adding CTCSS to CBs
Warren Whitby
to CB radios?
---
Warren Whitby wwh...@mtgy.gtegsc.com
GTE Government Systems
x5459
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that |
| whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting |
| life (John 3:16) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amythest Spring
-w
n1off
Mark G. Salyzyn
>why in the world would want to bother doing it?
(I have *no* idea if CTCSS is legal in the US or Canada, but if roger beeps
are ...) Regardless, a CTCSS tone will allow one to ensure that the only
`noise' they hear on the radio, is when the intended caller is calling the
intended calleee. This is *good* in my mind, since much of the problems in CB
are a result of people that just love to butt in (causing much of the pressure
to make `special' channels in other peoples bands). In fact, CTCSS, as a
standard feature, may just add some respectibility to the band!
-- 73 de VE6MGS/XM223855/Mark -sk-
bill nelson
"roger beeps" are not legal. That does not stop people from using them, just
as they persist in using power mikes to splatter the whole band.
You cannot add CTCSS to the rig - as it would void the type acceptance.
I think CTCSS would just make things worse. You would then have people
attempting to transmit, without monitoring to see if someone else was
already using the channel.
Bill
robert
> cspr...@MtHolyoke.edu (Amythest Spring) writes:
> >why in the world would want to bother doing it?
>
> (I have *no* idea if CTCSS is legal in the US or Canada, but if roger beeps
> are ...) Regardless, a CTCSS tone will allow one to ensure that the only
> -- 73 de VE6MGS/XM223855/Mark -sk-
The use of CTCSS tones on CB is legal. It falls under the "use of signals
or tones solely to actuate receiver circuits" definition, which is
clearly stated in Part 95. The so-called "roger beeps," on the other
hand, are not. These serve no useful purpose, other than amusement or
attracting attention. CTCSS is subaudible, which means it can be used
continously during the transmission. It's use on Class A CB (GMRS) is
widespread.
--Robert
Frank Ball
& You cannot add CTCSS to the rig - as it would void the type acceptance.
You could legally add CTCSS encodeing into the microphone. If the radio
had good enough audio response you could add a decode/squelch to the
audio output.
--
Frank Ball 1UR-M fra...@sad.hp.com (707) 794-4168 work,
Hewlett Packard (707) 794-3844 fax, (707) 538-3693 home
1212 Valley House Drive IT175, XT350, Seca 750, '62 F-100, PL510
Rohnert Park CA 94928-4999 KC6WUG, LAW, AMA, Dod #7566, I'm the NRA.
bill nelson
: bill nelson (bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com) wrote:
: & You cannot add CTCSS to the rig - as it would void the type acceptance.
:
: You could legally add CTCSS encodeing into the microphone. If the radio
: had good enough audio response you could add a decode/squelch to the
: audio output.
Thanks for the correction. I expect you would have to add the decode/squelch
to an external plug-in speaker. However, it certainly is possible by using
external components.
Bill
Joe B. Simpson
>:
>: (I have *no* idea if CTCSS is legal in the US or Canada, but if roger beeps
>: are ...) Regardless, a CTCSS tone will allow one to ensure that the only
>: intended calleee.
>You cannot add CTCSS to the rig - as it would void the type acceptance.
Part 95 specifically allows transmission of tones to actuate tone
squelch units. Plus, the logical place to add CTCSS to a CB would be
externally - tone generation into the microphone audio line (assuming
the radio will pass the tone freqs all the way through), tone decoding
in an external circuit which would plug into the speaker jack and have
a speaker of its own.
-joe
>I think CTCSS would just make things worse. You would then have people
>attempting to transmit, without monitoring to see if someone else was
>already using the channel.
And you don't have that already, without tone squelch?
There doesn't seem to be much of a problem with that on the amateur bands,
and lots of us use DTMF or CTCSS squelch units. Awareness is all it takes.
-joe
--
You spend the night
Like you were spending a dime
- Lyle Lovett
Warren Whitby
>attempting to transmit, without monitoring to see if someone else was
>already using the channel.
Right now, at this moment, how many people are using CTCSS tones on CBs?
I posted the original question and I am still very much interrested in using CTCSS
tones on CBs. What I envision is individuals adding the tones to keep out all of the
garbage* that I have to listen to know (I live about one mile from I-65). Not everyone
would have to use CTCSS tones. I don't think truck drivers and others who travel
over-the-road regularly would use CTCSS exclusively, they wouldn't be able to talk to
anyone else unless they knew what tone they were using.
