FM - Superior CB Mode

Joseph Cusimano

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

You may have noticed that most transmitters used by Freeband CB
operators include the FM mode but nobody uses FM. Everybody thinks that
SSB is the best and the only mode to use.
- WRONG - I've been using FM on 29.600 MHz and 146.520 MHz for 30 years
and I can assure you that FM is a superior mode. Ask the police, fire
fighters and ambulance people and business operators who have been using
FM for 40 years. SSB does indeed have greater distance reach. Who really
cares ? Do you want great distance or superior quality communications ?
If you want great distance stay with SSB or get an Amateur license.

Read my Letter to the Editor in last January's issue of Popular
Communications if want reasons. CB FM offers a lot of bells and whistles
like sub-audible tone squelch that you don't have with SSB.

Since no one in the U.S. took up my call to get the ball rolling on CB
FM, I am now making it my personal Internet project to get CB FM
established here in North America. It's already being used in other
parts of the world. U.S. and Canada lag behind the times in this matter
because of FCC indifference.

Until I hear from someone with a better idea, I am putting forward the
following preliminary 5 channel frequency plan which should avoid direct
conflict with SSB operators.

- 27.600 MHz (FM 60) - FM Calling frequency
- 27.620 MHz (FM 62) - FM working frequency
- 27.640 MHz (FM 64) - FM working frequency
- 27.660 MHz (FM 66) - FM working frequency
- 27.680 MHz (FM 68) - FM working frequency

Please copy the above and relay elsewhere. Those of you who are also
Amateur Radio operators will see a simularity with 10 Meter FM at 29.600
MHz so this plan should be easy to remember. As I see it developing,
eventually all below 27.600 will be SSB only. From 27.600 up will be FM
only. Maybe someday we will even have CTCSS controlled repeater outputs
1 MHz down starting at 26.620 MHz. AM (ancient modulation) will
eventually die out. The FCC will give grandfather privileges to the
current business (telemetering, MARS) users and move them a few KHz to
be between the FM channels.

Does anybody have a better plan or know of any commercial users now on
these frequencies. Speak up now, here on the Internet or even try
starting a local discussion group on 27.600 MHz FM then post your
thoughts here. If this catches on big, perhaps the CB radio
manufacturers and the retailers will see lots of dollar signs and
convince the FCC to make the Freeband frequencies legal for CB FM like
they are in England. Canada will follow the U.S. plan. The manufacturers
and retailers went to the FCC to get the UHF Family Radio Service and
they got it. That's the one and only way that the FCC will ever be
convinced to open up the Freeband frequencies for CB use. Does anybody
have any persuasive links in Washington ? Senator Feingold, Senator
McCain, Senator Burns - Where are you ?

73 - Best regards and thanks from Joe in Toronto Ontario Canada.

The CB Guy

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

In article <3416D3...@cusimano.com>, Joseph Cusimano
<webd...@cusimano.com> writes:

>73 - Best regards and thanks from Joe in Toronto Ontario Canada.

It won't and shouldn't happen. We get an awful lot of European Cb'ers
complaining about their FM only radios. It is a nice means of LOCAL
conversation, however it is not the ideal method of most operators.
I routinely talk 50 + miles base to base on SSB....with many mobiles in
the mix. THis would NOT happen with FM. (not without illegal power anyways).
Have you ever noticed that , even with the LARGE amount of cb'ers running
FM rigs, there is very little FM?.....there is a reason, it doesn't allow
us to hear all stations. Many little staions get lost in the squelch.
Count me OUT of you idea.

The CB Guy

Andy Moss

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

FM is probably the least effective mode for working sporadic-E.

--
Andy Moss
"Whose woods these are I think I know...."

Mr. Ronald E. Shapiro

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

FM may be nice for close in type contacts, but the phase distortion
associated with sky wave propogation on FM is the most compelling
reason to use other modes. SSB gets my vote, although a very small
percentage of the SSB radios out there are on frequency.

Amor Powers, CB Radio

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

Joseph Cusimano sez:

> Until I hear from someone with a better idea,
> I am putting forward the
> following preliminary 5 channel frequency plan

> 27.6
[snip]...

Well here we go...

A better FM CALLING CHANNEL is CHANNEL 63 = 27.635 MHz.
======================

PROPOSED: the new FM CALLING CHANNEL will be channel 63 (27.635) and the
FM channels are CHANNEL 63 through 68.

