Petitions for Reconsideration of Part 95 Personal Radio Services Rules Report and Order

[Golay]

Well, let me ask the question. Let's say there's two people having a SSB QSO.
And two people on the same channel having a QSO on FM with PL on both the RX and TX.
Which conversation would be most likely to be disrupted?
And which conversation would be most likely not realize there's another QSO going on?
Just curious.

 

[krokus]

Well, let me ask the question. Let's say there's two people having a SSB QSO.
And two people on the same channel having a QSO on FM with PL on both the RX and TX.
Which conversation would be most likely to be disrupted?
And which conversation would be most likely not realize there's another QSO going on?
Just curious.

The FMers would notice a little noise, while the SSBers would have a lot of interference.

 

[nd5y]

Theoretically a FM receiver is less prone to amplitude modulated interference.
The capture effect will help if the interfering SSB signals are weaker than the FM signals you are trying to receive.
I don't know how much that effect is reduced when the occupied bandwidth of the FM signal is reduced, since FM CB will only have 2 kHz deviation.
Who knows if future FM CBs will have properly designed high quality receivers.

 

[BigDaddy419]

If anyone had to take a wild guess, when do you think these FM capable radios would be on the market?

 

[mmckenna]

If anyone had to take a wild guess, when do you think these FM capable radios would be on the market?

The petition hasn't been made into rules yet, so none of it is official.

It's possible the manufacturers are already working on this. We know suitable radios are out there in other markets, so the radios exist. They'll need to submit those to testing labs to get the paperwork submitted for type certification.

My guess? A few months. Maybe end of the year, early next year.
But that all depends if they think there is a big enough market for it. Likely enough to bring a few higher tier radios in, but I'd bet the average CB user market isn't going to budge much.

 

[nd5y]

Federal Register notice was published today.
The effective date for the rule changes is 28 October 2021.

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[KC3ECJ]

I wish in addition to 26-27 FM, they would allow a dual band radio that adds 900mhz ISM. Have it work like the DTRs.
Something to make an urban CB more practical.
An AM/SSB/FM 26-27 CB that has a 900mhz digital band would be awesome. Have 2 antenna jacks on the back of the radio.
I think I petitioned this years ago to the FCC.

 

[mmckenna]

I think I petitioned this years ago to the FCC.

There's been a few attempts to create a "new" CB radio service. 900MHz, 220, etc. None of them caught on. I think the days of dual certified radios (CB/900MHz ISM) are gone, FCC learned their lesson with the absolute mess they made with FRS/GMRS.

 

[Mike_G_D]

There's been a few attempts to create a "new" CB radio service. 900MHz, 220, etc. None of them caught on. I think the days of dual certified radios (CB/900MHz ISM) are gone, FCC learned their lesson with the absolute mess they made with FRS/GMRS.

I think in this case, KC3ECJ is actually asking for a CB that has separate Part 15 ISM section that works in the same manner as the Motorola DLR/DTR license-free frequency hopping VSELP handhelds that generally seem to work very well. So not really the same as a true "dual certified" radio (it's already Part 15 for the receiver and general emissions as well as Part 95 anyway).

While I do like the idea (even at the allowed 1 watt maximum in the freq. hopping digital mode those handheld DTR's and DLR's seem to work exceptionally well especially in urban environments where 27MHz analog CB tends to choke) I see the biggest problem being the fact that Motorola doesn't seem in any way interested in licensing their DTR/DLR technology to anyone else and I don't get the feeling they are interested in getting back into the CB market (they did briefly many years back when the CB craze was at its peak - and they were really good units, as I recall) these days.

Could someone else step up and make their own proprietary version with similar technology? Nyuhayy...sorta remotely possibly but, I rather think, highly improbable.

I like the idea, but I don't see it likely to come to fruition any time soon if ever.

-Mike

 

[mmckenna]

I think in this case, KC3ECJ is actually asking for a CB that has separate Part 15 ISM section that works in the same manner as the Motorola DLR/DTR license-free frequency hopping VSELP handhelds that generally seem to work very well. So not really the same as a true "dual certified" radio (it's already Part 15 for the receiver and general emissions as well as Part 95 anyway).

