent spectrum and make 40M Amateur exclusive.

If that makes about as much sense as giving it over to CB in the first place oh well, that's the FCC for ya!

Naow whah duz alls I heah onna see bee eez moosick an' somebuddy talkin' Chah-neez?

"If cb does not meet ones personal communications needs, and is too restrictive, get your ham license."

Now wait a duck pluckin' minute! We don't need CB riff-raff on the Amateur bands, before handing them Cracker Jack licenses they should have to swear out an affidavit saying they have been brainwashed by a professional and have no lingering memory of CB and have read and understood Part 97 Section 1 which reads;

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose.

The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.

Amateur Radio is NOT for personal communications, GOT IT?

 

[kc8gpd]

I have a amateur radio license. I also talk on CB. while evrything has been moving ahead, CB has seemed to lag behind.

as for wattage your thinking old shool way of measuring rf power. if Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum is used, the the power can be increased and still maintain the same intereference potential. I had heard that the ITU disallows FM on the HF Spectrum. although 29 MHZ is part of 10m, i think as far as the ITU is concerned for rule purposes, it's not considered part of the HF spectrum which is why FM is allowed on 29 MHz.

apparently spread spectrum and digital modes are allowed on HF. the military employs FHSS on HF and many different Digital modes. lots of SW b,casters have gone DRM. Hams have digital audio options available to them.

the only thing preventing innovation on CB is the outdated rules.

 

[zz0468]

Amateur Radio is NOT for personal communications, GOT IT?

So, are you saying that my wife, who is licensed, is not allowed to call me on the radio and ask me to stop at the grocery store while I'm driving home from work?

You're reading too much into the rules.

 

[zz0468]

I have a amateur radio license. I also talk on CB. while evrything has been moving ahead, CB has seemed to lag behind.

I agree on one point... CB has lagged behind. I disagree that it's any great detriment. Clearly, the rules are intended to limit it's effectiveness. The FCC does not want it to work well.

as for wattage your thinking old shool way of measuring rf power. if Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum is used, the the power can be increased and still maintain the same intereference potential.

Old school way of measuring power? Huh? That makes no sense. Perhaps you mean old school way of what I think of CB. I'll concede to that.

I had heard that the ITU disallows FM on the HF Spectrum. although 29 MHZ is part of 10m, i think as far as the ITU is concerned for rule purposes, it's not considered part of the HF spectrum which is why FM is allowed on 29 MHz.

Part 90 allows FM in the Business/Industrial pool all the way down to 25 MHz. This includes frequencies in the 27 MHz range. I don't think the ITU is a problem here.

apparently spread spectrum and digital modes are allowed on HF. the military employs FHSS on HF and many different Digital modes. lots of SW b,casters have gone DRM. Hams have digital audio options available to them.

Again, international regulations are not what's preventing innovation on CB.

the only thing preventing innovation on CB is the outdated rules.

The rules are not outdated if they still accomplish what was intended - to provide a very limited service that anybody can use.

I think several things would have to happen before you see any desire from the FCC or the manufacturers to consider doing something different - and forgive me if I repeat myself from my previous post - you just don't seem to get it...

In order to effect change, the manufacturers will have to feel that there is sufficient market to make it worth their while. At this point in time, they apparently don't. They've been cranking out essentially the same crap for 30 years. The rare higher end radio that comes out dies a slow painful death because no one will buy them.

And for the FCC's part, they have clearly stated time and time again, that when people file petitions to expand cb privileges - additional modes, additional frequencies, or more power, time and time again, they refer the petitioner to the amateur service. CB is a cesspool, and they know it. Why should they expend the time and effort to alter the rules to make said cesspool deeper and wider, when there are far better alternatives to accomplish whatever it is people want to accomplish on the radio?

 

[trace1]

Amateur Radio is NOT for personal communications, GOT IT?

WOW!!! Just a little bit a go I heard a guy talking, on the Amateur bands, about eating LIFE cereal making him go poopie...

Can't get much more personal than that!!!

 

[n8emr]

Keep in mind part 95 not only cover "CB" but also covers FRS and GMRS and MURS.

For "CB" move it to FM only, narrow band channels, doulble the channels set the power at 5 watts max. FRS and GMRS, Remove the dual radio clause, make it one or the other.
FRS low power non licensed, GMRS high power licensed.
MURS, is pretty much OK as iss, but would like to see dual band MURS with FRS (NOT GMRS).

 

[kc8gpd]

Well then yes. Move CB to NBFM or even ACSSB. We could then double the channels. and with either mode not much modification is needed as stated by zz0468. better yet keep the regular 40ch and use the above modulation schemes based on the standard center frequncies presently used. this will offer better adjacent channel rejection. use 30-40 for ACSSB and 1-30 for FM.

 

[kb2vxa]

"So, are you saying that my wife, who is licensed, is not allowed to call me on the radio and ask me to stop at the grocery store while I'm driving home from work?"

Not at all. However the consensus is one of the most annoying things heard on a repeater are those using it as CB particularly in this manner. Don't get me started on "destinated" and other Charlie Chickenbander slang.

"You're reading too much into the rules."