==============================================
PROPOSED NORTH AMERICA CB FM CHANNEL PLAN:
27.635 CH 63 FM CALLING ONLY
27.645 CH 64 FM
27.655 CH 65 FM
27.665 CH 66 FM
27.675 CH 67 FM
27.685 CH 68 FM REPEATER or REMOTE BASE OUTPUT
==============================================

STATUS QUO
Highly recommend 10kHz (on the 5) spacing, with no guard bands. This is
what it will end up being, whether you like it or not. Channelized 10kHz
step (on the 5) radios are the standard. We can tightly pack it in to
50kHz for the time being, until popularity increases, then expand
upwards and downwards from there. Sure there will be some adjacent
channel QRM, due to anarchy, this will happen anyway from the other
modes sharing the freqs.

THE RAGING BATTLE FOR 27.605
Your proposed Band Plan looks good on the surface, Joseph, however,
27.605 is already a very, very popular frequency fought over by
conflicting claims made by AMers and SSBers. This is due to channel 60
being the highest channel that some superstitious operators are scared
to go above. Don't ask me why :-) There has been a battle raging on
Channel 60 for over 5 years, with only temporary relief coming from low
sunspot numbers.

1. We will not be able to change CHANNEL 60 to an FM channel.
2. Channel 61 LSB has been used for years as a call channel
for a certain SSB DX club (normally a polite bunch).

FM CB IN NORTH AMERICA:
One thing for sure, the times are changing, and the activity is
increasing with the new solar cycle. We need to re-establish the
frequencies to make it easier to congregate. One problem we have in
North America is most of the 27.6 to 27.8 range is occupied by lots of
strong SSB stations from South and Central America, who have fled to
these freqs to get away from strong QRM from N. American stations. These
are S9+ sigs via trans-equatorial propagation most of the year, and will
only increase for the next 6 or 8 years. Two popular channels for S.& C.
American Espanol SSB are channels 66 and 69.

THE QUALITIES OF FM
FM is great for all its neat signalling qualities (packet, PL, DTMF,
etc). FM skip talking is fun, also, because of the great audio quality.
When the skip is in, there have always been a few FMers trying to make
contact, usually up around 27.4-27.5, mixed with the usual SSBers.
Hopefully we can start to get some of us operators talking on the new FM
Call Channel, whatever we establish, and expand from there.

Amor Powers
One of The-Powers-That-Be
Lots of hot air

END OF POST

--------------------------------------------------------------
keywords (see above text)
FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB
radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio
27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz
channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel
plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB
radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio
27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz
channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel
plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB
radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio
27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz
channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel
plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB
radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio
27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz
channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel
plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB
radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio
27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz
channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel
plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB
radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio
27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz channel plan FM CB radio 27MHz
channel plan

Steve Eklund

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

Joseph Cusimano <webd...@cusimano.com> writes: > You may have noticed that most transmitters used by Freeband CB

> operators include the FM mode but nobody uses FM. Everybody thinks that
> SSB is the best and the only mode to use.
> - WRONG - I've been using FM on 29.600 MHz and 146.520 MHz for 30 years
> and I can assure you that FM is a superior mode. Ask the police, fire
> fighters and ambulance people and business operators who have been using
> FM for 40 years. SSB does indeed have greater distance reach. Who really
> cares ? Do you want great distance or superior quality communications ?
> If you want great distance stay with SSB or get an Amateur license.
>
> Read my Letter to the Editor in last January's issue of Popular
> Communications if want reasons. CB FM offers a lot of bells and whistles
> like sub-audible tone squelch that you don't have with SSB.
>
> Since no one in the U.S. took up my call to get the ball rolling on CB
> FM, I am now making it my personal Internet project to get CB FM
> established here in North America. It's already being used in other
> parts of the world. U.S. and Canada lag behind the times in this matter
> because of FCC indifference.
>

> Until I hear from someone with a better idea, I am putting forward the

> 73 - Best regards and thanks from Joe in Toronto Ontario Canada.

Joe,

I think you have an excellent idea. The one thing you forgot to mention
is that the FM mode will interfere with TVs and telephones far
less than AM or SSB. Senator Feingold wants to come down on CB'ers
and put enforcement of FCC rules into the hands of the local police,
but do you think he has the intelligence to stop the interference
from occurring in the first place? I highly doubt it! I think
him and the other bozos in Washington would rather complain about
sitting on a tack rather than doing something about it. What a bunch
of whining cry-babys we have in Washington!!

Combining the use of FM along with stricter RF shielding and
bypassing laws for the manufacturers of consumer goods will
eliminate interference altogether. The stupid members of the
Senate and Congress would rather act like storm troopers and
force more rediculous laws down our throats rather than do the
more logical and easier to enforce alternative. I don't know if
writing these Senators will do any good. God forbid if they ever
do something for the good of the people and pass laws that would
require their rich business buddies to put an extra nickle's
worth of parts into each consumer device!