No, I understood what he was asking for.

As for Part 15, the receiver has the part 15b as an "unintentional radiator" as in the local oscillator can leak a bit and the FCC wants that controlled.
The Part 15c used for short range/unlicensed "intentional radiators" is a different thing.

If you look at the FCC certification grant for a Motorola DLR 900MHz FHSS radio, it has a Part 15C cert.

 

[Mike_G_D]

No, I understood what he was asking for.

As for Part 15, the receiver has the part 15b as an "unintentional radiator" as in the local oscillator can leak a bit and the FCC wants that controlled.
The Part 15c used for short range/unlicensed "intentional radiators" is a different thing.

If you look at the FCC certification grant for a Motorola DLR 900MHz FHSS radio, it has a Part 15C cert.

After the time period for editing my message at some point I actually did think to myself - "...umm, subpart, dufis, subpart...he's gonna get ya with that just wait and see...!!" Yeah, yesterday was pretty crazy and I should have known better than to try and write messages regarding anything technical...in the midst of it all.

Still like the idea, though, and honestly, from a type acceptance point of view (disregarding the whole Motorola laughing the a** off at the mere thought of licensing their proprietary technology to anyone else) I don't think it would be so difficult for the FCC to handle (buuuut, I'm not a gub'ment worker so what do I know!).

 

[mmckenna]

After the time period for editing my message at some point I actually did think to myself - "...umm, subpart, dufis, subpart...he's gonna get ya with that just wait and see...!!" Yeah, yesterday was pretty crazy and I should have known better than to try and write messages regarding anything technical...in the midst of it all.

Ha, yeah, no problem. I tried to word it nicely. The FCC rules are a PITA to talk about sometimes, so many subparts and rules to deal with.

I'm at IWCE in Las Vegas and it's radio technology like drinking from a fire hose. I think my brain is full and I'm ready to go home.

Still like the idea, though, and honestly, from a type acceptance point of view (disregarding the whole Motorola laughing the a** off at the mere thought of licensing their proprietary technology to anyone else) I don't think it would be so difficult for the FCC to handle (buuuut, I'm not a gub'ment worker so what do I know!).

I think in a perfect world where we could wipe the slate clean and start all over from zero with radio systems, we could do much better than 27MHz for CB. There's some nice little slices of spectrum that would work very well, like 220MHz below the ham bands, 900MHz, etc. that would lend itself to a digital CB type service.
Heck, even re-farming GMRS/FRS to a very narrow band digital mode would made a lot of sense.

 

[bearcatrp]

Going to get allot of crap for this post but, I think if the FCC wants to revitalize the cb band, do 10 and 11 meter band for cb. Not much going on the 10 meter and since they made the test stupid simple to get other bands, maybe push the tech class to upgrade. Just my thoughts on this subject.

 

[KB4MSZ]

Ok. Explain to me how FM is gonna fit when this happens (as it is right this minute).

 

[rescuecomm]

Extra position on the mode switch. AM, FM, USB, LSB not necessarily in that order and you avoid busy channels. This is going to better for walkie talkies if CTCSS is incorporated.

 

[Mike_G_D]

It's VERY narrow band deviated FM!!! I mean SUPER narrow! It's at +/- 2.0 kHz deviation which is even narrower than the (relatively) new narrower "narrowband FM" for VHF and UHF LMR recently made the de-facto standard at +/- 2.5 kHz deviation (used to be at +/- 5kHz deviation).

So, it'll "fit" in the sense that it will fit in the alloted bandwidth for US FCC Part 95 CB channels which are spaced at 10 kHz channels (with a couple exceptions).

So we just now have AM, SSB, and FM (as of October 28th). It will be interesting to see how actual heavy CB users will incorporate this "new for the US CB" mode into their usage sub-culture! I think it will pretty much be "business as usual" for a long time to come - SSB on channels 15 (in some areas), 16, and 36 thru 40 and AM on all other channels. I doubt enough FM users will suddenly pop into existance and start actively "taking over some channels "for FM use". Like stated by rescuecomm earlier - I also think it will primarily benefit handheld and mobile users who are using CB for communications mainly between each other in their own groups. I doubt long haul truckers and other heavy "traditional" CB users will make much use of it (FM) at least for a very long time to come.