So far the responses that I have received have been about 75% positive. The 25% that
have been negative have been from people who say the old phrase *It'll never fly* and
others who just don't know how a CTCSS system works. Some have advised that I should
get my ham license and I intend to soon (I am already studying). Unfortunately, I am
not made of money and I can't afford to buy a whole new communications setup right now.
My CB and antenna are alrealy there and CTCSS boards cost around $57 to $64. I also
couldn't talk to my non-ham friends.
Now for my $.02 worth.......
Lets face it folks, the CB band is in trouble. It is filled with people who aren't at
all interrested in radio or communications. I am fed up with listening to roger beeps,
echo boxes, and all of the sound effects that are added. I am sick of the abuse of
Channel 9 that I hear everyday. I don't use and don't like the profanity that I hear. I don't care for the *people* who use linears to jam my conversations or butt in just
to harass me and my friends. Does anyone recall the discussion on
rec.radio.amateur.misc about buying back the 11 meter band?? CB is in trouble and the
FCC can't do much to help, we have to do it ourselves. CTCSS is the only possibility I
can think of. There are 32 individual CTCSS tones, not counting the digital version of
CTCSS, and with 40 channels, that is 1280 individual *channels* to communicate on ( I
don't know about sidebands). The person who responded that CTCSS might legitimize CB
is right. Maybe then CB will lose its image as a band filled with foul-mouthed idiots?
I don't know what will happen, but I intend to experiment.
Just my $.02 worth. Comments are welcome and encouraged.
Frank Ball
& all interrested in radio or communications. I am fed up with listening to roger beeps,
& echo boxes, and all of the sound effects that are added. I am sick of the abuse of
& Channel 9 that I hear everyday. I don't use and don't like the profanity that I hear. I don't care for the *people* who use linears to jam my conversations or butt in just
& to harass me and my friends. Does anyone recall the discussion on
& rec.radio.amateur.misc about buying back the 11 meter band?? CB is in trouble and the
& FCC can't do much to help, we have to do it ourselves. CTCSS is the only possibility I
& can think of. There are 32 individual CTCSS tones, not counting the digital version of
& CTCSS, and with 40 channels, that is 1280 individual *channels* to communicate on ( I
& don't know about sidebands). The person who responded that CTCSS might legitimize CB
& is right. Maybe then CB will lose its image as a band filled with foul-mouthed idiots?
The CTCSS setup will allow you to avoid listening to all the garbage while
you are waiting for your friends to call you. BUT, if somebody else keys
up at the same time as your friend it won't filter them out. Whoever
has the stronger signal will get through. Two things could happen:
1) the stronger signal will block your friend and the radio will stay
squelched.
2) the CTCSS tone from your friend's radio will unsquelch your radio,
but the other persons signal is stronger so that is what you will hear.
It isn't a cure all. You still only have 40 channels. If two people are
on the same channel, only the stronger signal will be heard, CTCSS or not.
Warren Whitby
I was under the impression that a signal, no matter how weak or stong, will not activate the squelch and audio circuits unless the correct sub-300Hz tone was present. The same holds true for other radio services (business, public safety, etc.) that have powerful transmitters near each other on the same frequency with different CTCSS tones.
For example, a close friend of mine dispatches for my local county 911. One of the nearby volunteer fire departments is on the same frequency as the main city fire department. Both fire departments have different CTCSS tones. On the dispatcher`s panel there are seperate buttons to talk to the seperate agencies. Unless he (or the fire departments) turns off the *Channel Guard* or uses the simulselect function, he can talk to one department without the other hearing anything. Another example, the ci
ty fire department has Motorolla pagers on the fire channel 1. When 911 pages out selected firefighters, I can hear the pages on my scanner, but the rest of the firemen can't because the fire radios are not activated due to the lack of the correct CTCSS tone.
Also, there are *holes* in the police radio system where the dispatchers have a hard time hearing the patrol officers. When that happens, they turn off the *Channel Guard* and can hear the officers better, but they can also hear everyone else that uses the same channel (such as other agencies, and a good bit of skip in the summer months). Events like that are brief, but do occur, and then and only then can they hear anyone other than the local police department.
I don't know how many watts the base-radio systems they use are, but I can guarantee that they are over the 4 watt maximium that CB allows. They don't seem to have any problems?