No again. Go back and read what I pasted in and compare it with it's Part 95 counterpart. By direct comparison the intent and purpose of CB is for business and personal communications while Amateur Radio is not. One might say if she wants hubby to pick up a quart of milk on the way home and nothing else get off the repeater and use CB.

"Two meter CB" is hardly a term of endearment.

 

[jhooten]

The cost of the equipment would go through the roof which would defeat the purpose of a low cost service for the non-technical user.

 

[zz0468]

"So, are you saying that my wife, who is licensed, is not allowed to call me on the radio and ask me to stop at the grocery store while I'm driving home from work?"

Not at all. However the consensus is one of the most annoying things heard on a repeater are those using it as CB particularly in this manner. Don't get me started on "destinated" and other Charlie Chickenbander slang.

Annoying things to hear on a repeater? I'll grant you that. But this is why I conduct such conversation on a closed, private system. Not because I think we have privacy, but because of the close knit user group doesn't mind that sort of usage. Personally, I prefer that to the conversations about gall bladder operations that take place on the open two meter machines. And just so you know, I abhore the use of CB slang.

BTW, Your refusal to use the quote feature is annoying.

"You're reading too much into the rules."

No again. Go back and read what I pasted in and compare it with it's Part 95 counterpart. By direct comparison the intent and purpose of CB is for business and personal communications while Amateur Radio is not. One might say if she wants hubby to pick up a quart of milk on the way home and nothing else get off the repeater and use CB.

Don't be so pedantic just to try to win an "argument" on an internet forum. The types of permissible communications don't have to be specifically spelled out to be legal. What's NOT permissible has been made abundantly clear.

 

[kb2vxa]

"BTW, Your refusal to use the quote feature is annoying."

I couldn't care less.

"Don't be so pedantic just to try to win an "argument" on an internet forum."

I don't try to win, I made my point and now I move on. Byeeee.

 

[gewecke]

The fcc should make a stringent attempt...

To right a very old wrong,the fcc should make a very serious,validated attempt to correct this injustice once and for all!
The 11 meter (chicken band) should be taken k from the chickens
and given back to the amateur radio ops. from which it was wrongly
taken in 1958! 11meters in the am mode was NOT the correct band
to be given to the general public for a short-range service!
I don't mean to rant,but this subject has pissed me off before I ever
entertained thoughts about becoming a amateur radio op.
This is ALL the fault of the FCC and should be corrected by the
same governMENTAL body that created this mess in the first
place! No,I'm not a crochetty old hf operator in a rockin chair.
I personally favor vhf/uhf comms. but those operators
worked very hard to police their own peers,and NONE of that
was realized by the fcc when they were damn quick to yank
the band out from under those operators!
Ok, I'm done raggin! I opologize to any cb'ers I might have
offended.
n9zas.

 

[jhooten]

The Genie is out of the bottle. Unless you could wave your magic wand and make all of the existing radios vanish into thin air the problem would not just go way. Many of the current users have way too much money invested in their equipment to just throw it out. There ain't enough prison space in the country to lock up all those who would chose to violate the new laws.

 

[N_Jay]

1) Switch to some form of Narrow Band Digital Modulation. Maybe even a form of FHSS taylored to HF conditions.

Did you want narrow band or wide-band (Spread Spectrum) (You seem a bit confused)

2) Up the power of the service To at least 25 watts(when the narrowband digital modulation or FHSS is used).

Why? If the goal is local communications, why would you want to use more power?
If you want to make the equipment easy (and small) for consumer use, why would you want all the size and weight issues that come with higher power. If you want to make it available for more users, why would you want the interference issues caused by more power?

3) Create Minimum Technical standards that force the manufactures to create quality equipment.

I good idea, but hard to do in our free market system. (Has even been an issue with commercial equipment)

4) Get manufacturers to offer new features such as remote mount radios, SMS, Alpha Display, GPS enabled loaction transponder, Automatic Radio ID, I Can go on but i'll leave it to your imagination.

Hu???? How does the FCC "Get Manufacturers" to offer anything?
The manufactures come up with ideas, and then, if they don't fit within the existing rules, they go to the FCC to get changes made to allow the feature.

5) get someone knowledable . . . . .

Now, there is a good idea.

 

[kc8gpd]

I think one thing that can be done and probably would not even require a rule change to do is phase out SSB in Favor of ACSSB. From what I understand ACSSB is just SSB with a pilot tone to aid the receiver in keeping the clarrifier automaticly locked on the carrier and is also used to restore some of the fidelity lost in the SSB signal.

 

[N_Jay]

I think one thing that can be done and probably would not even require a rule change to do is phase out SSB in Favor of ACSSB. From what I understand ACSSB is just SSB with a pilot tone to aid the receiver in keeping the clarrifier automaticly locked on the carrier and is also used to restore some of the fidelity lost in the SSB signal.

Of course all the current SSB users will have to put up with the un-notched pilot noise.

Back to your #5!

 

[N_Jay]

Maybe you need to stop thinking technically and define what you want to accomplish.

What is the market?
Who is the typical user?
How and when does he use it?

From there someone "knowledgeable" could find one or more technologies to accomplish the task.