Really, even when the equipment with FM as a selectable mode is widely available and in wide use (US FCC Part 95 certified legal stuff), I don't expect it to become the main mode of use since AM has been around so long and cheap AM single mode equipment will still likely be available for a long time.

But it will be nice to have as a consumer license-by-rule "low band" communication option! Especially if CTCSS is made workable and available at that deviation. Mmckenna would know best here, but it seems to me it might make a good option for off-roader use. Don't know, time will tell. I don't think it will "hurt" anything in the end - just nice to have as a "quieter option" for group communications.

Now...sorry but I can't help it...I have to say that it could get awfully funny if some less than fully knowledgeable "linear kickers and mooooAHHDUULAAaaaation boosters" start trying their AM tricks on FM! .....lemmmeee crank that deviation on up thar.....

"MooAh...*!............du.........ate! Mo...a........u......te! I be Sto.....m....in and ste.......in!"

Might be fun to set your SDR's on a FM filter BW so as to hear the FM CB deviation tweakers while the narrowband stuff just becomes the noise floor!

Sorry - couldn't help myself!

-Mike

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I think the primary advantage of FM will be in utilizing radios equipped with CTCSS. That way you can squelch out co channel interference making CB more palatable for home use or a small business. The narrow band deviation does not offer much performance improvement over AM nor any appreciable FM capture effect. - Major EH Armstrong would not be impressed with +/- 2.0 KC.

 

[Mike_G_D]

Ha, yeah, no problem. I tried to word it nicely. The FCC rules are a PITA to talk about sometimes, so many subparts and rules to deal with.

I'm at IWCE in Las Vegas and it's radio technology like drinking from a fire hose. I think my brain is full and I'm ready to go home.



I think in a perfect world where we could wipe the slate clean and start all over from zero with radio systems, we could do much better than 27MHz for CB. There's some nice little slices of spectrum that would work very well, like 220MHz below the ham bands, 900MHz, etc. that would lend itself to a digital CB type service.
Heck, even re-farming GMRS/FRS to a very narrow band digital mode would made a lot of sense.

Oh I agree! Of course hindsight is 20/20 as they say, to give the FCC some benefit if the doubt. Theywere working with late 50's early 60's technology at the time the band and service was created and they did have a "Class B" on UHF (as well as the Class A that eventually became GMRS) but, from all that I have read, those early 60's era UHF radios didn't work so well at the allowed power levels so never really caught on. 27MHz could be made to work relatively cheaply and reliably, on the other hand, and so did provide a viable cost effective "Citizens" radio service...long as you didn't mind a bit of unwelcome skip and noise on occasion.

But I get ya, yeah! Agree on all of those spectrum choices (which, if I recall correctly, were each proposed at one time or another as possible higher frequency "Citizens" bands- 220 and 900, the latter of which you did mention earlier - the "Class E" CB I think it was called at one time...???...I think...).

IWCE - I got to go once a long time ago and had a blast! Miss those days...

-Mike

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Ok. Explain to me how FM is gonna fit when this happens (as it is right this minute).

View attachment 110206

Is that channel 6 I see? Avoid that channel!

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Ha, yeah, no problem. I tried to word it nicely. The FCC rules are a PITA to talk about sometimes, so many subparts and rules to deal with.

I'm at IWCE in Las Vegas and it's radio technology like drinking from a fire hose. I think my brain is full and I'm ready to go home.

I think in a perfect world where we could wipe the slate clean and start all over from zero with radio systems, we could do much better than 27MHz for CB. There's some nice little slices of spectrum that would work very well, like 220MHz below the ham bands, 900MHz, etc. that would lend itself to a digital CB type service.
Heck, even re-farming GMRS/FRS to a very narrow band digital mode would made a lot of sense.

I think we went to great effort here on RR to dispel that proposal.

GMRS is just fine as it is.

I would like to see FM-FHSS in 27 MHz CB. I think it can be done rather cheaply with available technology.