---
Warren Whitby wwh...@mtgy.gtegsc.com
GTE Federal Systems Division
Dana H. Myers
>
>
> I was under the impression that a signal, no matter how weak or stong,
will not activate the squelch and audio circuits unless the correct sub-300Hz
tone was present. The same holds true for other radio services (business,
public safety, etc.) that have powerful transmitters near each other on the
same frequency with different CTCSS tones.
>
> For example, a close friend of mine dispatches for my local county 911.
> One of the nearby volunteer fire departments is on the same frequency as the
> main city fire department. Both fire departments have different CTCSS tones.
> On the dispatcher`s panel there are seperate buttons to talk to the seperate
> agencies. Unless he (or the fire departments) turns off the *Channel Guard*
He only needs to turn the Channel Guard off if he has a GE radio. He'd
need to turn the Private-Line off if he had a Motorola radio.
Both of these are particular vendors' terms for generic CTCSS function;
I tend to use the CTCSS term in place of either of them, unless I'm
talking about a GE Channel Guard module or a Motorola PL reed...
--
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ | Views expressed here are *
* (310) 337-5136 | mine and do not necessarily *
* da...@locus.com DoD #466 | reflect those of my employer *
* This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *
John Reed
>In article <C89zv...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> fra...@sad.hp.com (Frank Ball) writes:
>>The CTCSS setup will allow you to avoid listening to all the garbage while
>>you are waiting for your friends to call you. BUT, if somebody else keys
>>up at the same time as your friend it won't filter them out. Whoever
>>has the stronger signal will get through. Two things could happen:
>>1) the stronger signal will block your friend and the radio will stay
>>squelched.
>>2) the CTCSS tone from your friend's radio will unsquelch your radio,
>>but the other persons signal is stronger so that is what you will hear.
>>
>>It isn't a cure all. You still only have 40 channels. If two people are
>>on the same channel, only the stronger signal will be heard, CTCSS or not.
>>
>>--
>Frank, I don't believe that (2) above is a possibility; if a stronger signal
>overpowers the xmtr with the tone, the rcvr will shut down because the
>receiver's speaker is not activated by a carrier, only the tone, i.e. if
>the tone gets covered, the speaker shuts off.
>Jeff, NH6IL
Jeff...I used to work at a campus police department at a college in the
Atlanta area...Southern Tech PD's simplex channel was the same as the
output to the Georgia Tech PD repeater...only different PL's. (CG, CTCSS
whatever)
Anyway, when GATECH was transmitting and I had a unit transmitting,
my squelch would open (due to the CTCSS tone) but all I'd hear was a
fart noise or a buzz or whatever....and occaisionally I'd GATECH at
the end (since the squelch hadn't closed yet).
Possibly, on AM, the same thing will happen...the squelch would open,
but the louder of the two would come through...or there won't be any
thing at all....my guess anyway...
(You could get one of them fancy export rigs with FM and do it...but
that would be illegal (grin))
Since this is the CB group....Break 1-9 good buddies!
Nick Gibbs
> The use of CTCSS tones on CB is legal. It falls under the "use of signals
> or tones solely to actuate receiver circuits" definition, which is
> clearly stated in Part 95. The so-called "roger beeps," on the other
> hand, are not. These serve no useful purpose, other than amusement or
> attracting attention. CTCSS is subaudible, which means it can be used
> continously during the transmission. It's use on Class A CB (GMRS) is
> widespread.
It all depends on the country in which you live. Here in Australia,
CTCSS is legal on HF and UHF CB. So is the use of audible Selective
Calling and believe it or not, scramblers!.
The use of "roger beeps" doesn't seem to be covered by the existing law.
Their use isn't wide spread though. I have one in my radio but I rarely
use it unless I'm working DX. It tends to be a little piercing for local
use. :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gibbs P.O. Box 502,
ni...@bean.apana.org.au Stirling, SA
FIDO 3:800/839.11 5152
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it weren't for pick-pockets, I'd have no sex life at all.
- Rodney Dangerfield
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Andrews
>
> The use of "roger beeps" doesn't seem to be covered by the existing law.