Steve

Scott Rosenfeld [NF3I]

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

>> Until I hear from someone with a better idea,
>> I am putting forward the
>> following preliminary 5 channel frequency plan

>> 27.6
>[snip]...
>
>Well here we go...
>
>A better FM CALLING CHANNEL is CHANNEL 63 = 27.635 MHz.
> ======================
>
>PROPOSED: the new FM CALLING CHANNEL will be channel 63 (27.635) and the
>FM channels are CHANNEL 63 through 68.
>
>==============================================
>PROPOSED NORTH AMERICA CB FM CHANNEL PLAN:
>27.635 CH 63 FM CALLING ONLY
>27.645 CH 64 FM
>27.655 CH 65 FM
>27.665 CH 66 FM
>27.675 CH 67 FM
>27.685 CH 68 FM REPEATER or REMOTE BASE OUTPUT
>==============================================

Illegal in the USA. Canada, too. Probably much of the rest
of the world.

>
>
>
>STATUS QUO
>Highly recommend 10kHz (on the 5) spacing, with no guard bands. This is
>what it will end up being, whether you like it or not. Channelized 10kHz
>step (on the 5) radios are the standard. We can tightly pack it in to
>50kHz for the time being, until popularity increases, then expand
>upwards and downwards from there. Sure there will be some adjacent
>channel QRM, due to anarchy, this will happen anyway from the other
>modes sharing the freqs.
>
>THE RAGING BATTLE FOR 27.605

Which is actually a land mobile radio (commercial/gov't) frequency anyway.

Oh yeah, this group is for CB...heh heh heh...right...
--
* Scott Rosenfeld NF3I Burtonsville, MD FM19mc QRV 80-10/6/2/440 *
*** 6m 80 grids worked on 8 watts *** HF 140 cfmd * QRP-L #147 ***
** QRP ARCI #9054 ** DXCC/WAS/WAC *** 100% dipole powered HF/6m **
* 301-549-1022 h / 301-982-1015 w *** Hamfest, life's simple joy *

Che Letton

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to webd...@cusimano.com

> Communications if want reasons. CB FM offers a lot of bells and whistles
> like sub-audible tone squelch that you don't have with SSB.

Didn't this used to be called Sel-Call (or Cell-Call?). I think
TACAM(?)
have just started to manufacture these again.

>
> Since no one in the U.S. took up my call to get the ball rolling on CB
> FM, I am now making it my personal Internet project to get CB FM
> established here in North America. It's already being used in other
> parts of the world. U.S. and Canada lag behind the times in this matter
> because of FCC indifference.
>

> Until I hear from someone with a better idea, I am putting forward the

> following preliminary 5 channel frequency plan which should avoid direct
> conflict with SSB operators.
>
> - 27.600 MHz (FM 60) - FM Calling frequency
> - 27.620 MHz (FM 62) - FM working frequency
> - 27.640 MHz (FM 64) - FM working frequency
> - 27.660 MHz (FM 66) - FM working frequency
> - 27.680 MHz (FM 68) - FM working frequency
>

Very close to the UK FM27/81 plan.

1= 27.601.25 and 40= 27.991.25 moving in 10kHz Steps.
_____________________________________________________________

Remove the stars for correct email address:

*che@*gwent.nhs.gov.uk
_____________________________________________________________

Mike Hughes

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

Che Letton wrote:
>
> > Communications if want reasons. CB FM offers a lot of bells and whistles
> > like sub-audible tone squelch that you don't have with SSB.
>
> Didn't this used to be called Sel-Call (or Cell-Call?). I think
> TACAM(?)
> have just started to manufacture these again.

No, sub-audible tone squelch, also called PL or CTCSS, uses a continuous
subaudible tone, usually in the 100-Hz range. Only signals containing
the proper tone will open the squelch. Sel-Call, on the other hand,
unless I'm mistaken, uses audible tones - sometimes touch-tones, to
open the squelch or activate a signalling circuit. Unlike CTCSS,
these tones are not transmitted continuously, and if used to open the
squelch, the squelch will remain open as long as there's a signal
present. Sel-Call will also work with any mode, not just FM.

73, Mike

Mike Hughes

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

The CB Guy wrote:
>
> In article <3416D3...@cusimano.com>, Joseph Cusimano
> <webd...@cusimano.com> writes:
>

> >73 - Best regards and thanks from Joe in Toronto Ontario Canada.
>

> It won't and shouldn't happen. We get an awful lot of European Cb'ers
> complaining about their FM only radios. It is a nice means of LOCAL
> conversation, however it is not the ideal method of most operators.
> I routinely talk 50 + miles base to base on SSB....with many mobiles in
> the mix. THis would NOT happen with FM. (not without illegal power anyways).
> Have you ever noticed that , even with the LARGE amount of cb'ers running
> FM rigs, there is very little FM?.....there is a reason, it doesn't allow
> us to hear all stations. Many little staions get lost in the squelch.
> Count me OUT of you idea.
>

> The CB Guy

While I agree 100% that SSB is the superior mode for range, what would
be
wrong with having FM as a legal mode *in addition to* AM and SSB?