> Their use isn't wide spread though. I have one in my radio but I rarely
> use it unless I'm working DX. It tends to be a little piercing for local
> use. :-)
>
Here in the states, roger beeps are most predominant! Some people even
use them locally and then a lot of us jump his case and have him turn it
off, if it is possible, and if not, then we ask him to go talk on another
channel. Those out there that use headphones, believe me, a roger beep is
PIERCING! :(
Tony
************************************************************************
| -=- SysOp of The GS Express -=- An OGG-Net BBS -=- |
| (408) 259-7645 PCP CASJO -=- 3/12/24/96 V32/V42bis |
| Internet = to...@shakala.com (Tony Andrews) |
************************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Andrews - to...@shakala.com
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289
Reid Savage
Is there some kind of tone coded squelch that would work on sideband?
Have touch tones (can't think of the generic name) been employed
for signiling on SSB CB radios? This would seem to be the way to go
if mistuning isn't too much of a problem for touvh tone decoding
circuits. You would get power, privacy and paging!!
--
Gary Coffman
That's the problem, the pitch of the signalling tones is critical
to their function. SSB radios aren't all on the same frequency to
the degree of accuracy needed to maintain the proper pitch. AM
works fine with frequency errors because of the different detection
method used. There is a form of SSB, called ACSSB, that continously
transmits a "pilot" tone to allow automatic tuning, but it's not
legal for CB use, and it brings back all the hetrodyne problems
associated with multiple AM stations on a channel.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Mike Anderson
>
>Is there some kind of tone coded squelch that would work on sideband?
>
>Have touch tones (can't think of the generic name) been employed
>for signiling on SSB CB radios? This would seem to be the way to go
>if mistuning isn't too much of a problem for touvh tone decoding
>circuits. You would get power, privacy and paging!!
How about an initial 0.2 sec touch tone burst on key up then all
the SSB recievers on frequency use that to perform automatic
clarifier tuning. The crystals in radios keep very stable
frequency over time durations of minutes. So that if the recievers
are tuned up at key-up they should all be able to
stay within a fraction of a Hertz or so for the duration of the transmission.
Also: a two tone (touch-tone) type signal will prevent an off freq. carrier
from providing a false tune-up signal.
An even better system would use a spread-spectrum type burst that would
occupy the whole channel for 100 ms or so. Since this signal would
be spread over the 5 kHz channel it would be EXTREEMLY noise
and false signal resistant and could have the advantage that many CODES
could share the channel (and also be semi private). Also, it would
sound like a very short noise burst (almost like lightning or something)
so it may not piss off other people. You know there are always those
types that can't stand anyone doing something that they can't do (cause
they are too lazy or timid or whatever) so they will complain to the
FCC or DOC (in canada).
mike.
Chris Sims
Can I please ask which varriety of cb radio we are talking about please? Please email your respons to chris`cleese.apana.org.au thanks in advance from christopher sims.
bill nelson
:
: I was under the impression that a signal, no matter how weak or stong, will not activate the squelch and audio circuits unless the correct sub-300Hz tone was present. The same holds true for other radio services (business, public safety, etc.) that have powerful transmitters near each other on the same frequency with different CTCSS tones.
Correct. However, if one station transmits the subtone, and another station
transmits without it - they are both going to come through - heterodynes and
all for AM signals.
: For example, a close friend of mine dispatches for my local county 911. One of the nearby volunteer fire departments is on the same frequency as the main city fire department. Both fire departments have different CTCSS tones. On the dispatcher`s panel there are seperate buttons to talk to the seperate agencies. Unless he (or the fire departments) turns off the *Channel Guard* or uses the simulselect function, he can talk to one department without the other hearing anything. Another example, the
ci
: ty fire department has Motorolla pagers on the fire channel 1. When 911 pages out selected firefighters, I can hear the pages on my scanner, but the rest of the firemen can't because the fire radios are not activated due to the lack of the correct CTCSS tone.
:
: Also, there are *holes* in the police radio system where the dispatchers have a hard time hearing the patrol officers. When that happens, they turn off the *Channel Guard* and can hear the officers better, but they can also hear everyone else that uses the same channel (such as other agencies, and a good bit of skip in the summer months). Events like that are brief, but do occur, and then and only then can they hear anyone other than the local police department.
:
: I don't know how many watts the base-radio systems they use are, but I can guarantee that they are over the 4 watt maximium that CB allows. They don't seem to have any problems?
The difference here is, they are not all trying to transmit at the same time.
If they are on the same frequency - either they listen to make sure no one
else is using the channel, or there is some prioritization going on at the
repeater.
Bill