73, Mike

Phil

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

>Maybe someday we will even have CTCSS controlled repeater outputs
>1 MHz down starting at 26.620 MHz. AM (ancient modulation) will
>eventually die out. The FCC will give grandfather privileges to the
>current business (telemetering, MARS) users and move them a few KHz to
>be between the FM channels.
>

The theory is good and I think with effort you may be able to get
reallocation of some space for CB FM.

However, be forewarned.

The 26.620 frequency belongs to the USAF. It is used for MARS but also by
the Civil Air Patrol. NOW.. Recently, FCC Control of USAF frequencies has
been removed. That is... the USAF now governs it's own bands and the FCC
really has no say in the matters. I doubt very much that the USAF is going
to move it's band for the sake of CB.

I speak NOT from the cuff here. Besides being a USAF MARS operator
(AFA1MY), I am also the Communications Officer of a Massachusetts Wing
Squadron (Patriot 655). I have had to deal with many changes to protocol
and regulations adjustments as a result of the FCC to USAF band takeovers.

Anyhow, the point is, pick a different frequency for your intention.
26.620 is allocated and will most likely not be moved even though it's use
is extremely minimal.

Good Luck with the CB FM scheme!

-> Phil KKC4849 (Calamity), KA1NHZ, AFA1MY, Patriot 655

Dale Powell

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

Because the FCC won't have any part of it. The CB service is out of
control already. It would only make it worse to add FM.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Powell Electronic QSL Card

AT&T Globalyst 630 100 MHZ Pentium
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ca...@netins.net

unread,

Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97

to

On 10 Sep 1997 18:58:43 GMT, Steve Eklund <wa3...@compuserve.com>
wrote:

>I think you have an excellent idea. The one thing you forgot to mention
>is that the FM mode will interfere with TVs and telephones far
>less than AM or SSB. Senator Feingold wants to come down on CB'ers
>and put enforcement of FCC rules into the hands of the local police,

Don't stop here. The local authorities will ONLY be able to enforce
the laws the the FFC themselves would enforce. They cannot enact any
news rules or regulations. Where I live my radio's were interfering
with my neighbors tv, and stereos. One was using a tv that was made 15
years ago, I gave him a filter that I purchased from Radio Shack,
which didn't help btw, told him all I had to due was attempt to solve
the problem and he should buy a new tv.

The one that lived below me sued me to get a new tv because hers
stopped working and she blammed it on my radio. Will 4 watts blow the
tube? Yeah right lady! Judge told her to go find a life.

BTW! Congress is a bunch of idiots. And FM is far better.

Pat

Jones

unread,

Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97

to

> >I think you have an excellent idea. The one thing you forgot to mention
> >is that the FM mode will interfere with TVs and telephones far
> >less than AM or SSB. Senator Feingold wants to come down on CB'ers
> >and put enforcement of FCC rules into the hands of the local police,
>
> Don't stop here. The local authorities will ONLY be able to enforce
> the laws the the FFC themselves would enforce. They cannot enact any
> news rules or regulations. Where I live my radio's were interfering
> with my neighbors tv, and stereos. One was using a tv that was made 15
> years ago, I gave him a filter that I purchased from Radio Shack,
> which didn't help btw, told him all I had to due was attempt to solve
> the problem and he should buy a new tv.
>
> The one that lived below me sued me to get a new tv because hers
> stopped working and she blammed it on my radio. Will 4 watts blow the
> tube? Yeah right lady! Judge told her to go find a life.

This just goes to show you that morons think everyone else is just as
stupid as they are...

> BTW! Congress is a bunch of idiots. And FM is far better.
>
> Pat

Why worry about all this crap, for all the FCC cares anymore you can talk
in whatever mode you want, between 26-28 mhz and nobody is gonna give a
rats ass, no real services use this spectrum, oh sure the CAP and the CIA
yeah right, gimme a break...what the hell would anyone trying to establish
reliable local comms use 12-11-10 meters for? only hams, and freebanders,
and cbers, use this area of the spectrum...why do we need laws for
this...what the fcc should really do is just say in public, "the hell with
it" and deregulate this chunk of spectrum to be all mode defacto FREEband
area. The only point that should be addressed is intentional interferance
with other services and things such as tvi/rfi etc.

--
In the words of the imortal Ted Nugent,

Wang Dang Sweet Poontang....

Mark